Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Client perceptions of the BreastScreen Australia remote radiology
assessment model
Version: 
1 
Date: 
02 Sep 2020
Reviewer's report:
- The necessity and innovation of the article should be presented to the
introduction.
- More suitable title should be selected for the article. 
- It is suggested to present the structure of the article at the end of the
introduction.
- 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.
- 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.
- A flowchart should be added to the article to show the research methodology.
- Sections and sub-sections should be numbered in order.
- More suitable title should be selected for the table 1 instead of "Demographic
characteristics of participating clients".
- Following, you will find some new related references which should be added to
literature review:
Tipaldi et al. How to Manage the COVID-19 Diffusion in the Angiography
Suite: Experiences and Results of an Italian Interventional Radiology Unit;
Mavrogiorgou et al. Internet of Medical Things (IoMT): Acquiring and
Transforming Data into HL7 FHIR through 5G Network Slicing;
Zare, H. Effects of Salvia Officinalis Extract on the Breast Cancer Cell Line.
- Page 9: the following paragraph is unclear, so please reorganize that:
"Overwhelmingly, clients were satisfied based on their positive interactions with
staff members and the explanations of the care that they were provided.
Interactions commonly related to the friendly, helpful, comforting,
compassionate and professional characteristics of the service staff: "The staff
were so lovely and caring and explained everything that was happening or going
to happen." (Client 103, RA2)."
- 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 upon publication of the manuscript. 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?
Yes
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?
Yes