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 October 1st, 2014 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on November 2nd, 2014.
  • The first revision was submitted on November 5th, 2014 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on November 24th, 2014.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

Dear Authors,Congratulations on the revised manuscript being accepted.Please edit these small mistakes as well:Only very minor inconsistency in the references
- reference number 4 has &
- references 20, 21, 22 have "and" before last author
Thanking You

·

Basic reporting

The article has met my previous comment. Also, the authors mentioned a hint about the public stigma and its effects on seeking help from mental health professionals.

Experimental design

No comments.

Validity of the findings

No comments.

·

Basic reporting

Only very minor inconsistency in the references
- reference number 4 has &
- references 20, 21, 22 have "and" before last author

Otherwise, I am satisfied with the revised manuscript.

Experimental design

Correction done and I am satisfied

Validity of the findings

I am satisfied with the revised manuscript

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Dear Authors, Please take heed of the comments of the 3 peer reviewers who have given excellent feedback on how to improve the manuscript which includes statistics (but all the p values are represented as significant by placing stars. Please do check the representation of significance in other tables too). We hope to receive a revised manuscript with the corrections completed as soon as possible.

·

Basic reporting

Table1: wrongly represented. None of the p values are significant (<0.05), but all the p values are represented as significant by placing stars. Please do check the representation of significance in other tables too.

Experimental design

"No Comments".

Validity of the findings

Line 74: you have mentioned modified version of the CAMI, but how the scale is modified has not been mentioned throughout. Better to use adapted and translated (if any).
Line 115-116: percentage doesn’t add up to hundred.
I am bothered about the analysis. Results shown in tables need to be confirmed for their significance as I mentioned in my comment under basic reporting

Comments for the author

Well written except for the result part. Can be considered for publication after making the results clear. Please do show the p values in all the tables.
Lines 59-62: objective number one is assessing two prevalence’s. Ideally one objective should capture only one idea. Also objective three shows repetition of objective one.

·

Basic reporting

The author used the word "stigmas" many times without explaining what are types of the stigmas he mean. So, I believe he should mention types of stigma like "public and self stigma" as an introduction to the reader.

Experimental design

No comments

Validity of the findings

No comments

·

Basic reporting

- Table 1, 3rd column P value: yet the asterix indicate another P value which is confusing
- table 1, 2nd column: what does number (1) mean?
- table 2, 2nd column: what does number (2) mean?
- referencing not according to format
- reference no.1: SD actually Scott DR
- another example is no.7: the authors should be written as Link BG, Struening EL, Rahav M, Phelan JC, Nuttbrock L. (authors should check with pubmed or similar database)
- it is good, if author can mention the 2 type of stigma ie self- and public stigma and CAMI measures public stigma

Experimental design

research questions clearly stated, relevant and meaningful

Validity of the findings

findings are valid.

Comments for the author

- "stigmas" is should be replaced with stigma. If the author want to use the plural form, it should be stigmata
- line 213: delete "to"

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.