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 December 19th, 2014 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on January 15th, 2015.
  • The first revision was submitted on January 20th, 2015 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on January 27th, 2015.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

This is a very interesting and original paper - the minor revisions you made will make it more readable.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

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.

·

Basic reporting

No comments

Experimental design

No comments

Validity of the findings

No comments

Comments for the author

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).

·

Basic reporting

The presentation complies with all PeerJ specifications excepting the change in font (to Arial, I believe) in lines 280-303 which should be corrected.

Experimental design

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.

Validity of the findings

No Comments

Comments for the author

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.