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.
This revised version is suitable for publication in PeerJ.
The revised manuscript demonstrates clear, precise, and professional English throughout. The authors have successfully improved the clarity and readability of the text by addressing previously noted linguistic and structural issues. Sentences are now well-constructed, unambiguous, and appropriately formal, ensuring that the scientific content is communicated effectively to the reader.
The terminology is used consistently, and the manuscript flows smoothly, with coherent transitions between sections. No grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, or ambiguous statements were detected. Overall, the quality of the writing meets the standards expected for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
In summary, the language revision has been thoroughly and effectively completed, and the manuscript’s English usage is now clear, professional, and fully suitable for publication.
The research question is clearly articulated, well defined, and directly aligned with the objectives of the study. It addresses a relevant and meaningful topic within the field, demonstrating its potential impact on advancing current scientific understanding. The authors effectively justify the importance of their work by identifying a specific gap in the existing literature and explaining how their study contributes to filling this gap.
The manuscript presents a coherent rationale that connects the knowledge gap with the proposed research question, ensuring that the motivation for the study is transparent and scientifically sound. Overall, the formulation and contextualization of the research question meet the standards expected for publication and provide a solid foundation for the study.
Impact and Novelty
As instructed, impact and novelty have not been assessed in this review. Nevertheless, the manuscript presents a study design and rationale that support the value of meaningful replication. The authors clearly articulate why replicating this work is beneficial to the literature and how it contributes to strengthening the evidence base within the field.
Data Availability, Quality, and Statistical Soundness
All underlying data have been provided, and they appear to be robust, statistically sound, and appropriately controlled. The authors have made the dataset accessible in a manner consistent with accepted standards within the discipline. The statistical analyses are properly performed and clearly described, allowing full transparency in how the results were derived. The data provided are adequate to support the conclusions drawn.
Conclusions
The conclusions are well stated and directly linked to the original research question. They remain appropriately limited to the results presented and do not extend beyond what is empirically supported. The authors avoid overstating their findings and do not infer causation where only correlational evidence exists. Overall, the conclusions are coherent, balanced, and scientifically grounded.
Additional Comments
The manuscript is clearly written, methodologically sound, and logically structured. The revisions made in response to previous feedback have strengthened the clarity and reliability of the work. I have no further concerns at this stage.
Τhe authors have successfully addressed the comments, therefore the manuscript is suitable for publication.
Τhe authors have successfully addressed the comments, therefore the manuscript is suitable for publication.
Τhe authors have successfully addressed the comments, therefore the manuscript is suitable for publication.
The document discusses Saudi female students' sun exposure habits. Contemporary and culturally meaningful, the topic and methods are adequate but not revolutionary. Insufficient impact size reporting, moderate questionnaire reliability, and language clarity are the key shortcomings. Revision is advised before acceptance. Addressing the shortcomings could improve the article's value, especially if the authors improve statistics reporting and writing quality.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial 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 review process 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
Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout.
Methodology is appropriately applied.
Findings contribute valuable insight into sun protection behaviors in a unique population setting
Overall, the paper is clearly written and makes a meaningful contribution to the literature.
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PeerJ. After careful evaluation, I find that your study addresses an important and timely topic concerning knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding sun exposure among female university students in Saudi Arabia. The work is relevant to public health and within the scope of the journal.
However, before the manuscript can be considered for publication, several revisions are required:
1. Revise the English for grammar and clarity (consider professional language editing).
2. Provide justification and references for the scoring thresholds used in knowledge and practice categories.
3. Report effect sizes and confidence intervals alongside statistical tests.
4. Streamline long sentences and improve figure/table legends for clarity.
5. Expand the limitations section to acknowledge cross-sectional design and self-report biases.
Given these concerns, my recommendation is **Major Revision**. I believe that with the suggested improvements, your manuscript could make a valuable contribution to the literature.
The manuscript is clear and relevant, addressing knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) regarding sun exposure among female university students in Saudi Arabia.
- Language: understandable but requires editing for grammar and style.
- References: generally appropriate, but formatting should be standardized.
- Figures/Tables: relevant, though legends could be clearer.
- Data availability: acceptable, but labeling/metadata needs clarification.
Sincerely,
Reviewer
Study Design
The study uses a cross-sectional survey design with stratified random sampling of female students at King Khalid University. The design is appropriate for the stated objectives. The use of a validated questionnaire is commendable, though the reliability index (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.69) suggests moderate internal consistency. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are clearly stated. The description of sampling procedures and questionnaire scoring systems is detailed, but some information could be streamlined for clarity. The ethics approval is properly reported. However, there is a need to justify the choice of scoring thresholds (e.g., cutoffs for good/poor knowledge and practice) and provide references for these classifications.
- Statistical analyses (chi-square, correlations) are appropriate.
- Effect sizes and confidence intervals are missing and should be reported.
- Discussion contains some speculative explanations without supporting evidence.
- Conclusions match results, but should be more cautious due to the cross-sectional design.
General Comments
Strengths:
- Addresses a relevant and understudied population (female students at high altitude in Saudi Arabia).
- Adequate sample size and stratified random sampling enhance representativeness.
- Clear presentation of descriptive statistics.
Weaknesses:
- Moderate reliability of the questionnaire.
- Inconsistent language and grammar issues.
- Lack of effect size reporting.
- Some speculative explanations in the Discussion are without empirical support.
Suggestions for improvement:
1. Revise English for clarity and grammar, possibly with professional editing.
2. Add effect sizes (odds ratios, CIs) for key statistical tests.
3. Clarify scoring thresholds for KAP categories.
4. Shorten and restructure some long sentences for readability.
5. Expand the limitations section to emphasize cross-sectional design limitations and self-report biases.
- There are multiple typographical and syntax errors along the manuscript, as well as awkward phrasing - please revise
- Please explain what your work adds to the literature or how it differs from other studies
- The authors state that they used “equal numbers from each department” and “proportional random sampling”, which are contradictory. Please specify which method was used for the sampling.
- The scoring system of the KAP questionnaire seems arbitrary and was not based on a validated method or psychometric testing. Is there any particular reason that the right answers were scored/weighted more? (eg, to reward correct knowledge?) Please elaborate
- Self-report and social desirability biases from the sample should be acknowledged
- In addition to p-values, confidence intervals, and effect sizes should be reported
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.