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 April 21st, 2014 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on May 13th, 2014.
  • The first revision was submitted on June 9th, 2014 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on June 26th, 2014.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

Dear Authors,Thank you for the revised manuscript.The revised manuscript will now undergo the next process as it is now deemed suitable for publication in Peer J by the reviewers,

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

the manuscript is now acceptable

Experimental design

no comments

Validity of the findings

no comments

Comments for the author

the manuscript is now acceptable

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Dear Authors,Thank you for submitting this manuscript which will need minor revisions.One reviewer has attached an annotated manuscript which will help you do the corrections .The revised manuscript when re-submitted will undergo re-review.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Language needs minor correction / small sentences at many places.
Figure provided is not essential

Experimental design

Design in terms of qualitative study needs to be redefined
comments are also mentioned attached PDF

Validity of the findings

some of the discusion is made in contrast to the subjective knowledge

Comments for the author

the research question could have been solved using more objective methodology

·

Basic reporting

good. some areas need more details like the interview guide (even though a reference is given). the theory on which the qualitative data was analysed- could make it more clearer to read.

Experimental design

A retrospective cohort was chosen, however the limitation of a retrospective interview has not been discussed. It would make sense to add them.

Validity of the findings

Conclusion is solid. Again because of the retrospective nature of questioning the data should be viewed with caution - due to underestimating or overestimation have not been clearly discussed.

Comments for the author

Good work which could have implication in prevention literature.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

The article was well and clearly written with clear background and clear objective of the study.

Experimental design

The research question was well define and was answered via interview.

Validity of the findings

The findings are acceptable.

Comments for the author

The study is very relevant to the current needs in preventing or reducing stroke incidence.

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.