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.
We have carefully considered your revisions and the reviewers' comments. One reviewer has recommended acceptance, and we note that you have thoroughly addressed the concerns raised by the other reviewer in your revised manuscript. Based on these factors, we are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jafri Abdullah, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
It is a well-written document. The intervention is very innovative.
I have carefully reviewed your revisions along with the comments from two reviewers. Both reviewers have recommended minor revisions, and I agree with their assessment. Please address the remaining minor issues raised by the reviewers. I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.
The manuscript is clear, unambiguous, and uses professional English language throughout the article.
Introduction and background of the article show context.
Literature is well referenced & relevant.
Structure conforms to PeerJ standards, discipline norm, or improved for clarity.
Figures are relevant, high quality, well
labelled & described. Raw data supplied
Original primary research within Scope of the journal.
Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how the research fills an identified knowledge gap.
Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard.
Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate.
Meaningful replication encouraged where rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated.
All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
The author has to include the intervention sand play in the title.
Needs some adjustments of expression but otherwise is well-structured, well-referenced, and well-argued. See PDF comments for specifics.
Within scope of journal. Questions are well-defined to fill a knowledge gap. High technical standard of investigation and sufficient detail supplied. See PDF comments for specifics.
Valid findings are presented that inform the science. Sufficient raw data has been supplied and conclusions are clearly articulated.
A good paper, thanks for the opportunity to review.
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.