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.


  • The initial submission of this article was received on June 26th, 2014 and was peer-reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on August 5th, 2014.
  • The first revision was submitted on August 17th, 2014 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on August 18th, 2014.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor


Based upon your satisfactory response to the reviewers' comments, your paper is now suitable for publication in PeerJ.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Please revise your manuscript in response to the reviewer suggestions, and respond to each point that has been raised.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

No comments

Experimental design

Since the study has two aims and a four part research question, it would be helpful in the methods section to identify which question each section is designed to address. For example, construct validity and factor analysis section (study aim 2 part c) of something similar to help with organization and flow.

Validity of the findings

Analyses address the proposed aims and study questions adequately. Tables are well organized and informative.

Please clarify the response rate of 100%. Does this mean that 114 consecutive patients agreed to participation before undergoing the operation and that 111 postoperative patients agreed to study participation? How were missing data handled?

Comments for the author

Literature review is thorough. The study purpose and research questions are clearly stated.

The discussion is well-written. Limitations of cross-sectional measurement are addressed. No definitive conclusions regarding improvement in eating self-efficacy from pre to post weight loss surgery can be derived from this study. However, this is an acceptable limitation given the primary aim of translating the American English language WEL-SF to Norwegian and to provide preliminary validation data on the translated version of the questionnaire. This study also addresses limitations of the American English Language WEL-SF that should be considered in future validation studies. For example, in item 4 the double-wording problem was addressed. In this sample, the authors found that adding a PC-item was clinically irrelevant.

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.