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.
Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript. As none of the reviewers responded in this round, I carefully evaluated your rebuttal letter and the revised version of the manuscript myself. You have thoroughly addressed all of the comments raised in the previous review cycle, including clarifications to the introduction, statistical methods, supplemental materials, recruitment details, reporting standards, and reference quality.
The revisions are comprehensive and appropriately strengthen the manuscript. I am satisfied that all essential concerns have been resolved, and the paper now meets the journal’s publication criteria.
I am pleased to confirm that your manuscript is accepted for publication.
Congratulations, and thank you for your thoughtful and detailed revisions.
Both reviewers were positive about the importance of your dataset and the overall clarity of the manuscript, and they commended the value of your contribution. At the same time, they identified several areas requiring further attention before the manuscript can be reconsidered. These include:
1) Expanding and clarifying the introduction to better highlight the knowledge gap being addressed.
2) Providing a stronger justification for the statistical methods used (particularly in Lines 241–250).
3) Adding clearer metadata identifiers to your supplemental files.
4) Addressing the reporting and presentation issues raised by Reviewer 2, including greater detail in recruitment, regression analysis, statistical reporting (p-values, CIs), and ensuring tables/figures are fully transparent and reproducible.
5) Reviewing your reference list to ensure that all cited sources are appropriate and reliable.
6) Improving the clarity of English expression throughout.
We therefore invite you to submit a major revision of your manuscript. Please respond point-by-point to the reviewers’ comments and indicate clearly where changes have been made in the revised manuscript.
We look forward to receiving your revision.
**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:** The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
The text is clear and concise. There was only one question regarding the COST dimensions highlighted by the authors.
All documents were attached.
Adequate for what it proposes. adequate for what is proposed. The objective could be more explicit at the end of the introduction.
The conclusions are important, however, as the objective is not well defined, there is doubt as to whether it meets the authors' purposes.
the study is relevant and deserves to be published
While this is in general a well-written paper, there are some parts that need to be improved.
Always include relevant units of measurement when reporting values from continuous, discrete, or ordinal variable. Moreover, the authors should always clarify what the reported numbers measure. Thus, don’t write “The results showed that the total economic toxicity score of the patients was (20.80±7.32)”, but instead write e.g. “The results showed that the total mean±SD economic toxicity score of the patients was 20.80±7.32 points”.
Don’t overuse parentheses. For example, “the average age of the patients was (52.27±10.78) years old” should read “the mean±SD age of the patients was 52.27±10.78 years”.
Also give the values in $ and/or £ when reporting values in local currencies.
Write out an abbreviation in full the first time it is used.
Do not start sentences with a number (cf. lines 206 and 207).
Decide if P-values should be written as P or p, do not use both in the same test (cf. lines 185 and 225).
Lines 172-173: Why was a convenience sampling approach used? Describe the recruitment process in more detail, e.g., which persons were recruiting participants? How many persons were approached about participation, hon many declined, and so on. Consider using a flow chart.
Statistical analysis: Give more details. Which type of t-tests were used? Student’s or Welch’s t-test? Independent samples t-test? For which situations were linear and logistic regression method used? Which variables were included in the models? What was the basis for including these? How were the results presented? Etc.
The authors have used robust and sound methods and reporting. Underlying data have been provided.
Abstract
That “Data entry and management were performed using Excel 2019, and statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 26.0.” should not be reported in the Abstract.
Line 132: Include the publisher of the G*Power 3.1 software. Expand on “the requirements of multifactor analysis” that the power analysis was based on.
Line 137: Demographic and clinical data: Give more details about the collected data in term of units of measurement, data type, which categories were used for categorical data, and so on.
Give the range of the total score of the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity instrument as well as the range of the sub-scores of the three dimensions psychosocial responses, economic expenditures, and income. Also specify the number of items for the tree dimensions. Moreover, give an interpretation of the instrument, e.g., how should high or low scores be interpreted?
Line 171: Specify if the “Institutional Ethical Review Board for Medical Research” is a local, regional, or national board.
References:
References to notorious predatory journals such as Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology should be removed and replaced with references to reputable journals.
Tables:
The tilde sign “~” is not used in English for ranges, thus replace all instances of ~ with – (e.g. “31~44” should be ”31–44”). Report the mean (SD) number of children. Give units of measurement, e.g., “Age (yers)”, currency used for treatment cost (add add an exchange rate top $ and/or £), etc.
Give 95% confidence intervals for regression coefficient estimates. Describe the outcome for the regression models in the table headers.
State what the numbers 1 to 9 in the columns of Table 6 mean.
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.