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.
Thank you for your work in amending this article for publication, I'm now happy to accept it for publication.
Thank you for the revisions you have made so far, the manuscript is much improved.
In addition to the edits made so far for content, before Acceptance, I would suggest that you consider editing for English to improve clarity for the reader. You may consider doing this independently. Alternatively, PeerJ can provide language editing services if you wish - please contact them at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Your revision deadline is always extended while you undergo language editing.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services if you wish - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Your revision deadline is always extended while you undergo language editing. #]
Thank you for an interesting article, and apologies for the long delay in processing. It has been challenging to find sufficient reviewers.
I agree that minor revisions are required. In particular, please consider the limitations of the study and consider citing more studies.
This manuscript has clear hypotheses and solid results.
The test and study design are excellent. The only question is whether the survey is in English or another language. If it is in another language, please provide the original copy of the survey sample.
The findings are clear, and the statistics are very impressive.
This is a very good article to demonstrate flipped classroom mode. Minor adjustment is suggested.
no comment
no comment
no comment
1. How about the limitation of the study.
2. Pre-class study time was about 10 minutes longer in mode 2 than in mode 1(p = 0.003). However, mode 2 was able to reduce post-class study time by about 30 minutes (p = 0.001), a statistically significant difference. Relying on questionnaires to calculate study time is not very accurate.
It is a very thorough and detailed research paper. The majority of the article has a clear English language use, please review the document for grammatical errors, e.g. -
1. line 94 'Ethics Committee of Hospital of stomatology, Sun Yat-sen university' to match the text written in line 93
2. line 108, 'received' to receive
3. Please consider using terms like 'Obturation' instead of root canal filling while explaining steps for Root Canal Therapy/Endodontic Therapy.
4. Scoring method in lines 139-142 can be clarified better; 'dissatisfied/agree' can be confusing; rather use the complete terms 'dissatisfied/disagree'
5. Line 216 - 'This research' to The current research in education
No comment
No comment
Dear Authors,
The manuscript. Titled "Application of flipped classroom mode based on Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives in endodontics teaching of undergraduate dental students ". The current manuscript, in general, needs several corrections; please find below the comments to improve the manuscript.
Abstract:
1. Kindly provide MeSH keywords so the article becomes more accessible to search after publication.
Introduction:
1. The introduction starts with the problem statement; kindly start with the literature instead of beginning with the problem statement.
2. The introduction is not up to the mark. Kindly elaborate more and add more studies.
Methods:
1. Kindly provide the sample size calculation.
2. Mention the duration of the study.
Results:
1. In the result section, the methodology is written as objective. It should be written only in the materials and method section.
Discussion:
1. Kindly add more studies to the discussion.
2. Kindly provide the limitations of the study
3. Kindly add future study ideas
Conclusion:
Should be elaborated and written as per the objectives
References:
1. Kindly add more recent references.
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.