Reviewer’s report
Title: 
The Association of Osteoporosis Knowledge and Beliefs with Preventive
Behaviors in Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Survivors
Version: 
0 
Date: 
09 May 2021
Reviewer's report:
- More suitable title should be selected for the article.
- The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal
results and major conclusions. An abstract is often presented separately from the
article, so it must be able to stand alone.
- It is suggested to present the structure of the article at the end of the
introduction.
- A flowchart should be added to the article to show the research methodology.
- Sections and sub-sections should be numbered in order.
- The necessity and innovation of the article should be presented to the
introduction.
- The major defect of this study is the debate or Argument is not clear stated in
the introduction session. Hence, the contribution is weak in this manuscript. I
would suggest the author to enhance your theoretical discussion and arrives your
debate or argument.
- More suitable title should be selected for the table 2 instead of "Factors
associated with one or more 30-minute strength-training exercises weekly.".
- It is suggested to add articles entitled "Ronco et al. Epidemiologic Evidence for
Association between a High Dietary Acid Load and the Breast Cancer Risk",
"Kosvyra et al. Developing an Integrated Genomic Profile for Cancer Patients
with the Use of NGS Data" and "Buchberger et al. Non-mass Enhancement in
Breast MRI: Characterization with BI-RADS Descriptors and ADC Values" to
the literature review.
- Page 5: the following paragraph is unclear, so please reorganize that:
"Internal consistency for this instrument ranges from 
α
=0.61 (health motivation)
to 0.80 (susceptibility)[22]. Each construct is composed of five items and each
item is scored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). By summing the
scores, the possible total score for each construct ranged from 5-25."
- Much more explanations and interpretations must be added for the results,
which are not enough.
- It is suggested to compare the results of the present research with some similar
studies which is done before.
- Please make sure your conclusions' section underscore the scientific value
added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results, as
indicated previously. Please revise your conclusion part into more details.
Basically, you should enhance your contributions, limitations, underscore the
scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your
findings/results and future study in this session. 
- DOI of the references must be added (you can use "https://crossref.org/").
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
No
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing
interests, considering the following questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that 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.
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
No