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 February 8th, 2024 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on June 11th, 2024.
  • The first revision was submitted on July 5th, 2024 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on August 19th, 2024 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on August 28th, 2024.

Version 0.3 (accepted)

· Aug 28, 2024 · Academic Editor

Accept

Thank you for submission of your rebuttal and the revised manuscript.
* I confirm that the authors have addressed all of the reviewers' comments.
* I have assessed the revision myself, and the current version is acceptable
* The manuscript is ready for publication pending publication tasks

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Mike Climstein, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Version 0.2

· Aug 7, 2024 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Please address the comments from the reviewer and in particular the one about why the test retest was done in a week when conventionally it is done in two weeks' time. Thanks.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Please see an attached file.

Experimental design

No comments.

Validity of the findings

No comments.

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Jun 11, 2024 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

In view of the several issues raised by the first and second reviewers. In particular, a reviewer noted that "the authors stated that OA is more prevalent in females than males in the Middle East. However, the study recruited only a male sample. The choice not to include a female sample in the current study must be justified". Please justify the study design and address the points raised by the reviewers.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Please see an attached file.

Experimental design

Please see an attached file.

Validity of the findings

Please see an attached file.

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

The study rationale needs more elaboration.

Experimental design

The methodology section needs more details. You need to follow the same sequence of objectives throughout the manuscript

Validity of the findings

Demographic data presentation is required.

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

First, I would like to thank the authors for this interesting and useful work.
1-The English language is professional and clear
2- The introduction is brief and well-introduced, but certain references must be updated.
3- High quality figures
4- The raw data is reviewed. The file is checked.

Experimental design

1- The study fills the existing gap in knowledge as the community needs the Arabic version of the questionnaire.
2- The study is within the scope of the journal.
3- In line 84, the meaning of the abbreviation (PROM) should be explained in the study design section. It is also not explained in the list of abbreviations.

Validity of the findings

1-The collected data was analyzed well,
2- The discussion section is well provided
3-The conclusion is well-stated and linked with the study findings.
4-The authors should thank all participants in the study not only the deanship of scientific research

Additional comments

Many thanks for allowing me to review this study.

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.