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 reviewers were satisfied with your revisions.
Now after corrections all these questions are ok
Also the experimental design is ok now
The validity is not that high, but enough for publication
Ready for publication now. ACCEPT
All the necessary corrections have been made
All the necessary corrections have been made
All the necessary corrections have been made
All the necessary corrections have been made
The reviewers have provided valuable feedback that highlights areas requiring major revisions to your paper.
One of the main concerns relates to methodological issues, particularly regarding your sample. As Reviewer 2 pointed out: “Is this a representative sample?” Additionally, a flow chart illustrating how the final sample was determined is missing and should be included.
Both reviewers also noted that the Methods and Materials section lacks important details. Please ensure that this section is revised to include all relevant information.
Furthermore, we ask that you carefully consider and address all other suggestions and comments provided by the reviewers in your revised manuscript.
In addition, I recommend expanding the discussion section to provide a more international perspective. Why is it important for global readers to understand patient knowledge and perceptions towards orthodontic treatment in the Aljouf region of Saudi Arabia? What broader insights can international readers gain from your study?
Finally, the English language quality of the manuscript needs improvement. We recommend seeking assistance from a professional scientific language editor to enhance clarity and readability.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services if you wish - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Your revision deadline is always extended while you undergo language editing. #]
The aim is clear.
But the Introduction part is too long. Lines 86 to 98 can be shorter as well as lines 106 to 120. Some of these contents can be moved to the Discussion part.
Lines 46 and 47 say Malocclusion can be....that increases the risk of dental caries, periodontal diseases, potential temporomandibular disorders ... Are there any evidens for that? If so please add references.
Line 73 Studies have shown.... Where has this been shown?
Literature references are ok.
Study description:
It is not of interest how many governates there are in Al-jouf. More interested how many people there are in the two governates involved.
When should the patients fill-in the questionnaires, before treatment started, before information about orthodontics. The text only says "seeking orthodontic treatment". People who have not visited an orthodontic clinic can not be expected to know anything about different orthodontic appliances.
The authors must inform much more about the study material.
It should be interesting to see the questionnaires and the answer options. This must be added.
Data Analysis: here should statistical methods be added.
The statistical methods used should be presented here not in the Result part.
Res ults.
Most of what is presented in the Tables are repeatedly here in the text. eg Majority of the participants (45.4%) were between 18 and 30 age. and mostly private employees (42.6%). and so on
How can you expect that people could know "Which type of orthodontic appliance is typically worn at night to prevent teeth from shifting. Much more about the questionnaires and the participants must be explained, See also experimental design.
How many US dollar is 1 SAR?
The Tables are clear but see my comments in the result section.
The written English is in most parts good, but still needs further checking by an expert.
There are too many tables, for example table 5 contains so little information that it can be given in the text.
Basic reporting of the methods is no sufficient. The Aim of the study is missing as well as a hypothesis.
The study is said to be performed by a Google form. google has certainly not published this form, so the name should be changed.
The problem is in the convenience sample that was used. It most likely is not a proper representative of the local population. Which part of the total patient flow in the examination place during the time period was examined. What was the drop-out rate? How many refused of the study?
"This data collection tool was prepared by the research team. The content validation was done by the experts" . This is not clear how the validation was done. It should be done and tested by using same patient population.
It appears that the questionnaire was in Arabic and in the publication in English. There is no mention of the translation.
As mentioned before, and as in the section of limitations is stated, this is not a representative sample of the population. The statistical part of the study seems to be properly done.
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.