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.
Manuscript is significantly improved by the authors and now can be accepted in its current form.
Good
Good
Debatable
None
The authors responded correctly to the comments. I consider the new version of the manuscript suitable for publication.
no comment
no comment
no comment
Manuscript does not fulfill the standards established for the journal to be considered for publication in its current form. I agree with the reviewers that manuscript requires substantial revision and additional work to support the conclusion and improve the quality of the publication. Please see the detailed comments made by the reviewers. Moreover, thorough English editing is required. Please revise the manuscript taking help from a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter, who can review your manuscript, or contact a professional editing service to review your manuscript. Revise and resubmit accordingly.
Reviewer 3 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. #]
[# 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 [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
In this manuscript, the authors aimed to determine whether there is accurate and reliable information about post-COVID pain on Youtube. Youtube manuscripts are popular in nowadays and the manuscript has an interesting topic. The manuscript is also well written. But in general, Youtube manuscripts all talk about the inadequacy of Youtube videos. In this sense, I am concerned about its contribution to the literature. So I am in favor of rejection if the journal has no priority for such article.
Check line 62, there should be the 21st century.
The classification of the bibliography is correct and well elaborated.
The method of sample acquisition and the reasons for inclusion and exclusion are defined. The indicators and tools used are well explained. Statistical tests are appropriate for non-parametric studies.
Correct discussion, comparing with other studies and indicating the importance of physicians in making quality videos. The limitations of the study are well described.
The statistical findings are well explained and presented.
The conclusions are clearly written and well elaborated and are consistent with the objectives and results obtained.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper and congratulations to the authors for their work.
I think this is a very interesting topic and important to the field. The authors have made great efforts in conducting this study.
I want to add that the introduction is interesting and well structured. The aim is also properly justified.
While the idea behind the work is appreciated by the authors, it is important for the authors to read through all the detailed comments that I have made and make corrections to improve the paper. I have tried to make the corrections as simple and clear as possible to ensure the authors can understand and apply the suggestions in each of the mentioned cases. I look forward to reviewing the edited version of the study showing all the corrections and improvements.
Refer "Additional Comments" section for improvements.
Refer "Additional Comments" section for improvements.
Title:
The title is not exhaustive enough. I feel as though something is missing, the final part that informs the reader of the aspect of COVID-pain the study is talking about. Is it physical pain or economic pain? This needs to be made clear in the title.
The study from my understanding is assessing the reliability and quality of YouTube videos of health-related post-COVID pains, not necessarily about the pains, but more about the reliability and quality of the videos. The title in its current form assumes the authors will use people who have had COVID as the study population which is false.
“A content analysis of the reliability and quality of YouTube videos as a source of information on health-related post-COVID pain”
Authors can improve on this by making it shorter, but this is the idea readers need to get from the title
Abstract:
- Consider deleting the first sentence of the abstract, the authors repeated the same claim in the next sentence after the first one. Try to merge the importance and popularity of YouTube platform in one sentence instead of writing about the popularity in one sentence and the importance in another. Look at it from the view that its popularity might be due to importance.
- Always use past tense in your writing, the study has been completed e.g. “The aim of the study was…”
- Authors should mention the theory utilized in their study. This is why unnecessary sentences should be deleted and only the most important aspects of the study should be captured.
- The method applied in the study is content analysis. This should be stated clearly in the abstract and not calling it “descriptive study.”
- From what I understand so far, the pain is about physical pain, the authors need to show a relationship between COVID-19 and physical pain. They need to really define physical pain in post-COVID-19 patients and show it is something that is common based on previous findings on COVID-19 related studies.
- For numbers that are above10, always write them in figures instead of words. “ A hundred videos…” is not appropriate, instead use “A 100 videos..”
- Consider deleting the first sentence of the abstract, the authors repeated the same claim in the next sentence after the first one. Try to merge the importance and popularity of YouTube platform in one sentence instead of writing about the popularity in one sentence and the importance in another. Look at it from the view that its popularity might be due to importance.
- Always use past tense in your writing, the study has been completed e.g. “The aim of the study was…”
- Authors should mention the theory utilized in their study. This is why unnecessary sentences should be deleted and only the most important aspects of the study should be captured.
- The method applied in the study is content analysis. This should be stated clearly in the abstract and not calling it “descriptive study.”
- From what I understand so far, the pain is about physical pain, the authors need to show a relationship between COVID-19 and physical pain. They need to really define physical pain in post-COVID-19 patients and show it is something that is common based on previous findings on COVID-19 related studies.
- For numbers that are above10, always write them in figures instead of words. “ A hundred videos…” is not appropriate, instead use “A 100 videos..”
- The abstract had no recommendation and also, no limitations. These should be included in the abstract.
Introduction
- Lines 77-78, “They stated that it lasted during the day.” If this is a continuation of the view of Sahin et al. (2021), use a comma instead of a full stop. The sentence itself is not very clear, are the authors trying to say that in some cases the pain lasts only during the day? Please revise.
- Lines 79 to 81, “ It is important…disease.” Requires citation. There has to be an empirical study to support such a strong claim.
- Lines 88 to 90 talk about the misleading effect of YouTube, this requires citation to support the authors claims.
- Line 93, it is important to reinforce that the pain being referred to is health-related pain because there are other types of pain related to COVID studies. Emotional, psychological and economic pains are all examples of post-COVID pains.
Materials & Methods
- Line 117, the study is a content analysis study, not a descriptive study. At best, the authors can refer to the study as a descriptive content analysis study.
- Line 120, “two authors (EO and SB)…” No need to mention the authors in this manner. It is alright to rephrase this as “The authors….” There is no need to include the initials of the authors in the article.
- Line 129, “…the evaluation was conducted by 2 researchers…” change it to the evaluation was conducted by the researchers.
- Lines 130-131, “…if they were in the English language…” remove the article before the English language.
- Line 133, the subheading Content Analysis should be moved to a section above. Authors should create two sections, the first is “Ethical Approval”, where they put the information about the ethical approval only. The next section is “Content Analysis” and should cover all the information starting from line 117, “For this descriptive study…”
- Line 134, the correct word to describe the eight factors mentioned is “content categories” that guided the analysis.
- The authors should describe the scenarios in which videos will receive the different scores of the assessment quality. When is a video scored 1-5 based on a particular attribute? These need to be clear. How do we determine better quality?
- Authors should present a summary of the scoring attributes in tabular form for each model i.e. quality assessment by Bernard et al. 2007. Also for DISCERN scale.
- For the in-text citation, the authors should present as Nernard et al. (2007), not Bernard et al. (Bernard et al., 2007) as shown in line 138.
- Line 153, the authors did the correct thing for the assessment of reliability, and do the same for the quality assessment I mentioned above.
Results
- Line 215; avoid beginning sentences using prepositions such as seen in Line 215. “of the videos…” Authors should recast the sentence.
Discussion
- Line 262, What is “long COVID? Not clear the context the authors stated this. Also in line 348
- Lines 256-268, “Considering that pain is a major cause of disability and can last for up to 11 weeks after infection, disrupts patients9 quality of life, and causes them to stay home during that period and search for disease-related information online, it is important to screen YouTube videos on post-COVID pain and evaluate their reliability and quality.” This should be referenced in the literature review. The discussion section is only for presenting the implications of the results based on the literature review, it is not the time to present new information outside the literature and results of the study.
- Lines 273-274, “Myalgia and headache are the leading causes of pain among COVID-19 patients, and although studies have reported different rates, they affect about 40% of patients.” Is there a corroboration of this view from Tang et al. (2020) from the videos watched? If not, what is its relevance in the discussion? Focus on the findings and where they agree or disagree with the literature.
- Similar for lines 273-283, what is the relevance of these points raised by the authors if they are unrelated to the findings from the YouTube videos?
- Lines 284-298, same thing, what is its relevance to the research results? This is what needs to be highlighted.
- Line 300, avoid the use of personal pronouns like our research, my research etc. Instead use “this study, the research, or we found that…” etc.
- The view by Li et al. (2020) in line 312 was not explicitly mentioned in the literature but was stated in the discussion. The views the discussions are based on must be referenced in the literature before being used a discussion.
- Avoid saying one study by…” as much as possible. It is rampant in your discussion. Rephrase every sentence where the authors use this to begin a sentence. The articles being referenced as “one article…” have already been mentioned in the literature, thus, readers should have already been introduced to the authors.
- The discussion generally was more about the effect of COVID while the study was about the video quality and reliability of the YouTube videos about people who have had COVID-19. The authors need to re-evaluate the discussion and focus more on the results than the effect of COVID. Also please consider citing the following studies:
Chaveesuk, S., Khalid, B., & Chaiyasoonthorn, W. (2022). Continuance intention to use digital payments in mitigating the spread of COVID-19 virus. International Journal of Data and Network Science, 6(2), 527–536. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijdns.2021.12.001
Chaveesuk, S., Khalid, B., & Chaiyasoonthorn, W. (2021). Digital payment system innovations: A marketing perspective on intention and actual use in the retail sector. Innovative Marketing, 17(3), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.21511/im.17(3).2021.09
Muangmee, C., Kot, S., Meekaewkunchorn, N., Kassakorn, N., & Khalid, B. (2021). Factors Determining the Behavioral Intention of Using Food Delivery Apps during COVID-19 Pandemics. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16(5), 1297–1310. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16050073
Conclusion
- There is no section for theoretical and practical implications of the findings.
- There are no recommendations arising from the study. Research studies should have study recommendations and future studies recommendations.
- The authors did not include any limitations of this study. This need to be included to show the study limitations and how they were overcome.
Comment on language and grammar issues
The English language should be improved to ensure that an international audience can clearly understand your text. This can been across the manuscript. The current phrasing makes comprehension difficult. I suggest you have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or contact a professional editing service.
Erkan Ozduran and Sibel Büyükçoban performed an interesting quality assessment analysis of YouTube videos on pain after COVID-19 infection. In the last years, several studies have already been published using a similar methodology. The quality assessment of YouTube videos is a hot topic. Moreover, the authors have chosen an important aspect of the COVID-19 infection. The methodology is robust. However, some major points need to be addressed before publication:
- I would suggest the authors include the PEMAT A/V tool. This is a validated tool used in several studies with similar content (PMID: 35318754, 35136203, 35290877) for evaluating the audio/visual content for each video. In my opinion, this tool may provide an important plus to the quality assessment (https://www.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/publications/files/pemat-av.pdf).
- According to the most recent YouTube roles, the dislikes are not available anymore to the internet users. This is the reason why the values are so small. I would suggest the authors in removing this variable from the manuscript and specify this point in the methods section.
- The results should be described concordantly with the table. It appears difficult to follow the results sections, the tables, and di discussion. For example, in the results section is never mentioned the stratification according to year of uploaded but then this concept is included in the discussion, Moreover, I would not include the authors’ consideration in the results section (e.g., line 222 “This statistical difference can be explained by the higher quality and reliability scores of videos uploaded by academic sources and the lower scores of news videos”…)
- The modified DISCERN in table 1 must be corrected.
- What Do the authors mean by the row "animation" in the Table 1?
- The authors should quote the recently published references: 35318754, 34843859, 35136203.
no comment
no comment
no comment
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.