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.
After revisions, all reviewers agreed to publish the manuscript. I also reviewed the manuscript and found no obvious risks to publication. Therefore, I also approved the publication of this manuscript.
accepted
accepted
accepted
accepted
The paper is ready to be accepted. Congratulations.
The paper is ready to be accepted. Congratulations.
The paper is ready to be accepted. Congratulations.
The paper is ready to be accepted. Congratulations.
The authors are requested to carefully revise the manuscript and answer the final questions raised by the reviewers.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should *only* be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
Now, the manuscript is appropriate in English and structure-wise.
good for publication
good
it is advised to enrich the references with the latest work
See below
See below
See below
Dear Authors
Thanks a lot for the opportunity you have offered me to revise again the manuscript “Flipped classroom-based application of Peytons four-step approach in standardized training of ultrasound residents for thyroid and cervical lymph node zoning”. I thank the authors for their efforts in revising this study.
The manuscript has been ameliorated. Before being accepted, three issues should be resolved:
(A) Introduction: you need to report other examples of studies that have adopted the Peyton methods (doi: 10.1111/medu.13347)
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should *only* be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
(B) Discussion: You need to report, as a limitation, the lack of assessment of time needed to perform the procedure and the students’ satisfaction. These elements have been previously adopted in literature (doi: 10.1111/medu.13347).
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should *only* be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
(C) English: please revise the English. Several typos need to be corrected.
Therefore, my overall peer review judgment is a minor revision.
The authors are requested to carefully revise the manuscript and answer the questions raised by the reviewers.
This is an exciting study, but the paper needs to be rewritten in the form of structure and analysis point of view of various methods. It is a review study and helps new researchers with upcoming research. However, the paper has some shortcomings regarding data analyses and text. Below, I have provided many remarks on the text, which is often vague and long-winded. In several instances, I also suggested citing more relevant and recent literature. I made additional suggestions for more in-depth analyses of the data.
The following changes need to be made to the manuscript:
1. The introduction of the classification application can enrich the introduction section's description with more detail and networks.
2. The manuscript needs extensive revision for language and grammar, and some editing for the English language is required throughout the manuscript due to too many mistakes. It is advised that the authors review all sections in the manuscript and rewrite them to understand the approach for a familiar reader of the article.
3. Briefly describe the novelty of the work, especially the current stage and year of artificial intelligence or deep learning-based classification algorithm used to detect disease in the early stage. Explain how this method is appropriate to other methods and describe the proposed method in detail (with visual form).
4. The abstract must be more precise and highlight the significant contributions. The background of the proposed study should be further explained in detail. Some concepts are hard to comprehend without clear explanations.
5. How is the suggested method novel compared with existing frame selection techniques? Explain the complexity of the solutions in good technical detail. Please explain the limitations of the current solution.
6. Justify that the classification method is helpful for real-time medical systems, especially in thyroid benign and malignant cases.
7. Authors should argue their choice of performance evaluation indicators, and the proposed approach should be compared with some recent approaches using different datasets instead of some "old" approaches. Authors can compare their experimental findings with existing approaches.
8. In the "Discussion" section, please compare your research with the most recent methods. The conclusion section should include a brief explanation of the findings.
.
average
major ravision
.
.
.
Dear Authors
Thanks a lot for the opportunity you have offered me to revise the manuscript “Flipped classroom-based application of Peyton9s four-step approach in standardized training of ultrasound residents for thyroid and cervical lymph node zoning”. I thank the authors for their efforts in producing this study. It perfectly aligns with my research and expertise; thus, I am confident I can offer a valuable peer review.
As a significant strength, this investigate whether combining the ûipped classroom with Peyton9s four- step approach can improve the teaching eûectiveness in ultrasound zoning of thyroid and cervical lymph nodes for standardized resident training student. This proposal is interesting and new.
As a significant weakness, the manuscript presents issues and needs more details and clarity concerning methodological elements, results presentation and discussion that are useful for understanding its content.
Therefore, my overall peer review judgment is a major revision.
¶AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT
#GENERAL:
*abbreviations: please report ALL the abbreviations in full in the whole manuscript.
*English: please revise the English.
#TABLES and FIGURES:
*abbreviations: please report ALL the abbreviations in full in a legend (e.g., M, F…).
#ABSTRACT:
*results: provide numbers to sustain your results.
*keywords: please, check if all the terms are MeSH.
#INTRODUCTION
*background and rationale: please provide more references for the Peyton’s teaching methods from other fields. Consider to add this doi: 10.1111/medu.13347
*report your hypothesis in the end of introduction.
#METHODS:
*reporting: since this is a randomized trial, I invite the authors to cite in the text and use the CONSORT. Please enrich the methods by following the points in these reporting guidelines. What I expect is that the authors will read and reports details for all the point presented within the checklists. This is very important!
*Teaching groups: provide references for both teaching techniques.
*Assessment tools: provide references for all of these.
#RESULTS:
*describe the participants in a specific chapters. Next, provide a table with their characteristics.
*divide the results in several chapters and report all data.
#DISCUSSION
*Organisation: start with the main findings, then discuss the results by comparing them with current evidence, finally report implications for practice and limitations
*I remind you that your discussion should be sustained with appropriate references.
*the limitation section is too short. Please expand it and balance with Strenghts.
*implications: develop more this section. What are the implications for practice and research.
#CONCLUSION
*Consider to detuned your conclusion on the base of the study’s limitations (e.g., internal, external validity).
The study methodology appears to be simple and scientifically sound. The use of recent TL methods for the conduct of the study, can guide other teaching institutions to adopt these methods in training their residents effectively. The language used is unambiguous and clear. Data tables provided are simple to comprehend.
The study has been properly designed and carried out.
Results appears to be valid and reproducible.
Nil
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.