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,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
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.
No comments.
No comments.
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.
Correction done and I am satisfied
I am satisfied with the revised manuscript
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.
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.
"No Comments".
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
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.
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.
No comments
No comments
- 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
research questions clearly stated, relevant and meaningful
findings are valid.
- "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.