Review History


To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on June 1st, 2016 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on July 27th, 2016.
  • The first revision was submitted on August 8th, 2016 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on August 8th, 2016.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

All the reviewer's comments have been satisfactorily addressed.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Please edit the text to include the suggestions that have been made by the reviewers.

·

Basic reporting

First of all, Thank you for allowing me to read this article. The manuscript is well-written and conforms in both structure and content to the high standards of PeerJ.

Experimental design

The cross-sectional design is god enough to answer the research questions.

Validity of the findings

The findings and conclusions are warranted in light of the analyses conducted and the design at hand.

Comments for the author

I have just a couple of minor changes that need to be done:
1. Please spell out FMS and CFS in the abstract and then its abbreviation. Do the same for CFS in the Introduction.
2.Please add sd for the means in Table 2.
3. If possible add a limitation and implication section in the discussion.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

This submission didn't adhere to all PeerJ policies ; for references in the text, authors used Vancouver style and not the "Name. Year" style with an alphabetized reference list. Sometimes, the english was ambiguious for example lines 42-43 "exquisitely hyper-sensitive " but rather "extremely hyper-sensitive".

Experimental design

The objective of the study is not clear for me. I don't understand if the objective was to assess differences between patients with fibromyalgia and those with chronic fatigue syndrome, or was to assess differences between patients with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome.
The assessment and the prevalence of CFS in the sample were not specified in the text.

Validity of the findings

no comments

Comments for the author

The authors report an interesting study but the aim was not clear. We don't know if the objective was to assess differences between patients with FMS Versus those with CFS or to assess differences patients with FM and CFS.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

No comments

Experimental design

No comments

Validity of the findings

No comments

Comments for the author

1. Were the online questionnaires completed anonymously?
2. Please indicate the body that gave ethical approval of the study. If ethical approval was not required (e.g. because participants only completed online questionnaires anonymously), please state so.

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.