All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Although the manuscript has scientific merit and is fit for publication, there are still a number of grammatical errors in the document. Please ensure that you carefully read and correct these errors during the proofing stage of the manuscript.
Again, congratulations and thanks for choosing PeerJ.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Although the Academic Editor is happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further English editing. Therefore, if you can identify further edits, please work with our production group to address them while in proof stage #]
Thanks for addressing the issues raised by both reviewers. I think the manuscript has merit and has been improved. However, I noticed that you did not address the comments provided in the attached file---it seems you did not see the attachment. Please address all the comments and suggested edits in the attached file and re-submit the manuscript.
Thank you and I look forward to reviewing your revised manuscript.
Title: The title identify and cover the main content of the manuscript .
Abstract: adequately state the research objectives, methods, results, conclusions and recommendations.
Introduction: reflect the important content of the manuscript.
The materials, equipment and research procedures described with sufficient detail.
Results: Statistical analysis were suitable for the research methodology, and results presented in tables/figures were correct.
I satisfied with all aspects of the paper ; in other words, the manuscript is publishable.
Well done
Well done
Well done
Well done
Dear Dr. Assanangkornchai,
Thank you for your submission to PeerJ. The manuscript has been reviewed and we believe that it has merit but cannot be published in its current form as it requires a number of revisions.
Please address all the issues raised by the reviewers below as well as in the attached file. Although not a hard deadline, please submit your revised manuscript within the next 35 days.
Sincerely,
Agricola Odoi
Academic Editor, PeerJ
====================
Reviewer 1#
Please go through the attached file and reply to the reviewer comments
Reviewer 2#
Additional comments
This is a well-written and well-designed study that contributes important information regarding the legalization of medical cannabis. While this journal does not evaluate impact, I do want to comment on this. As more and more jurisdictions move towards various forms of decriminalization/legalization it is important that policymakers have access to good data that helps increase understanding of how people make decisions regarding their cannabis consumption. This piece adds to this data in a positive way. I would be happy for the article to be published as is, but I do have some suggestions that the editor and authors might wish to consider. All of these are monitor and are offered in the spirit of collegiality.
Intro:
The framing of the issue and intro is well done. Provides good information to the international reader. I think lines 318-322 (the history and context relating to legislation) would go better in the intro. I was looking for this information in the intro and was happy to see it at the end, but I moving it to the intro will improve the piece.
I appreciate the justification for this study is not based on “gaps” but on the importance of the information for policy development.
Methods:
Nice description of RDS and justification for this approach
Line 157 - “drug users” may be accurate but this language is being critiqued for contributing to stigma. Some authors/researchers use PWUD (people who use drugs). “Consumers of cannabis” would also be fine. I recommend changing “users” to consumers throughout. I think this will hold up better over time and make your work more likely to be cited, especially by a North American audience.
Sample characteristics: For an international audience it would be helpful to know how your participant demographic compares to the population in question. E.g. Is the rate of the type of employment (government officer) higher than expected? Does the age of your participants skew in one direction or another?
Line 185 - I suggest: “Of all respondents, 22% had previously used cannabis…” I think "previously" rather than"ever" improves readability
Patterns of cannabis use - Again might want to say cannabis consumption rather than use. It is interesting that the majority used oils over raw flowers!
Also interesting is the low rate of information from physicians and healthcare providers vs Facebook and social media. Important implications for policy.
Opinions towards cannabis-related policies
This is a minor issue but I would rephrase Lines 249 - 253 so that the majority opinions come first (as you have elsewhere). Without a close reading, it first seems that the majority want legalization at the same level as narcotics when in fact this is the smallest group.
Overall I am very pleased with this piece. Thank you for the opportunity to review your work. I wish you continued success in your research.
no comment
no comment
no comment
Well written and well sourced
Well justified and carried out
No comment
This is a well-written and well-designed study that contributes important information regarding the legalization of medical cannabis. While this journal does not evaluate impact, I do want to comment on this. As more and more jurisdictions move towards various forms of decriminalization/legalization it is important that policy makers have access to good data that helps increase understanding of how people make decisions regarding their cannabis consumption. This piece adds to this data in a positive way. I would be happy for the article to be published as is, but I do have some suggestions that the editor and authors might wish to consider. All of these are monitor and are offered in the spirit of collegiality.
Intro:
Framing of the issue and intro are well done. Provides good information to the international reader. I think lines 318-322 (the history and context elating to legislation) would go better in the intro. I was looking for this information in the intro and was happy to see it at the end, but I moving it to the intro will improve the piece.
I appreciate the justification for this study is not based on “gaps” but on the importance of the information for policy development.
Methods:
Nice description of RDS and justification fro this approach
Line 157 - “drug users” may be accurate but this language is being critiqued for contributing to stigma. Some authors/researchers use PWUD (people who use drugs). “Consumers of cannabis” would also be fine. I recommend changing “users” to consumers throughout. I think this will hold up better over time and make your work more likely to be cited, especially by a North American audience.
Sample characteristics: For an international audience it would be helpful to know how your participant demographic compares to the population in question. E.g. Is the rate of type of employment (government officer) higher than expected? Does the age of your participants skew in one direction or another?
Line 185 - I suggest: “Of all respondents, 22% had previous used cannabis…” I think "previously" rather than"ever" improves readability
Patterns of cannabis use - Again might want to say cannabis consumption rather than use. Interesting that the majority used oils over raw flower!
Also interesting the low rate of information from physicians and healthcare providers vs Facebook and social media. Important implications for policy.
Opinions towards cannabis-related policies
This is a minor issue but I would rephrase Lines 249 - 253 so that the majority opinions come first (as you have elsewhere). Without a close reading it first seems that the majority want legalization at the same level as narcotics when in fact this is the smallest group.
Overall I am very pleased with this piece. Thank you for the opportunity to review your work. I wish you continued success in your research.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.