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.
This is a very interesting and original paper - the minor revisions you made will make it more readable.
This is an interesting paper which is a creative contribution to the field of body dissatisfaction research. The two reviewers had some very minor revisions which they requested - please revise accordingly. In addition, please add explanatory notes to the 3 tables, in particular please spell out all abbreviations so that each table is comprehensible.
No comments
No comments
No comments
This is an extraordinarily well written article presenting novel and important results, i.e. that a measure of visual memory is related to body dissatisfaction and that visual representative abilities can protect against body dissatisfaction. I strongly recommend it should be published in PeerJ.
There are three very minor revisions to be made:
Line 201: I would recommend a section on "Instruments", followed by "Procedure", rather than "Design and Materials". In addition, I believe that readers are familiar with the concept of Body Mass Index so that it does not need to be defined in the methods section. Rather, the equation could be included in parentheses when the term is first mentioned.
Line 434: the word "other" seems superfluous.
Table 3 line 798: The number of participants should be added (N).
The presentation complies with all PeerJ specifications excepting the change in font (to Arial, I believe) in lines 280-303 which should be corrected.
In lines 240 ff, the computer application of the VPT should either reference standardization of this application or note that accessing mouse responses could possibly enlist visuo-motor skills not engaged in the original VPT.
No Comments
The abstract summarizes the study reliable. The scientific background is clearly presented and prior literature considered appropriately. Figures are relevant and appropriately labeled and discussed. The article complies very well with "self-containment," and clearly specifies the import of the results. The English composition is flawless. An excellent paper worthy of publication
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.