A Revised Pedagogy Model for Simulator-Based Training with Biomedical Laboratory Science Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is a coherent work that uses a mixed methodology (qualitative and quantitative) that makes it a more complete study that delves deeper into the subject matter.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents comparison studies on the outcome and study experience of using /without using EEG-simulator based on a group of lab students. 1. I think the overall quantitative analysis is not solid enough, For some reason I am not able to find tables throughout the paper, may be they are missing or in some appendix but I never found one. 2. Sounds like the total number of students being studies is not large enough, which seems not statistically validating the findings of the paper. 3. The conclusion being summarized seems pretty obvious since, studying with some sort of simulators almost always more beneficial than without the simulator. So maybe the explanation of contribution is not clear enough.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

A manuscript with an interesting educational theme for the academic field is presented. However, important errors are detected in its content and format that must be solved.
First of all, the introduction is adequate and up-to-date. However, the background is insufficient. This cannot only refer to a study previously developed by the authors and to the general objective of the present study.
In relation to the material and methods, it must be taken into account, especially, in the discussion and conclusions that a study is developed that could be a case study, since only a total of 35 second-year students are part of the study.
Regarding the results, there is an important part that cannot be reviewed since the tables and figures have not been included. This is an important aspect without which it is not possible to rule that the article is publishable.
In addition, it would be necessary for the authors to explain section 6 of the work, in relation to patents.
Bibliographic references are current and relevant.
Authors are requested to make the aforementioned changes and to include all the tables and figures necessary to correctly evaluate the manuscript.

Author Response

 "Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The article is interesting. There is a lack of more information about research - where, when and who carried out the research. The article is missing images. It would be good to add information about the simulator, who and when and where he developed it.

Author Response

 "Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed most of my comments, except the one about the number of participants being studied in the research, which I think is a major concern. By studying 35 students seems far from convincing. So I highly recommend the authors to conduct the studies with more students.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We note your concern regarding the number of participants and that the quantitative analysis resulting from our study is not sufficient for inferencing to larger population groups. However, we used the quantitative data purely as a guide for our qualitative analysis (forming themes and a priori codes) and focused our discussion and conclusion on the qualitative data.

During the coding and analysis of the qualitative diary data, we achieved saturation at roughly 16 of the 35 diaries. We did continue analyzing the rest of the diaries, but as expected, the findings did not change and no new knowledge emerged.

The main contribution of our article is the revised pedagogy for the use of simulator-based training in a higher education setting. This contribution emerged from the qualitative data as described above. We authors strongly feel that repeating this study with a greater number of students would not change the study outcome.

Kind regards,

Manuscript authors

Reviewer 3 Report

The changes made to the manuscript, especially in the background, have greatly improved the document. The tables and figures have also been included, which have enabled the full content of the research to be properly understood.   

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript once again and for your positive comments. We noted, however, that you have selected the option to not sign the review report. We are unsure whether this was a slight oversight, or if there is a compelling reason that we do not know of.

Kind regards,

Manuscript authors