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.
Many thanks for addressing all the issues.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jafri Abdullah, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
I have now received the reviewers' comments on your manuscript. They have suggested some minor revisions to your manuscript. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewers' comments and revise your manuscript.
[# 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. #]
Abstract:
The abstract of the article is very short (less than 250 words). In the method section, you should mention the number of samples, research methods, software and other important items in this field.
Introduction:
The term social capital is not well explained in the introduction. Explain it well first, then deal with its divisions.
In my opinion, just stating that there is no longitudinal research in this field is not enough to conduct such research. At the end of the introduction should be a conclusion about what we know, what we do not know. Information gaps in this area should be identified, and the importance of conducting a longitudinal study in this area should be explained to determine the need for research
Method:
Type of study, number of people studied, ethical issues or licenses obtained should be mentioned.
Why are these three scales used? Why are not other scales in this field such as WBA used?
Specify the validity, reliability, and scoring method of each.
On what basis were the 6 questions selected? Have experts in this field selected these items based on their degree of scientific adequacy? Does this scale created from 6 items have validity and reliability for measuring the desired variable?
Discussion:
In the discussion section, you can refer to the culture in your community to justify the difference between the results of your research and previous research.
Conclusion:
In the conclusion section, also deal with the cognitive social capital variable
no comment!
The background of the research has not been clearly described. We recommend that researchers add emphasis from the data presented by other researchers regarding the thematic research taken. Research will become sharper and more targeted to recommendations for policymakers and further research development. Researchers should show something unique and different from the study compared to previous studies.
Information about the categories of each variable being studied does not need to be conveyed in the journal narrative. Explanations are simply displayed in tabular form from the research results only. Information about “ethical review” does not need to be displayed in the narrative.
In the paper, the author has not written about the weaknesses and limitations found from the research they did.
The writing of bibliographic sources can be corrected again in accordance with the method specified in the publication requirements of scientific journals from PeerJ.
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.