A Participatory Rural Action Approach for Developing Strategies to Mitigate Substance Use Among Secondary School Students in Limpopo Province, South Africa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I fully appreciate Participatory Action Research approach, and the experiences from South Africa rural community may arouse readers' interest and find application in other countries. The presented text meets the requirements of a well-presented protocol. Its quality is also improved by both figures and the table with definitions.

I only have a few minor comments, including:

• I suggest leaving only Limpopo Province, South Africa in the title, as the name of the municipality is too specific. Readers from around the world may not be familiar with the geography, so it would be helpful to explain where this province is located.
• You can add a section on how to present the protocol, announcing each part. It is worth noting if this presentation is consistent (at least partially) with the SPIRIT EQUATOR Network guidelines (https://www.equator-network.org), even though this is not a clinical trial. In such a chapter on presentation methods, it is only worth mentioning what the authors draw attention to, quoting the names of the sections.
• As I mentioned, providing definitions improves the quality of the study. Here, I would like to point out an error in the numbering (section 1.1 appears twice also together with the table). Only the title Table 1 should remain, and it is worth adding an introductory sentence to the table with a reference to it, for example: The table below summarises the most important definitions (Table 1).
• The numbering of sections is consistent, with the specification using bullet points. I suggest sticking to this and not introducing additional identical numbering with numerals (lines 338+).
• The text ends with a section entitled Anticipated Implications; perhaps the word conclusions could be added to this title. I also feel that there should be an earlier section on limitations that the authors are already aware of.  The conclusion contained in the main text must be consistent with the abstract.
• According to the instructions for authors, references should be cited in the text according to their numbers in the order of citation. However, a system like APA has been used, with a list of references in alphabetical order.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 – Revised Manuscript

Title: A Participatory Rural Action Approach for Developing Strategies to Mitigate Substance Use among Secondary School Students in Limpopo Province, South Africa

Date: 14 November 2025

Manuscript ID:adolescents-3971364

Summary
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your valuable feedback. Please find our detailed responses below, with all corresponding corrections highlighted in yellow in the resubmitted files. We have addressed all points raised and have highlighted the revisions in the manuscript (using yellow highlight) for ease of review.

 Point-by-Point Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1

I suggest leaving only Limpopo Province, South Africa, in the title, as the name of the municipality is too specific. Readers from around the world may not be familiar with the geography, so it would be helpful to explain the location of this province.

Response

The title has been revised to remove the specific municipality name. The revised title is: A Participatory Rural Action Approach for Developing Strategies to Mitigate Substance Use among Secondary School Students in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Title updated on page 1.

A brief explanation of the geographic location of Limpopo Province, including its borders and context within South Africa, has been added to Section 2.2, Study Setting and Population. See page 10, line 271-279

Comment 2

You can add a section on how to present the protocol, announcing each part. It is worth noting if this presentation is consistent (at least partially) with the SPIRIT EQUATOR Network guidelines (https://www.equator-network.org), even though this is not a clinical trial. In such a chapter on presentation methods, it is only worth mentioning what the authors draw attention to, quoting the names of the sections.

Response

A new section, '1.5 Protocol Presentation,' has been added to the Introduction. This section outlines the structure of the protocol, identifies the key components by name, and explicitly states that the presentation aligns with the principles of the SPIRIT and EQUATOR Network guidelines for transparency and rigor. See p. 6, line 181-207 of the revised version.

Comment 3

As I mentioned, providing definitions improves the quality of the study. Here, I would like to point out an error in the numbering (section 1.1 appears twice, also together with the table) should remain, and it is worth adding an introductory sentence to the table with a reference to it, for example: The table below summarises the most important definitions (Table 1)

Response

 The table has been revised. The original section numbering before the table has been removed, and an appropriate introductory sentence has been added immediately preceding Table 1. See page 3, lines 98-100.

Comment 4

The numbering of sections is consistent, with the specification using bullet points. I suggest sticking to this and not introducing additional identical numbering with numerals (lines 338+).

Response

Duplicate numbering has been corrected, and consistent bullet points retained.

Comment 5

The text ends with a section entitled Anticipated Implications; perhaps the word conclusions could be added to this title. I also feel that there should be an earlier section on limitations that the authors are already aware of.  The conclusion contained in the main text must be consistent with the abstract.

Response

We have cross-checked the Abstract and the Conclusion to ensure consistency in the study's overall message, key findings, and anticipated impact. see page 1, line 24-28

The final section title has been revised to 9. Anticipated Implications and Conclusion. See page 13, line 431

Comment 6

I also feel that there should be an earlier section on limitations that the authors are already aware of

Response

A new section, 8. Limitations have been created immediately before the Conclusion to address potential limitations inherent in the study protocol. See page 12, lines 426-429

Comment 7

According to the instructions for authors, references should be cited in the text according to their numbers in the order of citation. However, a system like APA has been used, with a list of references in alphabetical order.

Response

All references have been reformatted to numbered style in ascending order of appearance.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The quality of the paper has been much improved, truly said, this is another paper. The aim is much clearer andf the structure is better organized. The references still have not been edited in the appropriate way.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 – Revised Manuscript

Title: A Participatory Rural Action Approach for Developing Strategies to Mitigate Substance Use among Secondary School Students in Limpopo Province, South Africa

Date: 14 November 2025

Manuscript ID:adolescents-3971364

Summary

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your valuable feedback. Please find our detailed responses below, with all corresponding corrections highlighted in yellow in the resubmitted files. We have addressed all points raised and have highlighted the revisions in the manuscript (using yellow highlight) for ease of review.

 Point-by-Point Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment l

The quality of the paper has been much improved; truly said, this is another paper. The aim is much clearer, and the structure is better organized. The references still have not been edited in the appropriate way.

Response

 We sincerely thank you for this positive and encouraging feedback. All references have been reformatted to numbered style in ascending order of appearance. The reference formatting has been comprehensively corrected throughout the entire manuscript to follow the required numbered, sequential bracket style.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The assumptions for the planned qualitative research have been prepared with exceptional care. The reader may even get lost in the excess of details. The quality of the protocol description would be significantly improved by project phase diagrams, preferably set in time.

I have the most serious reservation about the structure of the work. The article type is correctly given as ‘study protocol’, but the individual parts correspond to the presentation of the research results and do not fit in with the presentation of the protocol. As a result, there is a clear disproportion between the volume of these parts. The last three are disproportionately short. It seems as if the authors wanted to meet the requirement to include them. It is difficult to discuss the protocol description in detail.

The guidelines for authors contain a detailed list of the types of papers published in various MDPI journals. Below is a quote from the section on protocols, which specifies the required structure: Introduction, Experimental Design, Materials and Equipment, Detailed Procedure, and Expected Results.

„Protocols provide a detailed step-by-step description of a method. They should be proven to be robust and reproducible and should accompany a previously published article that uses this method. Any materials and equipment used should be explicitly listed. Conditions, quantities, concentrations, etc., should be given. Critical timepoints and steps, as well as warnings, should be emphasized in the text. The structure should include an Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Experimental Design, Materials and Equipment, Detailed Procedure, and Expected Results.”

As for other comments, I suggest emphasising the sample selection strategies and eligibility criteria in the context of the definition of psychoactive substance use. The sample is rather small, but typical for qualitative data. It is unclear whether this group refers to any episodes of substance use or symptoms of addiction. There is mention of differences in the age of students, but no information is provided on the acceptable age range or the selection of quotas by age/gender group. Nor is there any information on the planned duration and dates of this study.

The scoring system for paper required in the review does not match the protocol description. The rating “not applicable” means that it is impossible to give a rating, not that the quality is extremely poor.

I was a little surprised using the word learners. The word learner usually is associated with the teaching process, not an age group. The term students is used much more often, which can refer also to secondary school, not necessarily university level.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below, along with the corresponding corrections highlighted in green in track changes in the resubmitted files.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, the title need to be reconsidered. This is not the best choice to start with a title full of grammar and stylistic failures!

Abstract: We can see the same problems. I am afraid the paper has not been checked and proofread before submission. There are only generalizations in the abstract without a logical order and concrete description of results.

Introduction: Here the authors provide statistical data and a short description of articipatory Action Research. However, the sentenes do not relate logically, e.g., lines 49-53.

Still, later a lot of sentences do not match, e.g., Development is defined as something new, which will be started or which will happen; an occurrence involving a new phase in changing a circumstance or the course of change, i.e., it has to do with something positive or desirable (Bakibinga-Gaswaga, 2019). etc.

I am not sure the paper has been developed for publishing, more for a presentation in school.

The main findings of the study are the following:

3. Results
The findings of the study will highlight participants' descriptions of factors contributing to substance use and the proposed strategies to mitigate substance use. The results will be organized into themes and subthemes, with participant quotations supporting the findings.

4. Discussion
The study protocol aims to bring about a participatory rural action approach to develop strategies to mitigate substance use amongst the learners of rural secondary schools in Collins Chabane Municipality, Limpopo province. Strategies are significant because they might minimize the chaotic zone where learners are going to kill each other and educators in front of other learners, and might also reduce school dropout, crime, and poverty, which in turn affects the economy of the country

5. Conclusions
The planned research study protocol will help in understanding the experience of parents and learners using substances in Limpopo province. The information obtained will lead to the development of strategies to mitigate the use of substances in selected secondary schools. This will reduce the occurrence of disruptive behaviors as well as school dropouts. Strategy development will be merged as an intervention to minimize substance use amongst learners at selected secondary schools.

I can assume that it is an exciting project but this material is not for publishing.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I am sorry to say but it is really poor and sloppy.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments. Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf