Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The abstract needs to be improved. It must be full text in a single paragraph. It shouldn't be some sort of checklist with sections. The final part related to the conclusions should be clearer, with concrete examples. Rephrase.

Since this is a new methodology associated with distance learning, there should be a section that addresses e-learning and b-learning. It is essential to include this section because, as far as it seems, this was the factor they intended to assess. Explain the concept, advantages, disadvantages, the role of the e-teacher and the e-student.

The Introduction section should be more of a theoretical background section. In fact, there is an approach to distance learning, but methodologies seem to be more valued than this digital teaching-learning resource. This part needs to be rewritten. And there should be at the end a summary paragraph of the authors. A critical-reflective paragraph where the authors' vision can be read, based on the literature review.

In the methodology section, it should be explained how the e-moderation was carried out, how the monitoring by the e-teacher was carried out. Why didn't they use the chat or the forum? Justify.

I agree with the options and the statistical treatment carried out. Perhaps there could be a better and more in-depth explanation of the data presented in the tables.

If I'm not mistaken, on line 265 the designation 'blended learning' appears for the first time... I agree. This designation should be throughout the text whenever distance learning is mentioned. Rephrase.

 

In global terms, one gets the feeling that there were no significant differences… was that what you expected? It does not seem strange that in a subject that is intended to be practical and face-to-face, it does not mean any significant difference to distance learning. The final part should discuss these aspects in more depth.

The bibliography used is in line with the theme and is, in general, up-to-date. However, it should include more references in relation to e-learning and b-learning.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer. We have made all the required changes and explanations in the article. Please find attached the necessary documents.
Regards.
Beatriz Ruiz.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The title is clear and describes the content of the manuscript.

The summary also complies with the corresponding sections.

In the introduction and justification, the background of the problem is clearly exposed, as well as those issues that are not clear or require that they be resolved.

As for the objectives and hypotheses, they are well defined.

The results and discussion are well structured, synthesizing extensive information that is well organized.

It is recommended to expand the conclusions, put all the sections of the manuscript in lower case and put the same font size in the tables and figures.

In the References section, change "Refernence" to "References" and put the point after the initials of the name in the 7 and 10.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer. We have made all the required changes and explanations in the article. Please find attached the necessary documents.
Regards.
Beatriz Ruiz.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to review this research entitled :

 COMPETENCE DEVELOPMENT IN THE PHYSIOTHERAPY INTERNSHIP PROGRAM OF UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE STUDENTS DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC: A HYBRID 4 LEARNING APPROACH”. This research is interesting and adds to the knowledge. The research would benefit from the following suggestions:

·         This research needs to add more theoretical discussion. There are a plethora of research on blended learning amid COVID-19. However, the paper only reviewed 8 research papers on this topic. I suggest the authors add more discussion to the theoretical framework.

·         I do not understand how you examined “the correlation with the marks of the following year internship subject”. This needs an explanation please.

·         The research has no implications. Hence, I suggest you split section “5” into three sections: section 5. Discussions; section 6. Implications of the study; section 7. Conclusion

·         Please follow the instructions of the journal in the format of the title and abstract as well as throughout the manuscript.

Best wishes         

English language fine. No issues detected

Author Response

Dear Reviewer. We have made all the required changes and explanations in the article. Please find attached the necessary documents.
Regards.
Beatriz Ruiz.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for the revised version of the manuscript. The paper has much improved. Two more minor comments please 

First, please expand your implications to include both theoretical implications (what are the key messages form your research for other scholars) and practical implication (lesson learned and can be applied in the future)

Second, please expand your conclusion to highlight all key messages from your research and add limitations and future research opportunities as a separate paragraph in the conclusion

Best regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer.
Please find attached the improvements requested in your second review.
Thank you for your attention.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf