Transfer of Learning of New Nursing Professionals: Exploring Patterns and the Effect of Previous Work Experience

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for authors and editors are included in the same file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I suggest keeping the name of the instititution where the sudy was carried out in Spanish.

Part of the sampling tecnique was intentional and not random. I suggest briefly explain why you used this sampling technique, and acknowledge this limitation as a possible bias in the Discussion of the study (see last comment).

When the tool “Model to Evaluate Transfer in 136 Nursing Professionals (METEnf in its Spanish acronym; 34)” is mentioned; is this scale validated in Spanish? If so, was the validated tool applied? Please explain.

I feel that in the Discussion section it is necessary to include a paragraph or a sentence that summarizes the contribution of this work to the state of the art of knowledge on this topic. Likewise, it is necessary to include a paragraph that points out the limitations and scope of the study with a self-critical and reflective vision of the work carried out.

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere thanks to the reviewers for the time spent on the review and the detailed comments they have made.

In order to give a coherent response to the suggestions made by the reviewer, we attach a document identifying the comment and enclosing our response to it.

We hope that the work obtains final approval, and if not, all the authors remain at your disposal to resolve any doubts or to proceed with further revisions as necessary.

Finally, we would like to express that your revisions have allowed us not only to significantly improve the manuscript but also to reflect on future research.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

The hypothesis could be enhanced by providing clarification on what constitutes "working experience." For example, does selling pizza for a year qualify as working experience?

Clearly state the research aims (Aims 1, 2, and 3) within the introduction for better coherence with the subsequent discussion.

Methods:

• In line 123, add "online" before the word "questionnaire."

• In line 134, there is an extra dot; please remove it.

• Explain how you ensured that your data exhibit a normal distribution. This aspect is intriguing and adds depth to the methodology.

• Provide definitions for variables such as "previous working experience" and "job experience tenure."

Results:

• Elaborate on the criteria used to determine the number of clusters for distinction.

• Include both N (total sample size) and n (sample size within specific groups) in the tables.

• Consider moving Table 2 to the supplementary materials rather than including it in the main manuscript.

Discussion:

• Conclude the research findings clearly within the discussion section.

Overall, these suggestions aim to improve clarity, provide additional details, and enhance the overall structure of the manuscript.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Review, 3,

We would like to express our sincere thanks to the reviewers for the time spent on the review and the detailed comments they have made.

In order to give a coherent response to the suggestions made by the reviewer, we attach a document identifying the comment and enclosing our response to it.

We hope that the work obtains final approval, and if not, all the authors remain at your disposal to resolve any doubts or to proceed with further revisions as necessary.

Finally, we would like to express that your revisions have allowed us not only to significantly improve the manuscript but also to reflect on future research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The conclusion should be before Supplementary Materials.