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 #]
The researcher has presented the introduction and sequence of literature review in a structured and systematic manner according to the suggested suggestions for improvement.
Researchers have improved the revision of the paper well so that readers can easily understand the research topic raised
This research is interesting by displaying appropriate previous research and a complete literature review according to the research topic
This research is good and interesting to be published
Many thanks for submitting the revised manuscript in PeerJ journal. Based on one reviewer's opinion, this version of article needs some minor revisions. I invite you responding carefully to the reviewer's comments.
The researcher submits the report writing in a complete and systematic manner. The use of English can be said to be quite good and easy to understand. The background of the research is in accordance with what the researcher will do. Supporting data has been presented in full with the use of open tables. The hypothesis can produce a new concept and model related to the phenomenon raised in this study.
The aims and objectives of the study are an explanation in responding to the phenomenon of self-harm which has recently increased in incidence among adolescents, especially in urban areas. Research questions are clearly stated and the researcher tries to reveal any knowledge gaps based on other research that has been done.
This study is sufficient to explain the statistical relationship of the research findings. The conclusion of the study is in accordance with what is contained in the research question. The researcher has also conveyed the limitations of the study as an interesting discussion.
Research can be said to be very worthy to be published because it tries to answer the psychosocial aspects of the latest phenomenon that is developing in the adolescent population. My suggestion is that the researcher should correct the written statements in lines starting from 271 to 277. In addition, also on lines 278 to 282. because I think there are repetitions of words that need to be corrected again.
The revision manuscript can be published in PEER J.
No Cm.
No Cm
No Cm
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. #]
The researcher writes the results of his research report in a complete and structured manner. Writing in English which is easy to understand. The research background is in accordance with the objectives to be achieved. The display of research data is presented in an attractive manner and according to the rules of correct placement. The conclusion shows that this research is new and very good to spark the next research.
The research objectives are conveyed properly and correctly. The research question has attempted to address discrepancies from other studies. The method is carried out carefully, in detail and directed, but has not yet presented a review of research ethics.
This research can be said to be quite interesting and renewable because it shows an increasing phenomenon that occurs in the age group that is currently prone to self-harm behavior. Research results are reported in detail and show a strong relationship with what is contained in the research question. The conclusions presented are very appropriate in answering the issues that develop in the research background.
A complete explanation of the passage of the research ethics review should be explained in this research paper.
Thanks to the respected authors, a very valuable and important research has been done in this field and has been written with precision and detail. There are some subtle points that please correct;
Keywords are not very suitable except for the first keyword.
The abstract is not structured. It is better to rewrite it in the form of background, materials and methods, results and conclusions.
The type of study, sampling method, formula for calculating the sample size should be mentioned.
The section related to the results of statistical analysis should be separated under the title "Results".
no comment
no comment
English language is acceptable.
literature review is sufficient.
Please, clearly state aim and objectives, in sub-section as Current Study or Purpose of the current study. Current Study, It should be explicitly stated for the reader how the present study makes a unique contribution to the literature.
Add the information related validity or reliability of the measure in your study.
Please report effect size.
Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
there is well-written document.
the figure must be re-draw.
DOI should be added for references.
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.