This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Peer Reviews (226)

Published on in Vol 3, No 1 (2022): Jan-Mar

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/36235, first published .
Peer Review of “Measuring Integrated Novel Dimensions in Neurodevelopmental and Stress-Related Mental Disorders (MIND-SET): Protocol for a Cross-sectional Comorbidity Study From a Research Domain Criteria Perspective”

Peer Review of “Measuring Integrated Novel Dimensions in Neurodevelopmental and Stress-Related Mental Disorders (MIND-SET): Protocol for a Cross-sectional Comorbidity Study From a Research Domain Criteria Perspective”

Peer Review of “Measuring Integrated Novel Dimensions in Neurodevelopmental and Stress-Related Mental Disorders (MIND-SET): Protocol for a Cross-sectional Comorbidity Study From a Research Domain Criteria Perspective”

Authors of this article:

Emma Palmer1 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by (1) Tweetations (2) Metrics

    Peer-Review Report


    This is a peer-review report submitted for the paper “Measuring Integrated Novel Dimensions in Neurodevelopmental and Stress-Related Mental Disorders (MIND-SET): Protocol for a Cross-sectional Comorbidity Study From a Research Domain Criteria Perspective.”


    General Comments

    This paper [1] is interesting and sets the stage for a pretty comprehensive study.

    Specific Comments

    Major Comments
    1. The background is very long, and some spaces are redundant, talking about the overlap of symptoms in comorbidities. Some of this may be better in a discussion—there is a lot of information here.
    2. There are a lot of definitive/overly positive statements (eg, “...the RDoC [Research Domain Criteria] frameworks fits ideally...” “...we can disentangle.” Consider rewording as this is a fairly small sample size in a singular area of the world.
    3. Adjust the title so it is clear that this is a description of methods.
    4. Anticipated limitations should be included (eg, single-center, nondiverse population, or the number of data points making differentiation challenging).
    Minor Comments
    1. Change addiction disorder to substance use disorder
    2. Provide a citation for the first line about the acceptance of psychiatric comorbidities as common
    3. Define abbreviations upon first use (eg, DSM-5)
    4. Consider changing “healthy” to “neurotypical.” Personality traits were examined too, but there is not a lot of rationale here regarding overlap. I agree it is important to review this too, but this needs to be discussed.
    5. Is microbiome included at the very end as a data point?

    It appears that the recommended revisions have been addressed, and I have no additional comments

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    1. van Eijndhoven P, Collard R, Vrijsen J, Geurts DE, Vasquez AA, Schellekens A, et al. Measuring Integrated Novel Dimensions in Neurodevelopmental and Stress-Related Mental Disorders (MIND-SET): protocol for a cross-sectional comorbidity study from a Research Domain Criteria perspective. JMIRx Med 2022;3(1):e31269 [FREE Full text]

    ‎
    RDoC: Research Domain Criteria

    Edited by E Meinert; This is a non–peer-reviewed article. submitted 06.01.22; accepted 06.01.22; published 29.03.22

    Copyright

    ©Emma Palmer. Originally published in JMIRx Med (https://med.jmirx.org), 29.03.2022.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIRx Med, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://med.jmirx.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.