Defining Leadership in Undergraduate Medical Education, Networks, and Instructors: A Scoping Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review is well written. There are few suggestions for improving the content of this manuscript as mentioned below:

1.       Indicate why scoping review was chosen instead of systemic review.

2.       On what basis was the literature selected? This needs to be mentioned in the abstract.

3.       Did they evaluate the role of online teaching in the search engine?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 1.

Thank you for your time and insight about the manuscript. Please see the attachment.

 

Cheers, 

Pablo Rodriguez Feria

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

1. Please exclude the reference(s) which is/are not used in your paper.

2. Arrange the paragraphs to be at least 3 sentences and at most 6 sentences.

3. The abstract should be written as a continuous paragraph with 150-200 words and recapitulative state the background of the research, purpose, methodologies, major conclusions, and its contributions to the field. It should emphasize new or important aspects of the study. Do not use any statistical sign or number. In addition, no citation, abbreviations, or references…

4. Please double-check the title of the article not more than 12 words.

5. Write the keywords with a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 7. A keyword should contain no more than 2 words.

6. The method part of the research should be written in detail. The method of research; research model, participants, data collection tools, data collection process, and data analysis should be written in detail under subheadings.

This article needs to be revised within the framework of what I wrote above.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer: 2.
Thank you for your time and insight about the manuscript. Please see the attachment.
 
Cheers, 
Pablo Rodriguez Feria

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf