Pre-Clerkship Medical Students’ Experiences and Perspectives of System 1 and System 2 Thinking: A Qualitative Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Regarding your study, I have the following recommendations:
According to lines 105-106 state that the period was in the year 2018-2019, and on lines 130-131 make the statement that Student participants were solicited via an announcement, posted to the [blinded] 130 Class of 2021 and Class of 2022 Facebook groups, it is not clear, I recommend you to correct or specify this aspect clearly.
Lines 138-139, this materias bonus does not add value to the study sample, on the contrary. I consider that the participation of the subjects in the study for this cash bonus does not support a scientific research.
Lines 140-142 is not clear how to conduct studies. I recommend that you add relevant and consistent aspects.
I also recommend that you specify the location and name of the university institution where the subjects are from.
Line 142- Please specify what that average gap of 2 years represents.
Lines 161-162 recommend that you specify how that thematic saturation was achieved
Bibliographic index 62 is not found in the text. I recommend the correction.
Author Response
Please refer to comments addressed to Reviewer #1.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments to Authors on the draft of the article:
Pre-clerkship Medical Students’ Experiences and Perspectives 2
of System 1 and System 2 Thinking: A Qualitative Study
By Authors unknown to reviewer
It was a pleasure to have the opportunity to review this manuscript. As the results of the study, in which qualitative study explored pre-clerkship medical students’ retrospective perspectives and experiences of System 1 and System 2 thinking via semi-structured interviews and abductive, progressive focusing was made, authors concluded about the need for inclusion of incremental teaching on metacognition and continuous monitoring of knowledge processing as a key competency for physician learners.
The manuscript contributes to the understanding of the perception and experience of the pre-clerkship medical students about System 1 and System 2 thinking, which might have implications for curricular design, selection of education strategies, as well as mentoring.
The manuscript is clearly written, and hence easy to read. The subject is relevant for the readers of the Education sciences. Hence, I recommend it for publication.
However, my major concern is a rather narrative structure of the manuscript, which, I suppose, comes from the used methodology (semi-structured interview). Did authors potentially used or planned to use a questionnaire in which questions would be based on the results of the present study and which then might include anonymous recruiting of larger number of respondents and would enable a statistical analysis of data, in addition to the qualitative study? Please comment.
Author Response
Please refer to comments addressed to Reviewer #2.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
no comments
