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.
the authors have done the minor changes that were requested earlier
the experimental design is robust.
they are in line with the experimental design.
Thanks for your submission. Please see below some comments to improve the article-
Abstract- the discussion part is confusing, it is mentioned there is no statistical association and this study suggests there is association. Please clear this.
Introduction- Provide a strong rationale using some relevant literature the need for this research.
Methods- IC/EC should be presented in a tabular format.
Conclusion- Should not contain any intext citations.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
this is fine..minor modifications in english suggested in the pdf file.
clear Aims and objectives...
Rationale has been explained....
conclusions well stated
can be accepted with minor modifications.
The manuscript was written in clear and good language, However, the literature on this area is rather limited. The basic foundation of the relation between the two variables studied was limited. This work might give some insight into future work focusing on this area.
line 103: " The inclusion criteria were...", are they any exclusion criteria used?
no comment
Overall it is a good study that focuses on areas that rarely been highlighted. However, the relationship between the two variables is more complex rather direct relationship. Adding additional information regarding the literature might improve the overall quality of the paper. Thank you
English language could be improved. there are some ambiguities in some parts.
review literature is rather limited. some further studies from more wide regions are required.
more details are included in the main text.
details are included in the main text.
details are included in the main text.
details are included in the main text.
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.