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 April 21st, 2022 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on June 14th, 2022.
  • The first revision was submitted on March 2nd, 2023 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on March 14th, 2023.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Mar 14, 2023 · Academic Editor

Accept

The revised manuscript has been improved, and the authors have addressed all of the comments we raised previously.

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

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Jun 14, 2022 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Dear Authors,

I have now received the reviewers' comments on your manuscript. The reviewer have recommended publication, but also suggest some minor revisions to your manuscript.  Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewers' comments and revise your manuscript.

Sincerely,

·

Basic reporting

The introductory part does not adequately and adequately examine the texts and is not well coherent.
Other comments have been uploaded

Experimental design

This section is well explained.more comments have been uploaded.

Validity of the findings

More up-to-date studies should be added for comparison and conclusion. Studies are limited to 2020.
more comments have been uploaded.

Additional comments

nothing more!

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

Research manuscripts consistently use clear and unambiguous English. The arrangement of sentences is arranged properly and correctly. The use of written language is conveyed in a careful and polite manner. The introduction is presented with a focus on the background that triggers the emergence of research questions in the appropriate field of study through a comparison approach between groups. The researcher also presents some evidence from previous studies that prompted the design of this research. This research provides a main focus on the health sector which will be a challenge in the future in efforts to handle it in the community. Researchers seem quite responsive in seeing the dynamics of population development which is predicted to increase in the coming years. This is a potential opportunity for the development of targeted policies in cross-professional related fields, namely occupational, social welfare and medicine. Research data is presented neatly with a standard model, namely the use of open tables. The disadvantage is that it does not include a picture in the form of a conceptual framework that is the main basis for research. Researchers only describe in the form of narrative in the narrative of sentences in paragraphs only.

Experimental design

This study is original and the first to present a comparison between groups of frequently associated social support role engagements. This study does not address the initial question that forms the basis for determining the hypothesis. But it is clear enough to provide an overview of the objectives to be achieved from this research. Raw data can be found in additional files that can support the authenticity of the research. Researchers quite clearly show the gaps that occur in the picture of other studies by trying to reduce the distance through this research. The research has also passed an ethical review from an authorized educational institution nationally. Research data are displayed systematically with a strong scientific basis. The research method was conveyed clearly through the description of the various instruments used but the validity and reliability values were not conveyed.

Validity of the findings

The findings in this study are new and can be used as a reference for the development of similar research in the future. The research is not a replication or derivative study or a branch of a major research, so that the primary data obtained are authentic and original. The conclusions of the research are obtained precisely through a long and structured process. These results are statistically acceptable and answer what was stated in the research objectives.

Additional comments

Overall, it can be said that this research paper is quite structured in explaining the research process carried out. As an additional improvement, it is possible to display pictures that explain the theoretical concepts that underlie the initiation of this research.

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.