The Implementation of the Askisi-SD Neuropsychological Web-Based Screener: A Battery of Tasks for Screening Cognitive and Spelling Deficits of Children

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I consider that the manuscript is clear, relevant to the field and presented in a well-structured manner. Regarding the references cited, I recommend using the APA norms, most of them are not recent publications (from the last 5 years) and are relevant. The manuscript is scientifically sound and the design has allowed testing the hypothesis. The results of the manuscript according to the details provided are appropriate. Figures and tables are adequate. They show the data in an adequate way to interpret and understand the purpose of the research work. Data are interpreted appropriately and consistently. Conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. Finally, I recommend improving the discussion with citations of authors that support the findings they achieved.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments, which have significantly contributed to the improvement of our manuscript. You will find our responses both in the comment section and within the text, highlighted in red for clarity.

"Finally, I recommend improving the discussion with citations of authors that support the findings they achieved".

We have implemented the revisions you recommended, which are now reflected in Page 13, lines 521–533, and Page 14, lines 567–580.

Furthermore, the Discussion section has been enriched with additional citations and references to reinforce the interpretation of our findings and to enhance the overall scholarly rigor of the manuscript.

We would like once again to express our appreciation for your detailed and thoughtful review. Your insightful comments have played an essential role in enhancing both the clarity and scientific depth of our manuscript. We are grateful for your time and effort, and we believe your suggestions have substantially improved the overall quality of our work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well prepared, without serious shortcomings. We can just ask some important questions regardin the efficiency of creating the new application/screener: Are there any similar tools available in Greek language? Would be any of the simiar tools available in other languages convenient for adaptation to the Greek language purposes?, etc. In any case, although we do not see any surprise in the results and conclusions, the contribution is worth publishing...

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments, which have significantly contributed to the improvement of our manuscript. You will find our responses both in the comment section and within the text, highlighted in red for clarity.

"We can just ask some important questions regarding the efficiency of creating the new application/screener: Are there any similar tools available in Greek language"?

We have incorporated the improvements you suggested at page 6 lines 282-286

 "Would be any of the similar tools available in other languages convenient for adaptation to the Greek language purposes?, etc."

Considering the unique aspects of the Greek language, which features a historical orthography, this distinctiveness presents challenges that prevent the straightforward translation of internationally utilized screening software into Greek. Consequently, specialized adaptations are necessary to ensure the effectiveness and cultural relevance of these tools within the Greek context. As it is referred in page 15 lines 624-632.

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and constructive suggestions. Your careful reading and recommendations have helped us refine key aspects of the manuscript and strengthen its scientific foundation. We are truly thankful for your contribution to the development and improvement of this study.