Reviewer’ s report
Title: Factors affecting self-rated health of immigrant women married to native men and raising
children in South Korea: A cross-sectional study
Version: 2Date: 29 Jul 2020
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?Not sure - key details are missing from the manuscript
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can furtherrevisions be made to make the work technically sound?Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have made substantial changes to the manuscript, which
as a result, is now much clearer. There are, however, still a few issues that are unclear
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The general premise of the article is still somewhat unclear to me. The authors argue thatimmigrant women married to non-immigrant men may face health issues. I assume that the authorscontend that immigrant women have poorer health that non-immigrant women. That is, comparedto the general population, immigrant women have more health issues and this may be due to
acculturation processes and discrimination. That all seems like a decent argument and something
that's worthy of investigation, but I see no comparisons made to the general population. Lacking
such comparisons, the results about immigrant women's health become somewhat meaninglessbecause there's no telling if their health status has anything to do with the fact they're immigrants. Iconcede that the subgroup analyses that indicate health differences as a function of country oforigin are interesting and may indicate that their health status IS connected to their immigrantstatus. Ditto the results that concern experienced discrimination. However, these results would bethat much more powerful and meaningful if there was a comparison to the general population andyou could more or less conclusively say that immigrants face different health concerns than non-immigrants. I'm sure that this is indeed the case, but it doesn't appear that any analyses to this end
were conducted. On a similar note, there is not information about the discrimination measure used.
Did this measure tap discrimination in general? Gender-based discrimination? Ethnicity-baseddiscrimination? This needs to be made clear. If I missed any of these details in the manuscript I doof course apologize, but I don't think that I did. These are the major limitations to this paper.ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:Nothing really beyond what I've already noted above."
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 registeredat Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review and update your profile as per yoursettings and their policy. If you are not registered with Publons, you will receive an email fromthem asking you to register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your newprofile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata for the benefit ofPublons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the sensitivity of such information. Forexample, 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
NoDeclaration 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 thismanuscript, 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.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer hasagreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution Licenseattributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within aspecified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewerrecommendation.
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 manu-script is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the publishedreport have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be published.Ifyou are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial office before completingthe review.If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note you mustdecide whether to include your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision wheneverprompted. 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?
NoAre the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?NoIs the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?NoIs the presentation of the work clear?No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free from apparent
manipulation?
Yes