Assessment of Monkeypox (MPOX) Knowledge and Vaccination Intention among Health and Life Sciences Students in Algeria: A Cross-Sectional Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, congratulations on the successful submission of the manuscript.
The manuscript appears to be of high quality and skillfully executed. However, I recommend incorporating or providing more details on several aspects of the methodology, such as:
1. How did you obtain your sample population? Is there any specific group or institution?
2. What was the sample size for this study? Is this a case of convenience sampling?
Author Response
See attached file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments
The topic is interesting and has value in exploring the level of knowledge about monkeypox.
However, I consider that it is important to have had a universe to know more or less what the percentage of participants who responded to the survey was. We know that 202 responded, but we do not know what percentage this group corresponds to.
On the other hand, since it is a Google from survey, this adds some biases. It is not known who actually answers the survey sent. How it was controlled that the person who should actually answer actually answered. Then, how to know if those who responded did not have information at hand to answer some questions. If it had been in person, this aspect would have been controlled. I suppose they did this for budget reasons or to be able to reach as many people as possible, but it has important limitations.
Also, it is important to know if the survey was validated since it is being measured. No type of validation is mentioned in the methodology. This is important and that they are evaluating knowledge and this implies some dimensions that are important to standardize in order to be able to compare the responses between participants. It is necessary to validate the tradition since there are several languages involved, it is necessary to know if the translation will be the same for all. Validation of internal consistency (correlation between questions and dimensions) and evaluation of constructs (Factor Analysis) is required to allow us to understand in what percentage this instrument measures explains the variability of the responses, as well as a process of standardization of the responses.
Given the above, the results lose value or meaning since there is no prior process that guarantees a valid instrument.
Author Response
See attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a very interesting paper investigating the knowledge investigated the knowledge on Monkeypox and the related intention to be vaccinated among Algerian studies. The topic is very interesting and the evidence is limited.
I have two major comments.
The sample is convenient and the authors frankly have acknowledged this limitation in the discussion section. Nevertheless, there is space for improvement regarding statistical analysis. For example I have noted (Table 3) three statistically significant variables in the univariable analysis of knowledge level. A multivariate analysis could be performed, and this may upgrade the overall quality of the manuscript.
Last, the response rate should be included in abstract and results.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing required.
Author Response
See attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComment
The researchers made efforts to respond to the suggestions, as well as to incorporate some corrections in the methodological part of the study.
Table 3 establishes an OR for the specialty in veterinary sciences of 6,714 (1,226-36,766). It is important to address why the confidence interval is so wide. This results in inaccuracy. A possible explanation could be that disaggregating the sample, in this case by specialty, the sample size is low. But it would be important to include some comment on it. Still, the confidence intervals could go with lower decimal places and reduce them to 1 or two.
I don't have any further comments on that.
Best regards
Author Response
We want to express our sincere gratitude to Reviewer #2 for the time dedicated to the review and the comprehensive, profound, and constructive remarks, which allowed us to improve the quality of our manuscript. Below you will find responses to your comments:
The researchers made efforts to respond to the suggestions, as well as to incorporate some corrections in the methodological part of the study.
Table 3 establishes an OR for the specialty in veterinary sciences of 6,714 (1,226-36,766). It is important to address why the confidence interval is so wide. This results in inaccuracy. A possible explanation could be that disaggregating the sample, in this case by specialty, the sample size is low. But it would be important to include some comment on it. Still, the confidence intervals could go with lower decimal places and reduce them to 1 or two.
Thank you for this interesting comment.
As suggested, the decimals of CI were reduced to 2 in table 3 and 4.
Regarding, OR for veterinary students, this point was explained and discussed in lines 282-288.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll my concerns were adequately addressed by the authors.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing required.
Author Response
Thank you for your cmments.
The amnuscript has undergo another English language editing.
