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 authors have addressed all of the reviewers' comments adequately and the manuscript can be accepted in its current form.
Thank you for your revised submission. We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript can be accepted pending one minor adjustment.
Specifically, the font size in most, if not in all figures, should be increased to ensure that all text is easily readable in a publishable format (A4 size). Please make this modification and upload the updated figures at your earliest convenience.
Once this adjustment has been made, we will proceed with the final acceptance of your manuscript.
no comment.
no comment.
no comment.
The authors have meticulously implemented the revisions requested by the reviewers.
All reviewers, as well as myself, have assessed the manuscript and found your report both interesting and valuable. However, several issues need to be addressed before it can be considered further. In particular, please pay close attention to the comments provided by Reviewers 2 and 3. Additionally, while the manuscript’s length is not a major concern, the introduction should be substantially shortened to approximately 1–1.5 pages.
**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.
Strengths:
The manuscript is well-structured, with clearly delineated sections including title, abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.
The literature review is comprehensive and integrates both international and regional studies effectively.
Raw data analysis is appropriately explained and consistent with the manuscript's findings.
Weaknesses:
Certain paragraphs contain repetitive ideas, particularly in the introduction and discussion sections, where the "importance of parental awareness" is reiterated with similar wording.
Some section titles are lengthy and the phrasing complex, which may hinder clarity. More concise and direct language is recommended.
Strengths:
The descriptive cross-sectional study design is appropriately selected, and the sample size (n=400) is adequate.
Stratified multistage cluster sampling was employed, ensuring balanced representation across urban and rural populations.
The questionnaire’s validity (content, face, and construct) and reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.82, ICC = 0.89) were robustly established and reported.
Weaknesses:
Greater reflection is needed on potential bias arising from survey distribution via social media—particularly the exclusion of groups with limited access to digital platforms.
Strengths:
Findings are clearly presented and statistically sound, employing chi-square tests, t-tests, ANOVA, and logistic regression appropriately.
The connection between findings and conclusions is coherent and well-justified.
Urban–rural disparities are effectively characterized and interpreted.
Weaknesses:
While statistical significance is emphasized, the socio-cultural implications of the findings could be further explored (e.g., social norms, belief systems).
The analysis focuses predominantly on knowledge levels, with limited discussion on behavioral outcomes such as actual adoption of preventive practices.
The manuscript is generally written in clear, professional, and academic English.
Terminology is appropriate and technical expressions are accurately conveyed.
Minimal grammatical errors are present.
Areas for Improvement:
Some sentences are excessively long and syntactically complex (e.g., Introduction, lines 60–80).
Repetition of terms such as “awareness” and “urban vs. rural” occasionally causes the text to become monotonous.
Suggested simplifications:
“This difference is highly statistically significant…” → “This difference is statistically significant.”
“Let alone acknowledge the importance…” → “Not to mention acknowledging the importance.”
Language Enhancement Recommendation:
The Introduction and Discussion sections, in particular, would benefit from linguistic simplification and increased clarity.
A professional language review by a native English-speaking academic or editorial service is recommended to refine stylistic flow.
The Discussion section would benefit from clearer articulation of policy implications and intervention design recommendations.
More concrete examples of accessible educational models in rural areas (e.g., mobile dental clinics, visual educational tools) could enhance the practical relevance of the findings.
Based on the results, the role of dentists in public communication and education should be more explicitly emphasized—particularly the gaps in clinical communication identified.
The subject of the study will contribute to the literature, but there are errors in the writing of the article regarding general literature rules.
No comment
Introduction
In lines 73, 74, 82-84, 89-92, 108-110, 116-120, 126-133, and 137-139, the text is written in a discussion style, presenting the author's own opinions without appropriate references. These sections are not suitable for the structure of an introduction and should either be removed or supported with relevant citations.
The purpose statement in lines 153-165 is extremely long and complex; it should be expressed more briefly and clearly.
Overall, the introduction is lengthy. It could be shortened to present a more concise, fluent, and literature-based structure.
Materials and Methods
In line 265, it is mentioned that the questionnaire items were based on a literature review; However, there is no specification of which items were derived from which sources. The link between the questionnaire items and the literature should be clarified.
The tables lack explanatory notes regarding the statistical tests used. This omission weakens the clarity of the tables. The statistical tests should be explicitly indicated in the table footnotes.
Discussion
The information provided in lines 440-470 mostly restates the study's results rather than engaging in sufficient comparison with the existing literature. This section should be revised to include a deeper discussion in relation to previous studies.
In lines 545-566, an excessive amount of emphasis is placed on possible future research. This should be expressed more briefly and in a more focused manner.
Conclusion
In the abstract's conclusion, the lack of knowledge among rural parents regarding space maintainers is mentioned, whereas in the manuscript's conclusion section this finding is not elaborated in detail. For consistency, this issue should also be explicitly emphasized in the conclusion section.
English is good enough for scientific article.
Literatür, figure and tables, and hypoteses well organized
This survey study was could be useful for determine Indonesian parents' knowledge, attitudes, and informational sources related to paediatric space maintainers and factors inûuencing awareness and acceptance.
Also for other countries can be as a saple guide study.
Findings lookinw meaningful.
Article well lookig organized.
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.