Write a comment

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Somewhat appropriate

Instrument appears adapted but the paper doesn’t document content/construct validation beyond Cronbach’s alpha (e.g., expert review, pilot testing, factor analysis); sampling uses stratified random selection and email recruitment but lacks detail on response rate/non-response bias; cross-sectional design limits causal inference; use of Google Forms is fine but data-quality controls aren’t described (e.g., attention checks).

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Somewhat supported

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Neither appropriate and clear nor inappropriate and unclear

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Somewhat clearly

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Moderately likely

Would it benefit from language editing?

Yes

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, but it needs to be improved

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, after minor changes

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.