Review History


To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on December 20th, 2014 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on February 2nd, 2015.
  • The first revision was submitted on February 6th, 2015 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on February 10th, 2015.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

Thank you for addressing the critique

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Please address the noted minor issues and provide a response

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Word choice error par. 3 of results, line 8. "Interestingly, the students still indicated that they did not fill more comfortable facing patient
encounters in the clinic after these experiences (27.7%)." "Fill" should be replaced with "feel"

Experimental design

No comments

Validity of the findings

No comments

Comments for the author

The study was clear and easy to understand

·

Basic reporting

It would be interesting to know which of the 3 grading criteria showed improvement over the course of the 3 patients; i.e. was the diagnosis better or did they develop a better understanding of the questions to ask?

Experimental design

No comment

Validity of the findings

No comment

Comments for the author

Interesting study. Do you think having the students in small groups would have improved their confidence when they got to the clinic?

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

The article meets the standards

Experimental design

It is in the area that I have problems. The author make the case that exposing students to real patients in the classroom will better prepare students. In this case was pathology. Discipline based education research indicates that this is the case (Doyle, 2008). So, in principle, the authors intend to test the importance of relevancy in learning. However, one thing that is lacking in the design is an appropriate control. Can the authors use past exam scores and compare them to the current results? It seems that this will not be difficult to do.

Validity of the findings

The statistical tests were appropriate

Comments for the author

The author should compare the current results with the scores from previous students who were not exposed to the real patients.

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.