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 December 19th, 2024 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on February 4th, 2025.
  • The first revision was submitted on February 11th, 2025 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on February 11th, 2025.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Feb 11, 2025 · Academic Editor

Accept

Dear authors,

Congratulations! I am now accepting your manuscript for publication.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Feb 4, 2025 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Dear authors, thank you for your submission.

It was unanimous that your manuscript requires minor revisions before publication. One particular point is that self-selection will bias the results. Therefore, this should be discussed as a limitation. Please, refer to the reviewers' comments for this and further details.

·

Basic reporting

The manuscript is well written and well structured. The English is good

Experimental design

the manuscript meets PeerJ stabdards

Validity of the findings

The authors should discus that they were not abel to calculate a response rate and that the sampling process allowed for self-selection. This will have an impact on the prevalence of Long-Covid. It will most likely be overestimated as HCW with no COVID-19 related complains might be less likely to participate

Additional comments

none

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

see the attached pdf

Experimental design

see the attached pdf

Validity of the findings

see the attached pdf

Additional comments

see the attached pdf

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

·

Basic reporting

The study provides valuable insights into the impact of long COVID on HCWs in Portugal.

Recommendations

The Abstract (Word limit 300) should include a Conclusion section, and Key Words must be added for better indexing. The Discussion must be placed after the Results section for logical flow. A Limitations section should be added to acknowledge study constraints, and a Recommendations section should provide guidance for future research or practice.

Experimental design

The methodology is well-structured, with ethical approval, informed consent, and a justified sample size calculation. Recruitment via professional networks is appropriate but may introduce selection bias.

Validity of the findings

The results are well-organized, highlighting significant associations between long COVID, extreme fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, and reduced work performance.

Additional comments

NA

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.