Self-Regulation of Learning and Its Implications for Academic Performance and Well-Being of University Students in Health Sciences: A Systematic Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe undertaken area of the study is intersting and deserves attention of scholars. Furthermore, the studied subject and implications of study carried out are very practical and important. The main weakness of this paper is relatively small studied sample of articles. The paper is written in a diligent way. Overall I recommend to publish the paper without any adjustments.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer: We would like to greet you and express our sincere gratitude for the time you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. We have taken you observations into careful consideration.
Thank you very much.
Kind regards.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors, thank you very much for your interesting work, which presents the topic in a transparent and very detailed manner. I congratulate you on your nice work and would ask you to take the following comments into account.
minor comments:
- l.40 "nota ll" --> "not all"
- l.50: check "generatd"
- l.58, 85 "Dynamic" --> dynamic
- l.107: check "Addiotionally"
- l. 165/408 place "(NOS)" behind "Newcastle-Ottawa Scale"
- l.187 versus Fig.1: "39 scientific articles met all the selection criteria" vs "Studies included in qualitative synthesis (n = 13)" - Please check.
- Table 1+2: What criteria are used to determine the order of publications?
- l. 272: "... lowest score was two stars with two works with this score" - Table 2 tells that Elfakki et al., 2021 got 3 stars - Please check.
- => To avoid careless mistakes, please carefully check all other numbers in the manuscript again. Thank you.
- l.194: " ... and one unspecified country" - How can you therefore state in line 280 with certainty: "with studies from 13 countries"? Maybe 13 - or 14?
- The “stagnation paradox” is interesting, and you should consider mentioning it as a keyword.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your thorough review. In response, we have examined each of your observations, all of which have been reviewed and addressed. The details of each observation and its corresponding corrections are included in the attached document.
Kind regards.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript address highly relevant topic in health profession education; however, some improvement may be required.
- There is a discrepancy between the PRISMA diagram and the text (39 articles vs 13 included in qualitative analysis)
- exclusion of qualitative studies need more justification , why only cross sectional studies
- pooled effect size was nor reported
- the authors aknolwedge NOS limitations but dont mitigate them (sensitivity analysis or risk of bias categorization )
- the language in conclusion should be less assertive (SRL not developed spontaneously with academic progress); it is better to use "may" or "suggest."
- Clarify COVID period inclusion.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your thorough review. In response, we have examined each of your observations, all of which have been reviewed and addressed. The details of each observation and its corresponding corrections are included in the attached document.
Kind regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, please find below recommendations for improving your article:
1. In the summary, under the results, you should include a specific correlation coefficient and its value, as well as indicate what confirmed that women have a higher level of organisation.
2. The section in the methods entitled 'Quality Assessment' is not properly referenced.
3. The part in the results under 'Search Results' needs to be supplemented to clarify how the titles and summaries were reviewed. Did you use any software, an AI assistant, or did the authors personally read and filter them? If so, how long did this activity take?
4. Table 1 should be presented in a more visually appealing way. For example, you could create a graphic display showing which authors from which countries are included in the works, along with other relevant information.
5. The main findings section could be included in the discussion or as an appendix to the article.
Best regards,
Reviewer
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your thorough review. In response, we have examined each of your observations, all of which have been reviewed and addressed. The details of each observation and its corresponding corrections are included in the attached document.
Kind regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an interesting and potentially useful review paper.
I am not sure that the Abstract's format is correct. Rather than organizing it by sections, the Authors should give it a more conventional 'narrative structure', which would make it more suitable to introduce an academic paper / review.
The Introduction is nice - however, the Authors should highlight there more and better the relevance of this work in the current 'panorama' of studies and the contributions it provides its field with. Since there is a methodology section, the Authors should also stress more on the strategies they implemented to achieve their goals, explaining them more in detail, in connection with and as an anticipation of the part on methodology.
The methodology itself is clear and well-explained. It is transparent enough, in the perspective of reproducibility, and the related section is appropriately structured.
The Results are, in this case, the 'meat' of the paper, and they are neatly presented. No major issues or concerns with this fundamental section.
The Discussion is a welcomed part, not very usual in a review paper, and is deep enough to provide the readers with some significant insights. Well done.
The Conclusion is adequate to the type of article the Authors wrote - perhaps, like in a 'mirror' with the Introduction, the Authors should talk a bit more of the 'selection criteria' and methodologial implementations, as a summary, and provide the readers with a synthesis of the results (not only a 'list', but some additional remarks, to effectively wrap the paper up).
In my humble opinion, the part on Strenghts and Limitations should belong to the Conclusion and not to the Discussion.
The English language and written style are not bad, but clearly non-native. A relatively comprehensive revision in this sense, with the help of a native speaker, could be highly beneficial to the paper. Moreover, some repetitions and redundancies should be removed and avoided at all costs. Some typos surface here and there (just one example, "Design" and not "Desing" in the first sub-title of section 2).
All in all, a nice review, which can be useful and which shows to be exhaustive.
Thank you very much.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAs mentioned, the English language and written style are not bad, but clearly non-native. A relatively comprehensive revision in this sense, with the help of a native speaker, could be highly beneficial to the paper. Moreover, some repetitions and redundancies should be removed and avoided at all costs. Some typos surface here and there (just one example, "Design" and not "Desing" in the first sub-title of section 2).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your thorough review. In response, we have examined each of your observations, all of which have been reviewed and addressed. The details of each observation and its corresponding corrections are included in the attached document.
Kind regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsall comments addressed
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We extend our cordial greetings and hope this message finds you in good health. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have devoted to reviewing our work; your insightful comments have undoubtedly enriched the quality of the manuscript.
As you correctly noted, all your suggestions have been integrated into the document, and we highly value this opportunity for review.
Best regards,
Authors.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Thank you for the revised work. Unfortunately, part of the results presentation has still not been corrected, and you have not made efforts to make it more visually appealing for readers. Additionally, the section that was copied or incorrectly quoted has not been addressed, for example, lines 164–178.
Best regards,
Reviewer
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your feedback, which has been addressed and incorporated into the document. Please find attached a document detailing the implemented corrections.
Sincerely,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
