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 continued revisions and attending to the remarks and requests of the reviewers. The current version of your manuscript has been recommended for acceptance for publication.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors have addressed all comments thoroughly and effectively.
Please pay careful attention to all reviewers comments. I think it is worth noting that in the limitations section of your paper the potential limitation related to the geography of your population.
Authors fulfilled the requirments.
Yes! all the comments has been reponded by the authors.
In discussion section address how your findings align or contrast with existing studies and elaborate on the implications for clinical or research practices.
While your manuscript is timely and novel as it pertains to the use of Virtual Reality and medical/health sciences education both responding reviewers recommend major revisions. Please pay careful attention to their recommendations should you choose to revise and resubmit your manuscript.
As it pertains to the literature review, you may wish to look outside of the medical education literature to be more inclusive of other domains use of VR and current pedagogy as it pertains to the use of innovative digital technology for medical and health sciences education and relates research.
Manuscript ID 104532v1
This paper is related to reviewing the manuscript titled " Comparing between virtual reality based pre-clinical implantation training and traditional teaching methods"
A study with this title would probably evaluate the efficacy of two training methods: traditional classroom instruction and virtual reality (VR) simulation. Students would use specialized equipment to practice implantation operations in a virtual setting as part of the VR instruction. The researchers would then examine the students' knowledge, abilities, and confidence after they had completed both training approaches. The objective would be to discover whether VR-based training has any advantages over traditional techniques, such as better learning outcomes, shorter training times, or higher safety.
Firstly, Although the proposed study is successful in terms of organization, presentation, content and results, major revision given in the following items need to be performed.
1) Improve the abstract and conclusion section, enhance the manuscript to convey the purpose, objectives, method and major findings, especially results in the items of convenience, interest, comfort, enhancing student’s self-confidence and subjective initiative.
2) Use abbreviations after the first use in the text, in the abstract and throughout the paper.
3) The literature review is quite insufficient in the introduction section. Complete the introduction and literature sections of the manuscript by providing similar studies from the years 2023-2024 and/or new and current studies that will attract the attention of the readers.
4) Are there any other statistical and/or learning-based methods used by the authors other than the ANOVA test? Why are their methods weak?
5) More analysis results should be included in the results and findings section.
6) The label text of Figure 1 should be shortened because it damages the visual appearance of the figure and the graph.
7) The authors obtained the results according to preclinical implantation training (VR based PCIT), this is already insufficient, these results should also be detailed and interpreted.
8) Are there any comparisons that the authors have made to VR-based traditional teaching methods? Should learning or teaching actually be used here? The paper title can also be changed accordingly.
9) No comprehensive performance analysis other than total interaction time, learning duration, and before and after of PCIT. Authors should focus on the results section.
10) The conclusion section really needs to be improved
11) The resolution of the figures giving the analysis results should be increased.
12) Clean the paper of English spelling and punctuation errors
My decision is major revision. I would like to inform you that if all the requested items are not completed in this revision, my decision will be to reject the application in the second round. Otherwise, I do not see any harm in publishing the manuscript once the above revisions are made.
As above
There are minor grammatical issues and awkward phrasing throughout the manuscript. A thorough proofreading and possible editing would enhance readability and overall clarity.
The abstract is still not structured so well to provide strong summary of this study. For example, the argument on why this study is necessary and important is not clear and the findings from this study were missing in the abstract.
The manuscript could benefit from a more detailed description of the VR training curriculum and scenarios. This would help readers understand the depth and breadth of VR-based PCIT and evaluate its comprehensiveness compared to traditional methods.
The sample size of 20 students is relatively very small, which may limit the generalizability of the findings.
In the discussion section, there is no critical thinking, and the debate is quite brief. Write a paragraph outlining the study's constraints. It is important to use caution when using the research's conclusions outside of the experimental framework. Finally, describe what kinds of study are necessary considering the new information in the project at hand. Clinical relevance of the results should be emphasized more. Conclusions are limited to a synthetic summary of the results obtained; this section must be revised and report preferably with a bulleted list, only the key results of the study.
Provide a paragraph on the study's limitations in details. Applying the research findings outside of the experimental design needs to be taken with caution. Lastly, provide insight as to what types of research need to be done due to the new knowledge found in the current project.
The 11 references only are very less need to increase to validate study.
For these reasons I suggest major revisions the manuscript in the present form.
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.