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 December 9th, 2022 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on January 19th, 2023.
  • The first revision was submitted on February 16th, 2023 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on March 8th, 2023 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on April 4th, 2023.

Version 0.3 (accepted)

· Apr 4, 2023 · Academic Editor

Accept

Thank you for the revised manuscript and English correction done with certification

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

Version 0.2

· Feb 28, 2023 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Dear author,
The manuscript is significantly improved. However, I have a concern with the typography such as capital in the first sentence, language and grammar, and the abbreviation (eg. PASS (Power Analysis and Sample Size) --> should be Power Analysis and Sample Size (PASS)). Please read the manuscript carefully to revise it and you can send the manuscript for professional English editing (can be proven by certificate).

[# 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)

· Jan 19, 2023 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Dear Author,

Please consider and address the comments from reviewers carefully.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

overall, the article is very interesting and there is no research that discusses this. there are only a few notes. attached notes for author and editor.

Experimental design

the experimental design was clearly enough, please focus on ethical consideration. How did the researcher avoid bias in the selection of participants according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria?

Validity of the findings

Validity and reliability was done.

just complate the major finding on your research. there are only a few notes. attached notes for author and editor.

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

no comment.

Experimental design

no comment.

Validity of the findings

no comment.

Additional comments

Introduction:
1. Please add the data of nurses experiencing stress in your research location.
2. Please add the efforts or intervention that have been made by the government, hospitals, nurse associations, or other research to reduce nurse stress levels and the results. So that pet ownership interventions can be unique and novelty in this study.
3. The author has explained the phenomenon well. Please include the theory or theoretical framework that underlies this research so that it becomes the basis for selecting variables and demographic characteristics of respondents.
Conclusion:
1. Please paraphrase the conclusion in abstract and in main text. The sentences in both sections are repetition.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

1. The English language is straightforward, easy to understand.
2. The literature references supported the discussion points.
3. Professional article structure, figures, tables and raw data are shared.
4. Results are related to the hypothesis.

Experimental design

The methods are described for replication.

Validity of the findings

The benefit to the nurse population may be beneficial to China's context.
Conclusions are related to the findings, but may be general.

Additional comments

Referencing check, proofreading and copyediting are necessary.

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.