Comparison of the Effect of Motivation in Medical Students with the Use of Virtual Reality and Non-Immersive Digital Resources
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsKindly refer to the attached manuscript with comments/suggestions in the marked/colored phrases/statements.
- “impact” would require a longer duration of the study (at least 5 years ) to really see the real impact; could it be "effect" of the intervention?
- provide an English translation to Figure 1; observe proper citation; Where is Figure 1 referred to in the study?
- provide proper labels to graphs; continue to use "Figure" with continuous numbering
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
In the "Abstract" - avoid using the phrase "This Study" at the start of the abstract
Author Response
We made the suggested correctionsAuthor Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsVery timely. A good study. The article could be improved further.
- Some sections (Introduction and Lit Review) may need to be more detailed and shorter. I would suggest focusing on the most relevant studies and arguments.
- The research questions and hypotheses are embedded within the text. It would be great if the author(s) could display them clearly in labeled subsections.
- At times, the arguments may seem disconnected from the theoretical implications. It's important to strengthen the discussion by tying them back to the theoretical framework.
- The references are recent, but it would be better if the author(s) could add a few more recent ones to show what was done by others and what made this study stand out. Ensure citation consistency.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageVery minor language issue. But would be grateful if the author(s) could proofread before resubmitting.
- Try to break down long sentences into shorter ones.
- Simplify the language without losing precision as it's overly technical jargon used.
- Subject-Verb Agreement on sentences especially "The results was significant and indicates a trend..." (The results were significant and indicate a trend...)
Author Response
We made the suggested correctionsAuthor Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research is good in terms of selection and design, although some observations are made about it:
- Summary: It is preferable to write the summary in a direct report form, without including headings such as: methods and results.
- Population and sample: As long as the study population is known, a non-probability convenience sample should not be chosen.
- Tool:
- Why was the validity of the questionnaire not calculated?
- Statistical significance is not considered a sufficient criterion to accept the value of validity and reliability.
- Results:
- It is better to include the results in statistical tables, as agreed upon.
- Since the distribution is non-normal (Graph No. 2), non-parametric statistics must be adopted.
- Why was the practical significance not calculated instead of being satisfied with the statistical significance?
In conclusion, in order for the research to be sound from a methodological and statistical standpoint, the statistical treatment must be re-processed by adopting non-parametric statistics.
Author Response
We made the suggested correctionsAuthor Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The manuscript has some good contributions to the field of medical education. The suggested minor revisions are aimed at enhancing the clarity and comprehensiveness of the paper. I recommend the manuscript for publication after the authors have addressed these minor concerns.
In line 130, the title of the figure is not in English.
In line 177, the researcher mentioned that the correlation of motivation was analyzed in this research. However, there is no information about the correlation in the results section. An explanation of this part is necessary for viable research.
Lines 184-204 include much information, including samples, data analysis, and variables for the study. Therefore, I recommend revising the title of this section if you want to keep all this information.
In line 227, the "P" of the p-value should be lowercase.
In the procedure section, it would be better to add the information about the sample assignment to the groups.
In line 280, using less than 0.0001 for the p-value would be better.
In line 281, it would be helpful to add how to calculate the total satisfaction to see the correlations with each component in the survey.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The manuscript has some good contributions to the field of medical education. The suggested minor revisions are aimed at enhancing the clarity and comprehensiveness of the paper. I recommend the manuscript for publication after the authors have addressed these minor concerns.
In line 130, the title of the figure is not in English.
In line 177, the researcher mentioned that the correlation of motivation was analyzed in this research. However, there is no information about the correlation in the results section. An explanation of this part is necessary for viable research.
Lines 184-204 include much information, including samples, data analysis, and variables for the study. Therefore, I recommend revising the title of this section if you want to keep all this information.
In line 227, the "P" of the p-value should be lowercase.
In the procedure section, it would be better to add the information about the sample assignment to the groups.
In line 280, using less than 0.0001 for the p-value would be better.
In line 281, it would be helpful to add how to calculate the total satisfaction to see the correlations with each component in the survey.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Check the figure title for using English.
Author Response
We made the suggested correctionsAuthor Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the amendments to the research manuscript, but I still emphasize that as long as the study community is known, the convenience sample should not be chosen.
- Also, statistical significance is not considered a criterion for accepting the value of validity and reliability.
- I want you to explain to me: Why were the t-test and analysis of variance used despite the statement of the non-normal distribution of the data? P. 13 + P. 14.
Author Response
I offer you a sincere apology for this enormous error, I attach the suggested corrections, a Mann-Whitney test was performedAuthor Response File: Author Response.pdf
