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.
Revision has been properly performed.
No further issues. Thank you for addressing my previous concerns.
No further issues. Thank you for addressing my previous concerns.
No further issues. Thank you for addressing my previous concerns.
Congratulations on an excellent study and thank you for addressing my previous concerns. I wish you all the best in the future and commend you for your work in such an important humanitarian and socio-political arena.
The authors should deeply describe the statistical analyses performed.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
Generally very well written.
In line 213, the authors should define what type of regression analysis was being performed (I assume univariate and then multivariate linear regression analysis)
It should be clarified in table 3 and table 4 that one of these is univariate linear regression analysis and the other is multivariate linear regression analysis (looking for independent variables).
Most importantly, the variables that are mentioned in Table 1 do not match with some that are in Table 3/4. Tables 3/4 include novel and confronting variables such as violence experiences, abortion, baby loss, which are not previously mentioned in the methods or results. Similarly, Tables 3/4 exclude many variables from Table 1 such as social status, education levels, employment, health insurance, years in Jordan. What is the reasoning behind this extremely confusing discrepancy? Can the authors please keep a consistent note of which variables exactly are being studied and statistically analysed, and just omit all the others?
My major concern here is that in the conclusions of the abstract and of the main paper, the authors seem to imply that their study compared Syrian women to women in surrounding Arab populations and found poorer health outcomes. However, this is not reflective of this study which only interviewed Syrian women.
The authors can compare their findings to those of other studies in the discussion, but should make the important caveat that these are studies may have had different methodologies, have been conducted during different socio-political circumstances etc.
They should not claim that this current study has done direct comparison between ethnic groups.
The article meets all Basic reporting criteria.
So, No Comment.
No Comment.
No Comment.
The article meets all the standard criteria of the journal.
No comment
No comment
No comment
Refugees who fled Syria included Syrian and Palestinian refugees.
it would be more comprehensive if a sample from Palestine refugees were included but may be added to the recommendation for future research
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.