Virtual Practical Examination for Student Nurse Educators in Health Sciences Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Narrative Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The subject of the article is very interesting, and the study objective is important. The findings are eminent to the nursing profession and its adaptation to the requirements of nursing instructors' and professional education.
However, there is a need of English professional editing and correct wording/spelling errors (for example, in the background chapter, second paragraph, lines 4,8; in the data collection section, sentences 4-5 say the same thing as sentences 1-3. Items 40-41 can be written at the end of sentence 3 and lines 4-5 can be omitted).
The links of items number 21, 22 are not active
Author Response
The links are active and could still be opened at the time of correction.
Editing certificate will be uploaded with the corrected manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
1-The time period of the selected articles is not indicated. It would be interesting to mention.
2-The scheme that reports eligible and rejected studies states :
Full-text articles assessed for eligibility (n = 37)
Full-text articles excluded, with reasons:
(n = 22)
Studies included in (n = 12)
Instead of 12 it should be 15 there seems to be an arithmetic flaw.
Author Response
Time period and years of publication for included articles were included in the corrected document.
The total number of included articles was corrected to 15
Reviewer 3 Report
The Manuscript entitled Virtual practical examination for student nurse educators in Health Sciences Education during Covid-19 pandemic: A Narrative Review aims to find out the opportunities and challenges presented by e-assessment in the HSE practical examination for student nurse educators during the Covid-19 pandemic. The topic is interesting and meaningful. The structure of the manuscript is clear. However, the manuscript gets its conclusion only by reviewing 12 papers, which is not persuasive. It is better to compare the study with previous study similar to the study to verify its significance. In addition, it is better to discuss the ways to overcome the challenge and the implications of the study.
Author Response
The reason for limited number of included articles was explained in the corrected manuscript.
Editing certificate will be uploaded with the corrected manuscript.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear author
Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. I find the study relevant and have some comment to improvements the paper.
The introduction is too long and should not be more than 3 pages. It needs to be more focused on what the problem is, what we already know about the problem. Why is it important to ask about challenges and opportunities, may sound like a discussion paper?
We also knew about virtual ways of examining before covid 19, so there is a lot of knowledge in advance that must be included in order to be able to say something about a gap in research. Next, why and for whom is this study relevant?
P 7: rather than defining selected terms on this page, relevant terms should be defined the first time they are used in the article.
I need a stronger argument for conducting a narrative review.
A deeper reflection on what it means that the articles originate from 8 different countries is missing?
Discussion: results are put into play with literature, but a clearer discussion of what this paper contributes and why it is an important study is missing.
Limitations: it is assumed that there are no studies in advance that show challenges and opportunities regarding online examination. As my earlier comment, there could be studies with other kind of student that could be drawn on.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear author
It is important that a review clearly shows what knowledge is available today about the question being investigated. Therefore, there is a need for a clear justification that shows what gap there is in the research and why and for whom this study is important. Correspondingly, be completely clear in the discussion and show a new contribution to what we already know. If the most obvious research is not found, you can advantageously search for all the research that relates to digital solutions in communication, because digital solutions are not only created for one profession.
I need a reflection that one author alone has done all the work. What this means is that you do not have a research group to discuss your articles with and generate themes together. This applies both in method and limitations.
Best wishes
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
