Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Cancer prevention in females with and without obesity – Does perceived
and internalised weight bias determine cancer prevention behaviour?
Version: 
2 
Date: 
17 Aug 2022
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?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient
technical rigor to allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
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 minor 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 further revisions be made to make the work technically
sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: I am unclear about this revision, the authors
paraphrased the original issues in a ways deviates from the original intent and in
some cases repeated a response from a prior question without actually answering
the original question
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
The original comments were: 1. Should the title be females instead of women?
Transgender women identity as women but are technically not female. 2.
Was parity taken into consideration? Partner status? Sexual orientation? 3. In the
US the population has some myths and misperceptions about cancer screening;
for example, lesbian women may perceive they do not need Pap tests since they
are not having sex with men; some females perceive they do not need CRC
screening, believing it is only for gay men. 4. I assume Germany has universal
health care and that financial costs are not an issue for obtaining cancer
screening - this is markedly different in the US where low socio econmic status
can inhibit screening. 5. The German cancer screening guidelines differ from the
US on several points and this should be emphasized in the limitations that such
guidelines may differ across other countries as well. 6. One wonders if mobility
issues would impact the ability to receive care? Could morbidly obese females
have difficulty traveling to a clinic? 
In response to these comments 
for #2 the authors note this as #4 and note is it
now a limitation that numbers of pregnancies were not addressed. This exact
same response is given for sexual orientation - a limitation about # of
pregnancies. In response to why they did not assess partner status the the
wording was changed to marital status but the aspect of this as a limitation to the
study was not addressed. In response to the original #5 on country specific
insurance and requirements - the authors did not address this. #6 was not
addressed. 
Most significant is the flaw in collecting information on family
history and the wording "assessed whether someone 
in their close environment
had gyn cancer" does not address the issue. Family history is different that
someone in the close environment and gyn cancer is not the only type of cancer
to be concerned about. The authors did a poor job of responding to the comments
- perhaps there is a language barrier?
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: 
Perhaps the manuscript needs review from a native English speaker and the
reviewers concerns are lost in translation?
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.
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 has agreed to publication of their comments online
under a Creative 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 regardless of the reviewer
recommendation.
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?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes