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.
Everything is good
Everything is good
Everything is good
All the input that has been given before has been corrected and this article can be published
Please follow carefully all comments and recommendations.
No comment
No comment
No comment
In general, the manuscript is good. However, there are several explanations that must be added in the following discussion section.
Please give logic explanation about the relationship between breastfeeding at night and breastfeeding social support. Why the level of social support for mothers who breastfeed at night is higher than that of mothers who do not breastfeed at night? (line 165-167)
Please give logic explanation about the relationship between employment status and breastfeeding social support. Why the level of social support for mothers who unemployed is higher than that of mothers who employed? What is the scope of your social support? Your explanation discusses about workplace support. (line 177-186)
Please give logic explanation about the relationship between the feeding mode of the youngest baby and breastfeeding social support. Why mothers who exclusively breastfed their infants exhibited higher levels of social support for breastfeeding than mothers who engaged in mixed feeding? (line 189-190)
good paper but needs revisions
none
it is OK
-Make sure that each paragraph at least contains three sentences.
- Each reference must be completed with DOI and can be traced online.
- some references are old, please update in recent 5 years
Discuss the results/findings with more references to make them meaningful. Discuss and compare your findings with previous studies and or grand theories. The current discussion section is insufficient with fewer references; please improve and enlarge. Support each paragraph with at least one reference.
In the Method section: explain how you determined the sample size. Support with the reference whether the sample size is adequate.
Explain the validity and reliability of your questionnaire/instrument
How did you control the confounding variables?
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.