Comments on abstract, title, references

● Is the aim clear? The researchers did not mention the objectives of the study in detail and clarity in the structure of the abstract. ● Is it clear what the study found and how they did it? What the study came up with was clear, and it was through studying community awareness of this virus and defining the gap for community knowledge about the disease ● Is the title informative and relevant? The title was a question submitted by researchers that included information about the disease and the studied group. They were successful in formulating the title of the research

● Are the references: ● Relevant? The researchers relied on references on the core of the topic as well as recent ● Recent? yes recent ● Referenced correctly? ● Are appropriate key studies included?

Comments on introduction/background

● Is it clear what is already known about this topic? The researchers touched on the most accurate particles of the topic regarding the disease, the pathogen, its methods of spread, and the carrier host, but in my view, the researchers did not refer to previous studies on the awareness of the studied societies on the topic of the research presented in detail. It was supposed to include studies on this particular point. ● Is the research question clearly outlined? The research question did not specify clearly, the researchers provided details of the disease without specifying the research questions ● Is the research question justified given what is already known about the topic? In fact, questions were not clearly defined. The researchers included only goals related to how to achieve the possibility of filling knowledge gaps in the research topic. Therefore, researchers must define logical questions on the topic of research and link these questions to what is already known from studies that dealt with the most important points raised.

Comments on methodology

● Is the process of subject selection clear? Yes, somewhat clear, The researcher's choice of samples is limited to students who are injured during work in the hospital, and this contains a kind of bias in favour of the research topic ... The researcher had to include other groups of society or students from other collages in order to obtain an objective balance and comparison in the search results ● Are the variables defined and measured appropriately? The variables in this study were clear, well-measured, and transparent ● Are the study methods valid and reliable? The validity of the questionnaire that represents the measures and procedure of this study was reviewed and proved its validity. the reliability was be found good calculated ● Is there enough detail in order to replicate the study? yes there is more of details can be used again in future

Comments on data and results

● Is the data presented in an appropriate way? ● Demographic data are well presented, and the questionnaire questions are well presented ... But the researcher had to display the correct answers to these questions with the questions in the table so that other researchers can benefit from the structure of the questionnaire. ● Tables and figures relevant and clearly presented? The tables are relevant and well presented ● Appropriate units, rounding, and the number of decimals? all of the units, rounding, and number of decimals are clearly and appropriate for the variables. ● Titles, columns, and rows labelled correctly and clearly? All of the titles, columns, and rows are labelled clearly, correctly and appropriately to the table.

● Categories grouped appropriately? Categories are well grouped within the table ● Does the text in the results add to the data or is it repetitive? The researchers presented their results well, adding the data and the presented results an appropriate presentation ● Are you clear about what is a statistically significant result? From my experience in this type of survey research, I find that the statistics for the submitted evidence are clear and understandable. The researcher has used the value of P-value to determine the statistical and non-statistical significant differences and this type of statistics is the case in this type of research. ● Are you clear about what is a practically meaningful result? yes there is a clear vision about the practically meaningful result

Comments on discussion and conclusions

● Are the results discussed from multiple angles and placed into context without being overinterpreted? The researchers discussed their results from all angles, which are represented by questionnaire questions well and without excessive interpretation. ● Do the conclusions answer the aims of the study? The research findings were successful in answering the objectives set by the researchers. ● Are the conclusions supported by references or results? In the conclusions section, the researchers were limited to mentioning what their results concluded and were not supported by previous references or results, and this is from my point of view and my previous experience, natural and correct because most of the research is limited only to the conclusions of their research without supporting it with other references. ● Are the limitations of the study fatal or are they opportunities to inform future research? The study limits did not include fatal flaws, but rather an opportunity to inform future research of increasing the size of the samples included in the study.

full review

*Overall statement or summary of the article and its findings in your own words:

The article is well written scientifically and practically, except for some small details that researchers can modify

*Overall strengths of the article and what impact it might have in your field:

One of the most important strengths is the article is well written and dealt with very sensitive topics which are emerging viruses and their impact on community health, and one of the most important strengths in this research is measuring the knowledge and awareness of societies about these viruses in addition to that this type of research raises the participants of the study on The points on the topic of research and take it seriously...

*Specific comments on weaknesses of the article and what could be done to improve it:

The article does not need to be rewritten or re-analyzed, just mention the objectives in detail in the introduction