Reviewer’s report
Title: Colorectal cancer screening behaviors of general surgeons and first-degree family members: a
survey-based study
Version: 0 Date: 13 Jun 2019
Reviewer: Reviewer 2
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is  there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (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 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?
Not sure - I am not able to assess the statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION  -  Is  the  current  interpretation/discussion  of  the  results  reasonable  and  not
overstated?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically sound? If
not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
No - manuscript has some fundamental flaw(s)
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: This was a  descriptive survey of surgeons at a conference in Turkey, with
regards  to  their  colorectal  cancer  (CRC) screening behaviours. The survey appears  to have  been
undertaken okay although I was left wondering about the 'point' of the paper. Older surgeons seemed to
have higher screening behaviours than younger surgeons, and those who do more CRC surgery have
higher screening than those with lower screening rates. Overall, surgeons don't seem to have a much
higher screening rate than the general population. The authors do not explain why they think these
results are useful, significant or innovative.
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
The study was based in Turkey, but much of the literature in both the Background and Discussion was
US based. Whilst its fine to cite international literature, I would have thought that citing literature from
similar types of countries would have been more meaningful - there is certainly UK and European
literature on CRC screening which doesn't appear in the paper. On page 4, there is a very short
statement about undertaking data collection with surgeons, but no justification as to why this was the
case.  It's left rather implied in the paper - surgeons see a lot of CRC and therefore one would expect/
hope that they get screened themselves - but the authors need to explain their logic in more detail. The
Methods are okay - rather descriptive but it was a relatively simple non-probabilistic survey and the
Results  were  very  descriptive.  The  Discussion  was  simply  not  appropriate.  The  first  two  long
paragraphs are redundant - they do not 'discuss' the results of the study in any way - they just describe
CRC and the screening process.  If required at all for the readership of the journal, that would be better
in the Introduction to the paper. The authors then attempt to compare their findings with a very small
number of other papers, mainly from the US. There is no real 'discussion' of the findings, their
significance or meaning. There are no attempts made at identifying key implications from the paper
either - what should people 'do' with your findings?
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
No
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you 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 recommend additional statistical review
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
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.
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 under 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
Reviewer’s report
Title: Colorectal cancer screening behaviors of general surgeons and first-degree family members: a
survey-based study
Version: 0 Date: 13 Jun 2019
Reviewer: Reviewer 2
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is  there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (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 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?
Not sure - I am not able to assess the statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION  -  Is  the  current  interpretation/discussion  of  the  results  reasonable  and  not
overstated?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically sound? If
not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
No - manuscript has some fundamental flaw(s)
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: This was a  descriptive survey of surgeons at a conference in Turkey, with
regards  to  their  colorectal  cancer  (CRC) screening behaviours. The survey appears  to have  been
undertaken okay although I was left wondering about the 'point' of the paper. Older surgeons seemed to
have higher screening behaviours than younger surgeons, and those who do more CRC surgery have
higher screening than those with lower screening rates. Overall, surgeons don't seem to have a much
higher screening rate than the general population. The authors do not explain why they think these
results are useful, significant or innovative.
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
The study was based in Turkey, but much of the literature in both the Background and Discussion was
US based. Whilst its fine to cite international literature, I would have thought that citing literature from
similar types of countries would have been more meaningful - there is certainly UK and European
literature on CRC screening which doesn't appear in the paper. On page 4, there is a very short
statement about undertaking data collection with surgeons, but no justification as to why this was the
case.  It's left rather implied in the paper - surgeons see a lot of CRC and therefore one would expect/
hope that they get screened themselves - but the authors need to explain their logic in more detail. The
Methods are okay - rather descriptive but it was a relatively simple non-probabilistic survey and the
Results  were  very  descriptive.  The  Discussion  was  simply  not  appropriate.  The  first  two  long
paragraphs are redundant - they do not 'discuss' the results of the study in any way - they just describe
CRC and the screening process.  If required at all for the readership of the journal, that would be better
in the Introduction to the paper. The authors then attempt to compare their findings with a very small
number of other papers, mainly from the US. There is no real 'discussion' of the findings, their
significance or meaning. There are no attempts made at identifying key implications from the paper
either - what should people 'do' with your findings?
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
No
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you 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 recommend additional statistical review
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
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.
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 under 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
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer’s report
Title: Colorectal cancer screening behaviors of general surgeons and first-degree family members: a
survey-based study
Version: 0 Date: 13 Jun 2019
Reviewer: Reviewer 2
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is  there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (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 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?
Not sure - I am not able to assess the statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION  -  Is  the  current  interpretation/discussion  of  the  results  reasonable  and  not
overstated?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically sound? If
not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
No - manuscript has some fundamental flaw(s)
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: This was a  descriptive survey of surgeons at a conference in Turkey, with
regards  to  their  colorectal  cancer  (CRC) screening behaviours. The survey appears  to have  been
undertaken okay although I was left wondering about the 'point' of the paper. Older surgeons seemed to
have higher screening behaviours than younger surgeons, and those who do more CRC surgery have
higher screening than those with lower screening rates. Overall, surgeons don't seem to have a much
higher screening rate than the general population. The authors do not explain why they think these
results are useful, significant or innovative.
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
The study was based in Turkey, but much of the literature in both the Background and Discussion was
US based. Whilst its fine to cite international literature, I would have thought that citing literature from
similar types of countries would have been more meaningful - there is certainly UK and European
literature on CRC screening which doesn't appear in the paper. On page 4, there is a very short
statement about undertaking data collection with surgeons, but no justification as to why this was the
case.  It's left rather implied in the paper - surgeons see a lot of CRC and therefore one would expect/
hope that they get screened themselves - but the authors need to explain their logic in more detail. The
Methods are okay - rather descriptive but it was a relatively simple non-probabilistic survey and the
Results  were  very  descriptive.  The  Discussion  was  simply  not  appropriate.  The  first  two  long
paragraphs are redundant - they do not 'discuss' the results of the study in any way - they just describe
CRC and the screening process.  If required at all for the readership of the journal, that would be better
in the Introduction to the paper. The authors then attempt to compare their findings with a very small
number of other papers, mainly from the US. There is no real 'discussion' of the findings, their
significance or meaning. There are no attempts made at identifying key implications from the paper
either - what should people 'do' with your findings?
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
No
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you 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 recommend additional statistical review
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
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.
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 under 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
assistant