Review History


To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on July 13th, 2015 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on August 25th, 2015.
  • The first revision was submitted on September 7th, 2015 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on September 11th, 2015 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on September 11th, 2015.

Version 0.3 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

Thank you for your submission. I am pleased to tell you that this has now been accepted for publication.

Version 0.2

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Thank you for your submission. I am satisfied that you have addressed the concerns of the two previous reviewers. However there are still a number of instances where your use of English requires additional copy editing (e.g. p13 lines 3, 9, 17; p15 line 4, 8; p16 line 17) - please attend to these and resubmit.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Please update your literature review with additional recent references. There are a number of typographical errors that should be addressed.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The article includes a good introduction and background of the topic. There are a few spelling mistakes - for example ‘pool’ instead of poor, ‘compounding’ instead of confounding.

Experimental design

The study is very relevant and meaningful. The research question and methods are described sufficiently well.

Validity of the findings

The data are robust, though I think the reporting of the findings could be made clearer. Some of the data are described both in the body of the text and tables, rather just one or the other. I was easily confused by the way table 1 is presented. The table reads as if higher percentages of the non-smoking adolescents report poorer health, more depression and anxiety compared to smokers. I think a busy reader would find it easier to understand if these were presented differently.
In the background the author presents a fairly balanced view of the literature, though the discussion leans towards studies that support rather support and refute the findings. The limitations and conclusions however are appropriately described.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

meets basic reporting requirements

Experimental design

The article does not have an experimental design but has a clearly defined focus. It meets the other criteria for the journal

Validity of the findings

The conclusion is very brief and would benefit from being more developed.

Comments for the author

This is a paper that focuses on smoking, depression, and anxiety among Korea adolescents using a large sample of middle and high school students. While this is an important topic, it is not clear that the paper provides much new information. There are some recent articles from the past two years that are not included in the paper that shed some light on this topic. The paper would benefit from adding some of this more recent literature and then clearly identifying the gap in the research that this paper addresses. As it reads now, this is not clear. In addition, the paper could be tightened up quite a bit, particularly in the discussion.

My other specific comments are as follows:
Abstract, line 9- missing a word (were?)
Is the data set from 2001 (abstract) or 2011 (line 73)?
In a couple of parts the paper seems to be more medically focused (2nd paragraph of intro and later in the discussion) which does not seem relevant and distracts from the paper.
Line 79, the phrase “investigating the reality” is a bit awkward.
Line 100- the variable “daily smoking number of times” is awkwardly worded too.
Same paragraph (line 100) - the classification of being a smoker vs. a non-smoker does not seem to fit adolescent smoking in this context. Please clarify if this WHO definition was used with adolescents in the past. It does not seem to be a developmentally appropriate definition
Lines 131- sentence is hard to understand and needs to be reworded.
134- “interval” should be” intervals”
Conclusion is only two sentences and needs to be more developed

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.