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).
Dear Authors,Congratulations for submitting the revised manuscript which is now clearer,more academic and suitable for publication.
the necessary changes have been made now
Much clearer with the added exercise information
results are clear
addressed the issues raised
Dear Authors, The two peer reviewers have given very important suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript.Please do the appropriate revisions so as the resubmitted revised manuscript can be sent to the same peer reviewers.
I think this paper is nice and clear, there are many ways to extend this research further. It would be nice to have the participants more closely matched, so more recent stroke patients undergoing exercise so then it is easier to compare across the groups
I would like a little bit more details on the type of exercise participants where doing as it's not very clear
The paper is missing f & t values. In line 87, the f value and degrees of freedom are missing from the reported ANOVA results. In line 89 the chi-square value is missing. In lines 90 & 91, the t value and degrees of freedom are needed. In lines 94, 95, 97, 98, 101, 105, 107, 108, 110 & 111 the t/f values are missing as well as the degrees of freedom.
I think it would be worth correlating the DASS scores with MoCA, time of stroke,years of education, FAC & AQoL. I would be a little wary of the fact the mean MoCA scores are all below the 26 cut off point. I would enter those and year of stroke as a covariate just to check whether play a role in the results.
This is an easy-to-follow piece of academic writing. The reporting has been done clearly and meets the standards of the journal. Topic has been introduced sufficiently and can guide readers on what to expect from the rest of the work.
Research objectives/questions can be clearly understood. The significance of the research is noted. Research findings may however raise some issues due to its observational design. Authors, however, have given sufficient justifications. One recommendation is to be more stringent on the inclusion criteria for the participants. Since exercise is an important variable in this study, it has to be controlled more systematically. This can be done by including only stroke survivors who have been doing exercise for certain period of time (SE) vs. those who have not commenced the exercise (STR). The duration or the period in which they have been exercising has to be a criteria to choose participants in SE. Authors use the term ‘regular’ but there seems to be no evidence to show that SE is regular in their exercise. In other words SE exercises at least once a week and it is misleading to use ‘regular’ unless the time they have been doing this is stated. In other words, as of now readers have no clue for how long they have been active in the exercise.
The Result & Discussion section has been written clearly. Authors may consider to elaborate the reasons for the worse quality of life reported for the SE and STR (Line 118). Conclusions have been appropriately stated.
A nice piece and easy to follow research write-up. I support your view on the importance to have studies addressing the role of exercise in improving the mood of stroke survivors.
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.