Next Article in Journal
Introduction to Special Issue: Contemporary Critical Perspectives on Islamic Education
Next Article in Special Issue
Spirituality and Healthcare—Common Grounds for the Secular and Religious Worlds and Its Clinical Implications
Previous Article in Journal
Afghan-Hazara Migration and Relocation in a Globalised Australia
Previous Article in Special Issue
Community Mental Health Nursing Consultation in a Public Bathhouse: A Spiritual Coping Resource
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Comparing Nurses’ and Patients’ Comfort Level with Spiritual Assessment

Religions 2020, 11(12), 671; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11120671
by 1,* and 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Reviewer 4: Anonymous
Religions 2020, 11(12), 671; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11120671
Received: 25 September 2020 / Revised: 10 December 2020 / Accepted: 10 December 2020 / Published: 15 December 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Spirituality in Healthcare—Multidisciplinary Approach)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Qualitative research findings need a lot of work.  

Author Response

Reviewer #1

Thank you for reviewing our article and providing suggestions for improvement.

We have edited it for English language and have written comment bubbles on the manuscript to address the areas of research design and methods that you required us to improve. Our comments address suggestions for improvement from all the reviewers. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations to your contribution! It would be interesting to make some broader research regarding this issue. 

Author Response

Reviewer #2

Thank you for your encouraging review of our article. We have edited the article for English language improvement and made changes that address suggestions for improvement from the other reviewers. Our comments are in the comment bubbles of the article.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors.

Thank you for this interesting manuscript. I do however lack some clarity in the analysis and result section much in relation to the chosen analysis. Also some unclear writing or writing that needs to be elaborated and clear in the background. 

Please see the attached file for specifics.

Rewrite the discussion afterward and also highlight the weaknesses in comparing different data from different years.

Thank you

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer #3

Thank you for reviewing and commenting on our article. We have edited the article for English language improvement. Additionally, we provided more details in the design, methods, and results sections to address suggestions by you and the other reviewers. Our comment bubbles on the revised manuscript provide our explanations and responses. 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors, before publication paper requires thorough improvement, details in the attached file. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer #4

Thank you for the thorough review you did of our article. We have done English language editing to improve the readability and scholarship of our manuscript. We placed comment bubbles to address the areas such as the introduction, design, method, and results where you require/request changes. In addition, we feel that a comment by comment approach to your suggestions and/or questions would be helpful, which we provide below.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Your manuscript is very interesting but need revisions.  Review grounded theory methodology and make necessary changes that adhere to grounded theory. 

Author Response

We have edited the manuscript again for grammar and punctuations and hope you find the English language acceptable now.

We have edited the introduction part for clarity and readability.

Your comment on grounded theory made us wonder what you meant for some time. The two studies we compare are those we did as a mixed method, two-phased study. We have done a grounded theory study with nurses that we also have published, however, that was not about how comfortable they were in assessing patients spiritually. To make sure that we do not confuse our readers, we have taken out references to the Gt study until the discussion part.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

I do think you have improved your manuscript. However, I do think that the qualitative part of the manuscript is presented more like a mass of text and not as themes. Please be specific under the themes what they reveal and how they add.

Thank you

Author Response

Thank you for your positive feedback.

We have revised the presentation of the qualitative results to show the themes we found more clarity. Thank you for this comment which aided us to improve the text.

Reviewer 4 Report

Accept in present form

Author Response

Thank you for accepting the manuscript in the former version.

We hope you find this version of the manuscript even better.

Back to TopTop