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.
Thank you for addressing the items listed by reviewers. It is my pleasure to accept this work for publication.
I have received two expert reviews on your manuscript. Both reviewers note that the manuscript would benefit from greater theoretical grounding in the Introductory content and in the Discussion. I hope you will respond to their critiques and submit a revised version of the document.
Authors should refer to a conceptual hope model, in describing their variables, to be able to design the hypotheses.
The hypothesis are not clear, authors are invited to add a section to describe the main goal of their paper.
Hypothesis. The authors should specify at the end of the introduction the hypothesis of mediation and moderation model.
Instruments. The authors should insert for each measures the factorial structure and internal consistency reliability that measures present in their study.
Procedures. Authors should insert procedure section after measures section.
Authors should review the results in line with the hypothesis and in line with data analysis description
Does the first hypothesis analyze differences in the four subscale of IHS between students and workers they should report?
What is the second one?
Discussion. Authors are encouraged to review discussion in line with theoretical model and revised theoretical framework.
Table and Figures. Table and figures are not in line with APA style
- The use of hope in non-suicide attempts needs further exploration. It is incongruent with the rest of the literature. Line 56.
- Review of Jevne's work on hope (see hope-lit database) may assist in exploring the core issue of the intangabiliities of hope that could strengthen the literature review section.
- Identification of why this hope scale was chosen over others is required (line 72)
- line 83 notes 'aiming for positive factors' could this perception that hope is a positive, future oriented practice skew the results? Hope can also be identified in previous literature as a burden or a 'foolish counsellor' (plato) its important for the researchers not to define hope based on perception alone.
- line 158 - could hope be viewed in terms of its stability or just persistent inclusion?
- references to religiosity and hope (line 164 and beyond) need to be noted in the lit review section.
The findings section might be better organised through use of sub-headings. The concluding statements need further exploration to strengthen the need for additional research in the field.
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.