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 original Academic Editor is not available so I am making the decision in my capacity as Section Editor,
Thank you for all revisions made to this manuscript
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
Please address the concerns raised by the reviewers.
[# 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 [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
no comment
no comment
The authors have done a great job framing this interesting study. However, there are some major concerns.
- The healthy cohort should be compared with the cohort with mental illness or physical illness to enhance the strength of the study.
- Although the results are statistical significant, it does not translate clinically. The findings are not confirmatory. Needs further validation.
- Other factors need to be taken into consideration for sleep deprivation and need to be adjusted in analysis like caffeine drinks, recreational drugs, and stimulants.
- The novelty of this study needs to be highlighted. How it is different from the existing studies?
- Depicting the study findings in one image as central illustration would be beneficial.
- Rest comments as mentioned in the manuscript.
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
Minor grammatical errors and punctuation errors.
The study design is based on questionnaires which are sometimes difficult to validate and replicate. However, it could aid in further investigation and future studies.
Overall well done.
no comment
Well-written article. Few comments.
1. The study has higher female participants, so naturally, the prevalence will be higher in the results, which can skew the findings.
2. [277 Sleep duration inconsistency between workdays and rest days, accustoming to staying up
278 late, staying up late to work or study, repeated thoughts in bed, and stressed out state are
279 protective factors of sleep deprivation.] The statements contradict the known factors of sleep deprivation.
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.