Review History


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.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on October 11th, 2021 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on December 3rd, 2021.
  • The first revision was submitted on December 30th, 2021 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on February 21st, 2022 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on March 4th, 2022.

Version 0.3 (accepted)

· Mar 4, 2022 · Academic Editor

Accept

Thanks for making the changes.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jafri Abdullah, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Version 0.2

· Dec 30, 2021 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Thanks for sending the revised manuscript to us. After going through the manuscript the following two areas still need some work-

1. The reference list is not prepared as per the journal guidelines
2. The sentences are not clearly expressed throughout the manuscript. I would advise you to take the help of a fluent speaker to edit the manuscript.

[# PeerJ Staff Note: The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Dec 3, 2021 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

The abstract and introduction of the manuscript contains some vague and irrelevant information. Kindly provide up to date and recent literature and the rationale for doing the research is missing. Add a rationale.

Reviewer 1 has suggested that you cite specific references. You are welcome to add it/them if you believe they are relevant. However, you are not required to include these citations, and if you do not include them, this will not influence my decision.

[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]

[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]

·

Basic reporting

In abstract you mentioned ‘The COVID-19 pandemic is a horrific phenomenon…’. This is a vague statement, not scientific, perhaps suitable for newspaper article. Please specify.
This manuscript needs English editing. For example, in abstract you mentioned ‘The fact that critical care nurses have reported high levels of stress even before the COVID-19 pandemic is compounding the situation, compared to any other nursing specialty.’ This sentence is not clear. I understood what do you want to say but there’s problem in your sentence construction.
You mentioned ‘Data analysed using descriptive and inferential analysis.’ This is not enough. Please specify your analysis.
Before you mention association between stress and resilience, you need to present findings of resilience which you did later.
In conclusion you mentioned ‘Though the results showed high level of resilience and less stress compared’ but your results say a different story. Your conclusion must be based on your results.
In introduction, you provided outdated information. Please update your information with latest publications such as:
1. Rahman, M.A., Islam, S.M.S., Tungpunkom, P. et al. COVID-19: Factors associated with psychological distress, fear, and coping strategies among community members across 17 countries. Global Health 17, 117 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-021-00768-3
2. Shimul SN, Alradie-Mohamed A, Kabir R, Al-Mohaimeed A, Mahmud I (2021) Effect of easing lockdown and restriction measures on COVID-19 epidemic projection: A case study of Saudi Arabia. PLOS ONE 16(9): e0256958. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256958
3. Mahmud I, Al-Mohaimeed A. COVID-19: Utilizing local experience to suggest optimal global strategies to prevent and control the pandemic. Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 2020 May-Jun;14(3):1-3. PMID: 32536840; PMCID: PMC7269624.

Experimental design

You have done a cross-sectional survey. Please mention this in your methods.
You mentioned that you calculated your sample size using the EpiInfo but you did not mention your sample size suggested by this calculation. Did you send email invitation to all critical care nurses? If yes, there is no point of sample size calculation.
In abstract you classified stress as no, mild, moderate, high and very high. However, in methods you did not mention anything about this classification. You only mentioned about high stress.
You must clearly discuss your classification system for stress and resilience with citations.
You do not need to say that you have used inferential statistics. Please specify the analyses you did. What types of regression?
You mentioned: Interval scale and interpretation:
No stress/very low= 1-1.80, low= 1.81-2.60; moderate= 2.61-3.40; high =3.41-4.20; severe =4.21-5. Sum of scores were used to determine the resilience and mean scores were further used to categorize the levels of resilience.
These contradict your earlier writing where you mentioned ‘The scores range between 0 and 40, scores equal to 25 or higher were considered as high perceived stress associated with COVID-19’. Please clearly discuss your classification system with citations.
You did not discuss classification system for resilience.

Validity of the findings

Please do not repeat your findings in discussion. You do not need to present your p values in discussion. Summerize your key findings and discuss your key findings in relation to available literature.
Please also discuss your study limitations and implications of your results.
Conclusion
Limitations and recommendations need to be discussed before conclusion with further details. Do not give p values in conclusion. Mention your most important findings and take home message based on your study.

Additional comments

Authors need to improve their English. A professional English editing might be useful.
They must improved their argument with updated literature support.
Methods must be improved and inconsistencies between methods results must be avoided.
Discussion needs major improvement. Avoiding presenting detail findings including p values instead discuss and explain your findings in the context of available literature.

·

Basic reporting

Intro & background to show context. In the introduction the connection from 1st to 2nd paragraph is not the best. Should be another paragraph or improve the flow in the text.


Your introduction needs stronger flow. I suggest that you improve the description at lines 52-56 and connect the 1st and 2nd paragraph smoothly.
Line 91 where mentioned that it is essential for critical care compare to the rest health care providers, you may explain why?

The English language is good in general and some minor modifications are added as comments in the text.

Experimental design

The Research question well defined, relevant Literature well referenced.

Validity of the findings

The author needs to outline the specific sampling methodology (purposive or randomized sampling).
Rigorous investigation performed to a Figures are relevant, high quality, technical & ethical standard, labelled & described.

I thank you for providing the raw data. Some of your results could have been presented in pie graphs.

Additional comments

The manuscript is clearly written and the suggested comments and feedback provided before the Acceptance.

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.