All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thanks for making the necessary changes.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Bob Patton, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Please address the following queries-
Keywords are missing from the abstract.
Could you mention the Scoping review guidelines that were followed in this review?
The RQ is missing. Show the framework used for RQ development.
Mention the IC/ EC in a tabular format.
Table 1 should include the limitations of individual publications.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
Paper is very clear and well written. The review is broad and of cross disciplinary interest and I feel it is within scope of the journal. Introduction is well done.
Well designed, narrow inclusion with excluding multidisciplinary education with other disciplines in addition to pharmacy and social but understand why it is necessary. Strict criteria for the review. May be beneficial to provide a sentence or two to the reader describing a scoping review in case they do not know the terminology.
Well done
The review meets the cross disciplinary interest of the journal.
The article reviewed the inter-professional education and relations between pharmacists and mental health education which is very important parameter for primary health care and is needed to be thoroughly studied.
However, I have following suggestions to further improve the article:
Abstract
- the objective of the review is required to be clearly stated (at line 30).
- the results should be presented with some specific findings at lines 41-42.
Introduction:
- The article adequately presented the Interprofessional roles of pharmacists and social workers however the importance of mental health education and how could it be translated into the patients' benefits are missing. you need to establish a motivation by proposing the this.
- the authors need to formulate a research question by which the review is guided (at lines 105-107).
- Pls give some details/insight on the research gap/ problem to which the review is focusing on. (lines 104-107)
The methodology is well-structured. However, I have following suggestion:
- As a scoping review gives importance on the far-reaching overview of literature and their findings representation, thus exclusion of Scopus database may not covered the findings comprehensively.
- Inclusion of expert opinion and presenting them to the audience might improve impact of the review.
- The exclusion, inclusion criteria should be described under separate sud-headings.
The authors need to provide a broad significance of its findings to address the goals of the review (at lines 309-318.
- The conclusion in the abstract mentioned that 'the article identified the areas and development of scholarly teaching projects utilizing higher-level educational frameworks beyond learner reactions (lines 43-47)' which was not reflected in the main discussion and conclusion of the study.
- Moreover, the discussion requires some detail supportive arguments and translation of the results to a the structural and developmental features in this area and are needed to be plotted
- Pls rephrase the conclusion so that it directs the readers to a structured and collaborative thinking for improving the interprofessional relationship between pharmacists and social workers.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.