Prevalence of Everyday Discrimination and Relation with Wellbeing among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Adults in Australia
, Emily Colonna 1, Roxanne Jones 1, Gilbert C. Gee 2, Naomi Priest 3,4, Rubijayne Cohen 1, David R. Williams 5, Joanne Thandrayen 1, Tom Calma 6,7,8, Raymond Lovett 1 and on behalf of the Mayi Kuwayu Study Team †
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review this important paper. Overall, this is a very well written paper. My comments are minimal, and aim to clarify the paper, and ensure that all findings are easily understood.
- Table 1, mean score, can you clarify the range of the score: I assume that it is 0-5, but this is not specified.
- Table 2, all means are below 0. Is the mean reported in Table 2 on the same scale as Table 1? These means seem quite low, comparatively.
- Figure 1 is difficult to read. I recommend a reconsideration of the format.
- The reference on lines 287-88 is not clear. Is it a new paragraph, or a clarification related to Figure 1?
- Line 314. Punctuation missing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an important and thoughtfully conducted study. The manuscript is comprehensive and well-presented, and I have no major concerns about the findings or the authors’ interpretation thereof. However, in parts the manuscript is rather verbose. Though the journal specifies no word limit, I suggest that a little further editing of the Introduction and Discussion sections for brevity and reduced repetition might enhance readability.
Methods: The Methods section is thorough, succinct and lucid.
Some minor issues:
The source of the remoteness classification (presumably ASGS) ought to be stated and referenced in the main text [line 165].
It should be made clear within the main text [see lines 179-180] that the binary outcome variables have (mostly) been collapsed into binary form for analysis from (mostly) ordinal item response options.
Results:
The title of Table 2 [lines 254-255] could be simplified and made clearer: Firstly, the statistical material is redundant; secondly, it’s not quite correctly expressed that respondents were ‘endorsing ... items’ [as also appears in Results text, line 245].
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
