PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Stacey,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 27 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rana Islamiah Zahroh, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and in Supporting Information files.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

4. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. You should list all authors and all affiliations as per our author instructions and clearly indicate the corresponding author.

5. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

6. Please include a caption for figure 1.

7. Please include a copy of Table 2 which you refer to in your text on page 7.

8. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments:

Editor's comments:

1) Please include the period of the literature search in the abstract. Additionally, clarify the inclusion criteria with respect to study types (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods) within the abstract’s methods section.

2) Please clarify or provide concrete examples of what is meant by "emotional support" to ensure consistent understanding among readers.

3) While the review aims to explore the types, contexts, and effectiveness of online peer support, the findings primarily focus on factors influencing good conduct. Please provide a more comprehensive synthesis that also addresses the types of peer support and their effectiveness, or clarify the scope of the findings accordingly.

4) Add clear subheadings for each methodological component, including: Study Selection, Data Extraction, Critical Appraisal Assessment (currently embedded and unclear, see around line 98).

5) Clearly report if any software tools (e.g., NVivo, Excel) were used during data extraction or analysis.

6) The manuscript reports the use of multiple appraisal tools (e.g., MMAT and others). Since MMAT covers RCTs, quasi-experimental, and qualitative studies, please justify why additional tools were needed despite MMAT’s broad applicability. Please also add critical appraisal results as supplementary files

7) Indicate the number of included studies by methodology (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods) both in narratively in the results section and in the characteristics table.

8) Report the geographic distribution of studies in results section (e.g., number from high-income vs. low- and middle-income countries).

9) Reference all tables and figures appropriately within the text (e.g., Figure 1 is uploaded but not cited).

10) Use descriptive subheadings in the results section to guide readers especially before the findings synthesis section (e.g., “Overview of Included Studies,” “Types of Online Peer Support,” etc.).

11) Ensure findings are consistently supported by appropriate references from the included studies. For example, in lines 187-192, citations should be added to show which included studies support the stated themes or observations.

Please also address the reviewers' comments below.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Congratulations to the authors for their work. This manuscript presents a critical study, but, there are some points that would benefit from further elaboration to enhance the paper's clarity.

1) Methods

a. Please provide a brief explanation of the terms used in the search strategy and include the full search strategy as an appendix.

b. It appears that the authors have included studies with various study designs. Please clarify this in the Methods section.

c. Are there any limitations regarding the publication language or publication year? If so, please specify in the Methods section.

d. How many individuals were involved in the methodological assessment process? Please provide this information in the Methods section.

e. Was any specific software used in synthesizing the data? Additionally, how many individuals were involved in this process?

2) Regarding methodological assessment, most of the included studies were rated as having moderate quality. Could you provide guidance on how readers should interpret the results of this review in terms of the quality of the studies? Please report this in strengths and limitations.

3) Results:

a. The description of the study selection process does not align with the PRISMA diagram. Please address this discrepancy

b. Could you provide further details on the country context of the online peer support? Specifically, was it conducted in high-income countries? If so, please note this as a limitation, as the findings may be more applicable to high-income countries.

c. Please ensure that studies are appropriately cited when reporting their characteristics.

d. In eight studies, online peer support was combined with other interventions. How can we be certain that the observed effectiveness was specifically due to the online peer support and not other interventions?

4) What evidence supports the positive effects of peer support? Did the authors also include results from observational studies to make this determination? Additionally, what criteria were used to assess the effectiveness of peer support?

5) Could you clarify what other types of support are referred to in Table 3?

Reviewer #2: Dear Author,

Your research is highly valuable, and I have a few suggestions that could enhance it.

In the abstract, please state the method more precisely. Clearly indicate the inclusion criteria for the study and mention the databases used.

In the introduction, it is important to clearly articulate the necessity of conducting this research in the final paragraph.

The discussion section could be strengthened. Please make the necessary revisions.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-09522_feedback.docx

Dear Dr. Stacey,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please see the specific points from reviewers at the end of this message.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 05 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rana Islamiah Zahroh, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: N/A

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: Dear Author,

Your research is valuable, but I have some suggestions that could help improve it:

1. The necessity of the research is not clearly articulated in the abstract.

2. The methodology outlined in the abstract is incomplete. Please specify the databases used and include the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

3. The search strategy in the methodology should be detailed, including the keywords that were searched in the electronic databases.

4. In Table 2, which presents the characteristics of the studies, please ensure that each study is referenced.

5. Consider adding a table to evaluate the quality of the studies.

6. Strengthen the discussion section by providing an analysis of the studies.

7. Lastly, please include the source of funding and any potential conflicts of interest at the end of your manuscript.

Reviewer #3: Thank you for asking me to review this paper, I can see that the authors have acted on the comments made previously.

I have spotted a few typos which need correcting before it is ready for publication:

Line 85: check spelling of 'excellence'.

Line 111: There is an extra 'e' and the fullstop is missing at the end.

Lines 172 & 275: Avoid starting sentences with a number.

Reviewer #4: It was a privilege to review your manuscript entitled, “The role of online peer support in pregnancy: systematic scoping review.” I commend the authors for their effort in conducting this work. The authors put in a lot of thoughtful and thorough consideration into the work. The topic is timely and has the potential to be impactful. The manuscript for review began with responses to previous review recommendations, which were well addressed and incorporated into the body of the work.

I appreciate the clarity of the research question and the contribution it makes to the existing body of knowledge. I also appreciate the opportunity to provide some constructive feedback that may help strengthen the manuscript and improve its clarity and methodology for the global readership.

Overall assessment: This manuscript offers a timely and well-structured scoping review of online peer support in pregnancy, synthesizing 27 studies across diverse geographies and platforms. The mapping of findings to the Langford Conceptual Analysis of Social Support is a particular strength, helping to translate heterogeneous evidence into clear domains (emotional, informational, appraisal, instrumental). The review adds concrete design levers—group size, active moderation, and privacy settings—that have immediate relevance for program developers, clinicians, and digital health implementers. This work will make a valuable contribution to the maternal digital-health literature.

General comments:

The authors alternate between “pregnant people’ and “pregnant women”. Clarify in the Introduction section if there is an intentional purpose for this. Otherwise, choose one term and apply it consistently throughout the manuscript.

Line-by-line comments

Line 85 – Fix the typo “Ecxellence” to “Excellence”.

Line 111 – The reference statement pointing to the supplemental document S2 ends abruptly. The authors should close out the sentence.

Line 129 – In addition to listing the data items considered in this scoping review, the authors should consider adding a Data Items Table and definitions (in supplementary materials) for reference.

Line 188 – The reference against “Weight Management” is missing an opening bracket ( [ ). Ensure bracketed references are correct and consistent.

Line 263 – Consider using a dash (-) to proffer clarity for “9 13 people” as “9-13 people” if the intention is to portray a number range.

Recommendation: Minor revision — The evidence synthesis is solid; improvements mainly concern formatting and correction of spelling errors.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Julie Abayomi

Reviewer #4: Yes:  Babajide Adewumi

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures 

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. 

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Title The role of online peer support in pregnancy: systematic scoping review

PONE-D-25-09522R2

Dear Dr. Stacey,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Rana Islamiah Zahroh, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One