Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: The role of social media for persons affected by infertility  
 
Version: 0 Date: 23 Feb 2020  
 
Reviewer: Senem Arda Düz  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Dear Author;  
I reviewed the manuscript and I have so me recommendations mentioned below:  
-It should be better to add negative and positive experiences in results section of the abstract.  
-It is not necessary to write the 'aim of the study' under a new title, it should be explained at the 
end of background se ction.  
-What are the scientific basis of the questions that posed to the participants?  
-There should be evidence based positive and negative experiences, for example; in the 
manuscript you mentioned that the women recieved invaluable information regarding fertility 
treatments. How can we know that the information, the women recieved from the social media is 
true?  
-The title 'Methodological considerations' in the discussion section is unnecessary, it should be 
removed.  
-It would be better to add the gravida,  parity, abortus, live birth, obstetrical history and the 
duration of infertility of the participants.  
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify w hich 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 manuscript or would y ou recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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  
financi ally 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 organiz ation 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 th e above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare tha t I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will  be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, 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 unde r an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal