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 June 2nd, 2023 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on July 16th, 2023.
  • The first revision was submitted on August 9th, 2023 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on August 18th, 2023.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Aug 18, 2023 · Academic Editor

Accept

The authors satisfactorily answered the questions posed in the first review. One of the reviewers who suggested rejecting the article was not contacted and due to the difficulty in recruiting other reviewers, I reviewed the second version of the article which I think is now ready to be considered for publication.

**PeerJ Staff Note:** Although the Academic Editor is 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.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

I am overall satisfied with the responses provided by the authors.

Experimental design

I am overall satisfied with the responses provided by the authors.

Validity of the findings

I am overall satisfied with the responses provided by the authors.

Additional comments

I am overall satisfied with the responses provided by the authors.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Jul 16, 2023 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

This manuscript seeks to fill an important gap, the lack of studies that assess the validity and reliability of the brief IPQ in the Turkish population.

In view of the reviewers' criticisms, I think that the final quality of the manuscript could improve after a major review.

Therefore, I encourage authors to revise the manuscript according to the reviewers' criticisms and to resubmit the same

[# 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. #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Dear authors,
I evaluated the article “Evaluating the Turkish validity and reliability of the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire in periodontal diseases”.


ABSTRACT: I considered it incomplete and poorly described. Improve it!

INTRO: No study was presented in this section talking about the perception in periodontal diseases. Is it the only study?

M&M:
- It is mandatory to present the sample size calculation to respond the goal of this study. The justification used based on Hair et al., 1979 is not valid. Please, improve it; or justify that 209 patients represent a total population.

- It was presented a poor eligibility criteria.

- Suddenly, in the M&M, appears the HAD scale. It was not cited in the intro.

RESULTS
- Where is the calibration of the evaluators?
- There is lack of results. Please, see it again.

DISCUSSION: Ok!

CONCLUSION: It needs to be reviewed thoroughly.

Experimental design

There is a gap in this study using 209 patients to represent a population without a solid sample size calculation.

Validity of the findings

Extremely questionable.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

In this study, authors aimed to assess the validity and reliability of the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire in periodontal diseases for Turkish. Overall, the study seems methodologically sound and the statistical analyses adequate regarding the study aims and design. The strengths and limitations of the study are missing, and they must be discussed . Furthermore there is a lack of information regarding periodontal disease diagnosis, classification and characteristics.

Experimental design

There is a lack of information regarding periodontal disease diagnosis, classification and characteristics.

Validity of the findings

In this study, authors aimed to assess the validity and reliability of the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire in periodontal diseases for Turkish. Overall, the study seems methodologically sound and the statistical analyses adequate regarding the study aims and design. The strengths and limitations of the study are missing, and they must be discussed . Furthermore there is a lack of information regarding periodontal disease diagnosis, classification and characteristics.

Additional comments

In this study, authors aimed to assess the validity and reliability of the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire in periodontal diseases for Turkish. Overall, the study seems methodologically sound and the statistical analyses adequate regarding the study aims and design. The strengths and limitations of the study are missing, and they must be discussed . Furthermore there is a lack of information regarding periodontal disease diagnosis, classification and characteristics.

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.