Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Preferred problem solving and decision -making role in fertility treatment among women 
following an unsuccessful in vitro fertilization cycle  
   
Version: 1 Date: 19 Oct 2019  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several 
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)  
Yes - there is a clear objective  
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rig or to 
allow confidence in the results?  
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately  
 
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?  
Not sure - I am not able to assess the statistics in this study  
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable  
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently 
for you to now recommend the work as a tec hnically sound contribution? If not, can further 
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
Yes - current version is technically sound  
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: Yes, the authors have addressed all three of my suggestions for 
revision.  They have: 1) included a helpful background paragraph in the Introduction, explaining 
why infertility is stressful and stigmatizing for Chinese couples in Hong Kong; 2) explained 
clearly why the analysis of religion was conducted as either presen t or absent; and 3) added more 
up-to-date references on male infertility in the Discussion section.  With English -language 
copyediting, this manuscript is ready for submission.  
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
NA 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
NA 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please spec ify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
  
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects req uire further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
  
Declaration of competin g interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially fr om the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents  relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for t hese reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creat ive Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for  completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid re gardless of the reviewer 
recommendation.  
 
 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for public ation, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/b y/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal