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.
The authors' reply meets the standard.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Stefano Menini, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The researchers addressed all comments. Thanks!
The researchers addressed all comments. Thanks!
The researchers addressed all comments. Thanks!
All my previous comments and suggestions are answered.
Thanks.
All my previous comments and suggestions are answered.
Thanks.
All my previous comments and suggestions are answered.
Thanks.
All my previous comments and suggestions are answered.
Thanks.
The whole language is needed to be revised by a native English speaker.
[# 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) #]
The work is not enough for the conclusion.
The work is not enough for the conclusion.
The work is not enough for the conclusion.
The work is not enough for the conclusion.
I would like to thank the authors for the research done. Overall the manuscript is well-written and provides a valuable context to the literature. The language is clear and the overall structure is professional.
The authors did a great job describing their rationale for the study and sharing detailed insight into their methods and results.
I have noticed some minor edits in terms of language and formatting I added notes to the PDF referencing them, otherwise, the researchers did a great job reporting their study.
The study is well-designed and the researchers did a great job sharing possible limitations.
I just noticed that the researchers did state that they used a convenience sample, early in the manuscript, when later under the sample size, they estimated the sample size.
This point is confusing, the researchers need to be clear on their sample size whether it is a convenience sample or calculated, and what method they used for their calculation.
Also, it would be great if you would add more clarification on the Knowledge question's wording (were there any reverse-worded questions?), the same with the attitude and practice questions
This study brings attention to a leading cause of preventable mortality related to surgical intervention. Having a well-trained nurse to manage and prevent the condition is vital to ensure better patient outcomes. Again, I would like to thank the researchers for their work and what can it bring to the prevention practices i
The tables need to have a footnote with the statistical test used
The raw data, practice questions 11 and 12 look like they are the same. I would appreciate clarification on this.
I have no more comments
1. It is a large scale well performed study.
2. In some places it is difficult to understand what the authors mean which I have highlighted and also there is some language errors which need to be checked before submitting next version.
3. The article is well structured with clear from Abstract to conclusion.
1. Even though this study used a convenience sample, it has well planned methods.
2. Research question is well defined and important for this field.
3. It is easy to read the methods and understand.
1. The statistical software and analyses performed is sound.
2. Sometimes there is too many p values, instead one suggestion is to use <0.05 when it is significant and >0.05 when it is not then providing exact numbers.
3. Even though there was a statistical significant correlation (which probably is due to large sample) interpretation of correlation coefficient <0.6 must be used with caution.
Please see attached pdf where I have highlighted some texts and also added my comments with text box.
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.