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.
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,
the manuscript is now acceptable
no comments
no comments
the manuscript is now acceptable
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.
Language needs minor correction / small sentences at many places.
Figure provided is not essential
Design in terms of qualitative study needs to be redefined
comments are also mentioned attached PDF
some of the discusion is made in contrast to the subjective knowledge
the research question could have been solved using more objective methodology
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.
A retrospective cohort was chosen, however the limitation of a retrospective interview has not been discussed. It would make sense to add them.
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.
Good work which could have implication in prevention literature.
The article was well and clearly written with clear background and clear objective of the study.
The research question was well define and was answered via interview.
The findings are acceptable.
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.