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 reviewer comments have been addressed. The manuscript is now ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jafri Abdullah, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
The reviewers have expressed themselves well. Please carefully read their comments and revise the manuscript accordingly.
Well written study, with a good level of English language used throughout.
Background knowledge is sufficiently demonstrated with a wide range of references and correct mechanisms used.
Although well structured, some data (e.g. from line 127 on Maslach measurements) could have been better added as a table rather than a list of values, makes it easier to refer back to and follow.
Line 208, Table 2. The headings and presentation should be the same as Table 1 for high burnout - should be [n (%)]
Line 215 - States DE - should this be either DP or EE?
The overall study itself is a well presented look at burnout characterists in the chosen population. However I think the title and some references are misleading as the pet ownership is just a small, but interesting, finding from a wider study. There is no real study looking directly at the aspects of how pet ownership can combat burnout in the population. Instead this is a comprehensive study looking at burnout.
The study itself uses appropriate tools and is completed to a high standard, and the range of results appear to be accurate and well discussed. Copies of the questionnaire are provided and seem to be robustly used.
The study itself uses appropriate tools and is completed to a high standard, and the range of results appear to be accurate and well discussed. There are however some confusing elements regarding the focus of the article being pet ownership and resillience.
Line 80 is a mention of Covid 19 and again in line 145, which has an implication this was originally a study looking at burnout related to the pandemic which would be a valid reason for the study. Again this is demonstrated in Line 241, this explicitly states the article is about burnout during Covid 19. There have been other studies on the topic in Hungary and it would be interesting to see how the pandemic affected those results as a comparison.
Line 281 has a cursory mention of pet ownership but linked in with other statements, then not mentioned again until Line 329. I agree it is noteworthy but it is not the focus of the article.
I do not think the conclusions about the value of pet ownership are supported by the evidence in the study. The claims that pets are 'invaluable companions' and that 'pet-friendly policies' are effective coping mechanisms are not justifed by this data set. There is a lot based on one result from a wide study here. Instead this should be a springboard to a targetted study on the subject.
Other smaller aspects I would suggest include Line 250. The results of differences beteen male and female are valid but there should be a mention of the widely different response sizes between the two groups. Also I would like to have seen more discussion about why having a 2nd job reduces your levels of EE. Seems like it should be the other way around and I think noteworthy of more discussion.
Finally, in the limitations of the study. I feel it should be mentioned that studies such as these may have an inherent bias as those sufferring from higher levels of burnout may be more likely to complete these surveys. This is not specific to this study but all studies of this nature.
1. The manuscript is written in a clear manner, although it can still be improved especially on the discussion of the results.
2. They were able to discuss the effects of burnout and the coping mechanisms in the introduction, however, the researchers failed to elaborate the research gap which is necessary to establish the need to conduct this research.
3. Be consistent in using the terms "participant" and "respondent". Kindly choose the more appropriate terminology between the two.
4. Review the format in presenting tables and putting captions.
5. Kindly review the discussion section. You may rephrase and re-arrange the paragraphs to make it more comprehensive and look more professional.
1. Please explain the reason/s behind your research methodology.
2. Discuss the recruitment process of your target group.
3. Discuss the psychometric properties of Maslach Burnout Inventory which you used to evaluate the respondents' level of burnout. Explain also why it is the most appropriate tool to measure your construct.
4. Discuss the contents of your self-made questionnaire and its validation process.
5. Explain why did you choose t-test and ANOVA to analyze your results. Kindly review the assumptions for each statistical tool.
1. It would be better if there are tables presented in discussing the socio-demographic profile of the respondents.
2. The authors only stated the quantitative results of the Maslach Burnout Inventory. It will be better if they discuss it in a more elaborate manner including the description of each score per dimension.
3. Improve the discussion section by explaining your results while supporting it with relevant and related literature and studies in a more comprehensive manner.
4. In statements no. 281-284, the authors mentioned that pets serve as protective factors against burnout. However, based on the results, those with dogs have lower emotional exhaustion and burnout values compared with those who own a cat. Please explain this further.
5. Was the statistical tools utilized adequate to solely attribute the decreased burnout levels to canine companionship? Please discuss.
None. Congratulations to the authors!
In general, this research is very interesting, looking at various factors that increase the likelihood of stress in those who work with high pressure. Several things that need to be considered are the background writing which still needs improvement.
This research that uses an experimental design for this study is quite clear, more notes are in the file attachment.
I don't fine the validity and the reliability of each questionnaire, please add it all in the mind text.
-
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.