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.
Congratulations to the authors on their excellent work.
The authors have satisfactorily addressed all the required corrections related to basic reporting, experimental design, and the validity of the findings. All concerns raised in the previous review have been resolved, and no further revisions are necessary.
authors met all of the corrections needed. No further comments
authors met all of the corrections needed. No further comments
authors met all of the corrections needed. No further comments
authors met all of the corrections needed. No further comments
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
Dear Authors,
Your article has been reviewed by four external reviewers. Please address all comments and questions thoroughly to help avoid multiple rounds of revision.
Regarding Reviewer 4's concern that "the article consists of a literature review, which must be mentioned at the beginning of the Materials and Methods section," I respectfully disagree with this point.
Thank you.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** PeerJ staff have identified that the English language needs to be improved. When you prepare your next revision, please either (i) have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or (ii) contact a professional editing service to review your manuscript. PeerJ can provide language editing services - you can contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). – PeerJ Staff
-
Please check the citations format in the manuscript, some are missing a "." or ","
Please spell out all abbreviations in every table citation and explicit the statistical test used.
I would like to congratulate the authors on the development of this timely study. The manuscript addresses an increasingly relevant topic—the quality and reliability of health-related content on social media platforms. This is a creative and pertinent line of inquiry given the growing reliance of the public on digital sources for health information, especially in the post-pandemic context, and the lack of a functional, public/accessible health system in some countries.
Even though the manuscript is well written, I have identified some points that require revisions:
1. INTRODUCTION (lines 91-93): The authors state that "Today, social media is considered one of the largest sources for obtaining health-related information", but added a reference from 2012 (AlGhamdi & Moussa 2012). I suggest to change this reference and include a most recent one.
2. RESULTS (line 188): "Table 4 revealed comparison the videos posted in 2019 and in 2024...". I believe you meant "Table 4 reveals the comparison of the videos...". Please, rephrase it.
3. DICUSSION (lines 226-228): "Healthcare-related videos, including those on dentistry and periodontology, have been critically examined by multiple professionals to assess their reliability". Please, include some references that support your statement.
4. DICUSSION (line 260): Kuka and Gursoy - please, add the year of publication.
5. DICUSSION (line 263): Gezer et al. - please, add the year of publication.
6. DICUSSION (line 269): Kuka and Gursoy and Gezer et al. - please, add the years of publication.
7. DICUSSION (line 271): Kuka and Gursoy - please, add the year of publication.
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
no comment.
no comment.
no comment.
* Please state the inclusion criteria more clearly.
* In the Discussion section;
‘In line with 279; previous studies that have shed light on our research, the importance of the video source is again highlighted.’ Please add a reference.
‘In line with 280; When a time difference is considered, Hamdan and colleagues assessed a one-year 281 difference, and to our knowledge, this research is the first to examine the impact of the period 282 before and after the COVID-19 pandemic on the content of YouTube videos.’ Please add a reference.
* Your Conclusion section should also include information about the take home message and the data of your publication. Please rewrite.
*Please change the ‘comma’ in the numerical data in the tables to a ‘dot’.
The article is well written in English, easy to read and contains current references on the subject.
The structure of the tables needs to be standardized.
The article consists of a literature review, which must be mentioned at the beginning of the materials and methods. The authors provide the search strategies and platforms used.
Results session
- Lines 164-169 show the initial results with percentages in the text; this data could be accompanied by a graph separating the percentages by year, to make it easier to understand.
- On lines 188-197 it is discussed that the articles were divided into 2 categories, useful and not useful. But it's not clear how they were divided, was a score used? What characterized one video as useful and another as not?
- In Table 3 - Like Table 4, Table 3 must also have a header, with a score above the numbers and a description or characteristic above the items described.
Discussion session
- Lines 227-228 need a reference
- It was not clear what type of video was evaluated, after applying the key words, what types of videos emerged? Educational, operative, preventive? It was not clear what type of video the research team found in their search.
- It would be interesting to make a percentage of the types of videos found, whether they are institutional or in-house videos. Whether they were videos with guidance on preventing gingival recession, or surgical videos with step-by-step surgery.
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.