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.
Dear Authors
Thank you for making all the necessary changes as recommended by the referees. Congratulations!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Catherine Myers, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Please see the full report below. Thank you.
Please see the full report below. Thank you.
Please see the full report below. Thank you.
Please see the full report below. Thank you.
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
Glad to see that the authors have considered all the relevant areas of concern for changes, additions, and modifications in the manuscript. This paper is ready for acceptance and publication.
Dear Authors
There are major revisions suggested by the referees, kindly make the suggested changes and resubmit.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff 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.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree that they are relevant and useful.
Dear Authors,
Thank you very much for the opportunity to review this manuscript.
Well done!
Method section
Thank you very much for providing us with a detailed approach to your method. Well done!
Sample/Participants
While the participants/sample in this present study may have been well-described, I think that readers might benefit from knowing whether the samples/participants were recruited from among the university students' population or from the general public. Could you please address this, maybe in just a sentence? Thank you very much.
Ethical approval
Thank you very much for reporting the receipt of ethical approval from the ethics committee. No issue at all. Well done!
Measures
Thank you very much for this comprehensive report here. Well done!
The authors used one of the validated Self-compassion scales - thank you very much. Suggestions? In my humble opinion, I would suggest/encourage reporting and citing a few of the different validated self-compassion scales as we have e.g., self-compassion scales (SCS with a 26 item), the full scale which has been rightly cited/referenced in this present work. Additionally, we also have an 18-item, 17-item, and the self-compassion scale (short form - (SF)) with a 12-item [see: Raes et al., 2011; https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-032420-031047)]. While I am bringing this here, I thought this would enhance this work further by enabling readers who might not be conversant with these scales to be aware of the existence of these different scales.
As a result, my dear colleagues may decide to consider my suggestion or ignore it - I am happy with either outcome.
On pg. 5 L 28, towards the last paragraph; "In recent years ....". Thank you very much for providing a very strong point here - I can see that this has been well-supported. However, might this not be strengthened with more relevant citations? These works [doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1425535; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.702166] might, for example, be relevant to further strengthen this present work - I am not in any way an author, coauthor, or affiliated to any of the authors of these suggested works. I have no conflict of interest, this is just an opinion, please.
The use of "Arabic SCS for assessing self-compassion in this specific population."
Relevant citations/references missing - Pg. 8 L 87 - L 90: The authors mentioned an Arabic version of SCS being used for assessing self-compassion in this specific population, however, I cannot trace anywhere in the main body of this work nor in the reference list where the use of such a scale was acknowledged. Please consider the works of Alabdulaziz et al. [10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104420; 10.1111/ijn.12843] as these would enhance this present work. Again, I am not Alabdulaziz and I am not directly or indirectly linked to Alabdulaziz et al. However, these citations are essentially relevant here. Thank you very much.
Results and statistical analysis
Thank you very much for this well-conducted research. The authors have conducted very good work in this study and the statistical operations/analyses are comprehensively reported. I look forward to reading this great work one day soon!
Discussion
Thank you very much for bringing life into this work through this very invaluable discussion section.
Although this study has been well conducted and reported, I would suggest my dear colleagues carefully consider the few points raised.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to review this very interesting and relevant manuscript.
Kind regards and best wishes!
Muhammad Aledeh
Integrative reports covering this part are included in the report above. Thank you very much.
Essentially valid and relevant. Also see integrative reports covering this part are included in the report above. Thank you very much.
No additional comments. Integrative reports covering this part are included in the report above. Thank you very much.
This work is timely and essentially relevant to inform professionals, the general public, stakeholders and policymakers in developing the required interventions to support and empower individuals with disabilities. This work covers significant/relevant aspects of community psychology/community mental healthcare service - in essence, integrative mental healthcare.
.
.
.
Based on the evolutions, I recommend that the manuscript be revised before reconsideration for publication.
Your study addresses a significant topic in the field of psychology, contributing to the understanding of how self-compassion levels in adults with disabilities are influenced by gender, disability history, and leisure time physical activity. This regression analysis offers valuable insights. However, there are several areas where the manuscript could be strengthened.
ABSTRACT: In the abstract, please add brief background information in a precise manner, as well as implications and future directions of the study that can be highlighted if possible.
INTRODUCTION: The introduction provides a good overview but could benefit if you consider including more distance studies to support your arguments for the research gap and providing substantial evidence as some of your references are relatively old. You may add some research studies of the last 10 years (2014-2024). It will be a better presentation of the introduction. It can also improve the article and enrich the writing, as well as increase readability.
METHOD: The method of this study relies on convenience sampling to recruit participants, but the justification for this method is insufficient. Please highlight from where the data was collected, the settings, and also the mode of data collection, whether offline or online. Also in the method section, the duration and frequency of the assessment need to be clearly mentioned. How much time it actually took place for the conduction of the assessment need to be clearly mentioned.
RESULTS: The manuscript should focus on a simplified description of "the statistical results" for easier comprehension by the audience, at least in a paragraph.
DISCUSSION: Some practical applications of the study can be highlighted in the discussion section.
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.