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. However, there are still grammatical mistakes in parts of the article, which I hope will be fixed in the galley proof of the article.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jafri Abdullah, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #] [# PeerJ Staff Note: Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further English editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage. #]
Thank you for the update. However, there are still concerns that prevent me from accepting the revised paper:
GENERAL REVIEW
As you mentioned in the limitations section, the cross-sectional research cannot explore the causal relationship between study variables. Therefore, I suggest to replace "prediction" with "association" or "relationship" in all parts of the article.
ABSTRACT
The abstract is not acceptable in its current form. In the abstract, there is no mention of conclusions.
METHODS
In methods section, did you perform power analysis? Please describe the sample size, power, and precision.
It is still unclear to me whether the study data were normal or not.
RESULTS
Please round the numbers (except p-valus) to two decimal places.
DISCUSSION
Convenience samples never result in a statistically balanced selection of the population. This leads to selection bias. So, It is necessary to mention this limitation of the study. Another limitation of the study is the increased chance of recall bias in study using self-reported data.
Dear Editor,
I really appreciate the opportunity to review the manuscript peerj-83721 entitled:
"The impact of core self-evaluation on school adaptation of high school students after their return to school during the COVID-19 pandemic: the parallel mediation of positive and negative coping styles"
The paper is very interesting and well-written, methodologically unexceptionable, and the new implementations provide a valid contribution to the work. Every requested correction has been done, and the manuscript is now suitable for publication
No issues detected
No issues detected
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: 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 review process 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) #]
Dear Editor,
I really appreciate the opportunity to review the manuscript peerj-83721 entitled:
"The impact of core self-evaluation on school adaptation of high school students after their return to school during the COVID-19 pandemic: the parallel mediation of positive and negative coping styles"
I commend the authors for describing this critical and timely issue. The paper is interesting and well-written; however, I would like to highlight some issues that merit revision:
It is not particularly clear from the manuscript whether the students evaluated had access to some form of psychotherapy or counseling either in-person or possibly at a distance through telemedicine. Since this is a particularly important factor an application of it could be a confounding factor. I ask the authors to add a brief passage on this aspect, or if the data is not available to add it to the limitations
None
...
...
....
Manuscript title: The impact of core self-evaluation on school adaptation of high school students after their return to school during the COVID-19 pandemic: the parallel mediation of positive and negative coping styles
This is important clinical study.
Some other comments to consider:
1.Abstract should be written correctly,
2.The discussion chapter is not well written and looked deeply in to the literature and cited to international research. In overall the references list is rather old, latest from 2018 (rather less), consider updating?
3.It may be important that you should cite and discuss below articles;
-Sahpolat M, Adiguzel M, Ari M. Focusing on physical symptoms and psychological trauma of patients with bruxism. Bakırköy Tıp Dergisi 2018;14:283-8.
-Tambag H, Sahpolat M. Alexithymia and Anger in Patients with Bruxism.International Journal of Caring Sciences. 2021;14(1):507-514.
-Canbay Ö, Doğru E, Katayıfçı N. Investigation of obesity frequency and eating habits in a university hospital professionals. Medical Journal of Bakırköy 2016; 12: 129-135.
4.The study has a lot of limitations. Authors have written rather little about it. You should write more limitations of this study.
5. You must arrange the references have not been arranged according to journal guideliness.
Sincerely
This is a very well-written manuscript. The Introduction section is well structured describing the background and the gap in the literature. The specific problem being investigated is clearly articulated. The entire manuscript is professionally structured, raw data is provided, and appropriate statistical methods have been used snd described.
The work is with in the scope of the journal. The research questions are well-described ( effect of core self evaluation on school return and the mediating effect of coping styles). Appropriate statistical equation modelling is used. Enough details is provided for the study to be repeated. Limitations are acknowledged and well-described.
The authors have provided the raw data and as stated earlier, enough detail about the methods, analysis and findings. The interpretations are valid an justified. Conclusions are reasonable and limited only to study findings.
Very well-written. Only minor grammatical changes are required that could be easily addressed through help with software or review by a language expert or editor.
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.