Reviewer’s report
Title: 
A comparison of the relationship between parental efficacy and social
support systems of single teen mothers across different family forms in South
African low socioeconomic communities
Version: 
0 
Date: 
19 Sep 2020
Reviewer's report:
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than uploading
your report as an attachment. Please only upload as attachments annotated
versions of manuscripts, graphs, supporting materials or other aspects of your
report which cannot be included in a text format.
Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to the authors.
The results of the review are as follows.
Article: A comparison of the relationship between parental efficacy and social
support systems of single teen mothers across different family forms
Abstract: First of all, good research benefits: It is a matter of young pregnant
women. But the following points need to be corrected.
Abstract: In the subject, the name of the country should be written.
Background: It's too long.
Keywords: The number of keywords is between 3 and 6, and is taken from the
research topic.
Conclusion: Write more briefly in the abstract and avoid duplication.
Introduction: At the end of the introduction, the importance and necessity of the
issue are insufficient. It Be corrected.
Method: Study design should be used instead of a research design.
The study community and sample be used instead. Sample and Sampling.
First, you did not specify the population and then the sampling method, and then
specify the reasons for the number of samples. Briefly describe the entry and exit
criteria. Shorten the method from the beginning of the text and correct
unnecessary explanations. The main part of the method is the tools studied. The
following corrections must be made: Who made the questionnaire and what year
it was. The number of questions of the questionnaire, scoring, validity, and
reliability of the questionnaire should be written by the manufacturer with
mentioning the source. Has the questionnaire calculated its psychometric
properties (validity, reliability) in the study country (South Africa)? If done, cite
the source. Therefore, the Validity of page 10, the Reliability page 11, and Table
1-1 should be deleted.
Measurement questionnaire: The main part of the method is the tools studied.
The following corrections must be made: For both questionnaires
Social Provisions Scale) SPSD) and Parenting Sense of Competence Scale
(PSOC)
Who made the questionnaire and what year it was? The number of questions of
the questionnaire, scoring, validity, and reliability of the questionnaire should be
written by the manufacturer with mentioning the source. Has the questionnaire
calculated its psychometric properties (validity, reliability) in the study country
(South Africa)? If done, cite the source. Therefore, the Validity of page 10, the
Reliability page 11, and Table 1-1 should be deleted.
Ethics committee: The code of research ethics should be written from an
academic center with a date.
Results: There are too many tables. Some are repetitive Remove lines in tables.
Discuss Remove duplicate parts similar to the results.: Have similar articles been
researched? Determine whether it is consistent or inconsistent with the results of
this study.
Conclusion: Conclusions should be concise and taken from the research results.
And be reviewed.
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
Yes
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.
no declaration of 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?
Yes
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