Keywords
Higher education, scientific research, student research, research universities
The objective of this study was to determine the conditioning factors for scientific research productivity in university students of health sciences.
Scientific productivity, in addition to making visible the generation of new knowledge, contributes to the well-being of the population and provides feedback to the scientific community in terms of methodologies, perspectives and results that help to break down barriers that delimit productivity in scientific research.
A cross-sectional analytical observational study was conducted. The study population was 4104 students enrolled during the 2021-I semester in the Faculty of Health Sciences of a private Peruvian university. A sample size of 400 students was determined and a stratified probability sampling was used. The variables were measured through surveys. The dependent variable was scientific research productivity, and the independent variables were institutional culture, knowledge management and technological capital. Summary measures are reported according to the type of variable. The chi-square test with a significance level of p<0.05 was applied to assess the association between the variables of interest. A multiple logistic regression analysis was performed using the Stepwise method. Prevalence ratios (PR) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated.
From the total of 400 students, 74.5% were male, 57.25% were aged between 18 and 27 years, 17% belonged to the school of human medicine and 72% were in their sixth year of studies. Scientific research productivity was associated with management commitment (PR=1.493; 95%CI: 1.077–2.068, p=0.015), sense of personal growth (PR=1.632; 95%CI: 1.041–2.558; p=0.024), recognition by the university (PR=1.385; 95%CI: 1.012–1.896; p=0.043), strategic alliances (PR=1.422; 95%CI: 1.032–1.959; p=0. 03), having research proposals (PR=1.522; 95%CI: 1.114–2.08; p=0.009), dissemination of results obtained (PR=1.542; 95%CI: 1.12–2.122; p=0.01), availability of human resources (PR=1.591; 95%CI: 1.165–2.173; p=0.004), access to equipment and software (PR=1.482; 95%CI: 1.061–2.069; p=0.018) and to laboratories (PR=1.438; 95%CI: 1.047–1.974; p=0.024).
It is concluded that the research productivity of undergraduate students of health sciences is low. It is imperative to strengthen the university research culture that empowers students as agents of change and strengthens faculty participation in scientific networks and communities.
Higher education, scientific research, student research, research universities
The conclusion was improved to make it clear and precise.
To read any peer review reports and author responses for this article, follow the "read" links in the Open Peer Review table.
Nowadays, the academic development of universities is oriented primarily to the training of human talent, research and technological progress, a situation that is reflected in the research indicators used to determine the level of competitiveness, academic quality and resource allocation. In the face of this reality, university directives increase the demands on teachers, students and researchers in order to raise academic standards as well as the position in the various rankings that serve as a comparative benchmark in the educational system (Sirvent et al., 2016).
It is interesting to mention that, unlike countries in Europe, Asia and Oceania, in Latin America three quarters of research is concentrated in universities and mainly in public ones, tipping the balance towards conducting applied research rather than basic research, which is oriented towards the development of science and technology (Alarco, Changllio-Calle and Cahuana-Salazar, 2017).
Research published in journals of importance in the region of the Americas exceeds 100,000 titles in the period 1996–2003; however, very few correspond to production by university students, 75% belong to Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Mexico, placing Peru in 8th place with 3% in that concept (Osada, Loyola-Sosa and Berrocal, 2014).
In Peru, research in university campuses is limited by a myriad of factors, including state investment, the lowest in this hemisphere -0.1% of GDP, below Brazil, Mexico, Colombia and Chile. This information allows us to understand why in the period prior to the enactment of the 2014 University Law, only three universities, one national and two private, concentrated 64% of the scientific production (Perdomo et al., 2020).
Moquillaza (2019) draws attention to the scarcity of information in indexed journals related to the scientific production of students in higher education institutions and the small number of journals that accept research conducted by students. Another aspect to point out in the Peruvian case has to do with the limited number of journals corresponding to university publishers that do not exceed 10% of these publications.
While as from 2018 there is evidence of greater research in Peru, it remains globally low; among the possible causes is the lack of indexed journals for research authored by students. Frequencies of reports are found in Colombia 11%, Chile 10% and similar in Peru. Student perception of the causes, besides the above, are related to the lack of research experience of the teaching staff and that the contents provided in research methodology courses are insufficient, in addition to not teaching or giving guidelines on writing an article and how to submit it to a journal for its publication (Santibáñez, 2017; Castro-Rodríguez, 2019).
Castro-Rodríguez et al. (2018), explain that only 4.5% of papers published in Scielo Peru had a contribution from at least one student from a Peruvian university, reflecting the pitfalls faced by university students when publishing an academic paper, as well as the lack of opportunities to be incorporated into research groups, a deficit in incentives and the underestimation of student capacities to develop quality research. Therefore, the objective of this research was to determine the conditioning factors for the scientific research productivity of undergraduate students of health sciences at a private university in Peru.
An analytical cross-sectional observational study was conducted. The study population consisted of 4104 undergraduate students. The study included students of both genders enrolled in the 2020-I semester at the Faculty of Health Sciences of the Norbert Wiener Private University and who had taken research subjects. Students who did not wish to participate in the study and those who did not complete the requested information properly were excluded.
A sample size of 400 students was calculated and a stratified probability sample was made by proportional allocation among the students who met the selection criteria of the study. A sample size was determined by proportional allocation according to the size of the school of origin, resulting in a total of 400 students, after applying the statistical formulas. The sampling was simple random probability sampling, since a list of all university students was available, ensuring a confidence level of 95% and a sampling error of less than ±5%.
The independent variables included institutional culture, knowledge management and technological capital measured on a nominal scale. The dependent variable was scientific research productivity. To evaluate the study variables, questionnaires were designed based on previously established models and adapted by the author. The variable “Institutional Culture” was measured using a questionnaire based on the model by Rueda-Barrios and Rodenes-Adam (2016), which included 24 questions structured on a dichotomous response scale (1 = Yes, 2 = No). The questions were distributed across the following dimensions: participatory culture (12 questions), motivational culture (10 questions), and teamwork culture (2 questions). Similarly, the variable “Knowledge Management” was assessed with a questionnaire consisting of 13 questions also structured on a dichotomous scale (1 = Yes, 2 = No), covering the dimensions of socialization (5 questions), externalization (4 questions), and internalization (4 questions). Lastly, the variable “Technological Capital” was measured using a questionnaire comprising 15 questions, likewise formulated on a dichotomous scale (1 = Yes, 2 = No), distributed across the dimensions of R&D investment (5 questions), technological infrastructure (5 questions), and technological tools (5 questions). These questionnaires were developed to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of the study variables, considering both theoretical validity and the relevance of the selected indicators.
The information from the participants was gathered through four questionnaires (Bonilla-Asalde et al., 2023b) based on the model of Rueda-Barrios and Rodenes-Adam (2016). All questions were posed according to a dichotomous qualitative scale (1=Yes, 2=No). Three questionnaires were applied for the independent variables. The first was composed of 24 questions on institutional culture and included participatory culture, motivational culture and teamwork culture as dimensions. The second questionnaire was composed of 13 questions on knowledge management and included the dimensions of socialization, externalization and internalization. The third questionnaire was composed of 15 questions on technological capital and included the dimensions R&D investment, technological endowment and technological tools. For the dependent variable, a seven-question questionnaire was applied with the dimensions of publications and visibility of the researcher. Data gathering was conducted via email during the period of March–August 2021.
The data gathering instruments were developed by the research team and validated by Aiken’s V coefficient, and the binomial test with the participation of ten methodological and thematic experts in university education who assessed the clarity, objectivity, updating, organization, sufficiency, adequacy, coherence, methodology and relevance of the content of the instruments. Reliability was assessed through a pilot test that included 30 students from the Faculty of Health Sciences of the Norbert Wiener Private University. The four instruments were subject to the Kuder Richardson test (KR-20) and a KR coefficient equal to 0.80 was obtained for the questionnaire on institutional culture; 0.82 for knowledge management; 0.79 for technological capital and 0.86 for scientific research productivity.
The data obtained (Bonilla-Asalde et al., 2023a) were gathered in the Microsoft Excel 2010 software and were analyzed with the SPSS software version 25.0. Tables with absolute and relative frequencies were reported for categorical variables, while measures of central tendency and dispersion were calculated for quantitative variables.
To evaluate the relationship between each independent variable with the dependent variable, a bivariate analysis was performed using Pearson’s chi-square test with their respective p-values; values of p<0.05 were considered statistically significant. The prevalence ratio (PR) and its respective 95% confidence interval were calculated for each relationship.
Likewise, to evaluate the relationship between the independent variables and performance in scientific research, a multiple logistic regression analysis was applied, using the Stepwise method where the indicators that showed a value of p<0.05 in the previous bivariate analysis were added.
This study was carried out following the guidelines of the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its subsequent amendments. This study was evaluated and approved by the Institutional Research Ethics Committee of the Norbert Wiener University on February 5, 2021, expedient 521-2021. All the participants in the study signed the informed consent form before their participation and their identity was anonymized for the elaboration of the database, so their integrity was not violated.
A total of 400 students from the Faculty of Health Sciences of the Norbert Wiener Private University were analyzed, of which 74.5% (n=298) were male and 57.25% (n=229) were between 18 and 27 years of age. Also, 17% (n=68) were studying in the School of Human Medicine, while 5% (n=20) in the School of Human Nutrition. Besides, 78% (n=288) were in their sixth year of studies, while 0.5% (n=2) were in their eleventh year ( Table 1).
The indicators of institutional culture were evaluated in the sample studied. 70.75% (n=283) stated that there are no agreements for the dissemination of research. 76% (n=304) expressed the opinion that there is a concern for the personal growth of students, 65.5% (n=262) expressed interest in research and 60.25% (n=241) considered that there is no recognition of students who practice research by the university.
When evaluating the knowledge management indicators, it was found that 69.25% (n=277) consider that access to information is adequate. 77% (n=308) consider that there is adequate advice from teachers on research, while 72.5% (n=290) reported that there are no mechanisms for the dissemination of results. On the other hand, 62.75% (n=251) stated that they are not part of any scientific network and 82.75% (n=331) do not have access to indexed scientific journals. In addition, 60.25% (n=241) considered that the university does not use the results of research conducted by students.
Technological capital indicators were evaluated. It was found that 66% (n=264) consider that they do not have supporting human resources for research. 62.25% (n=249) stated that they had sufficient databases to conduct research, while 80% (n=320) considered that they did not have collaborative tools for research ( Table 2).
Table 3 shows the descriptive analysis of the dependent variable. It was found that 72.25% (n=289) have not published any article in indexed journals or congresses and 98.5% (n=394) do not have any research project approved for execution. Furthermore, none of the students in the study sample has an H index and only 2.5% (n=10) have at least one publication in Open Access ( Table 3).
In the bivariate analysis, a statistically significant association was found between scientific research productivity and management commitment (CPR=1.493; 95%CI: 1.077–2.068; p=0.015), personal growth (PR=1.632; 95%CI: 1.041–2.558; p=0.024), receiving recognition for practicing research (PR=1.385; 95%CI: 1.012–1.896; p=0.043) and strategic alliances (CPR=1.422; 95%CI: 1.032–1.959; p=0.03). Regarding knowledge management, research proposals (CPR=1.522; 95%CI: 1.114–2.080; p=0.009), shared results (CPR=1.542; 95%CI: 1.120–2.122; p=0.01) and use of research results (CPR=1.436; 95%CI: 1.049–1.965; p=0.024) were significantly associated with scientific research productivity. In the technological capital dimension, the availability of human resources support (CPR=1.591; 95%CI: 1.165–2.173; p=0. 004), visibility of investment in research (CPR=1.481; 95%CI: 1.08–2.029; p=0.014), having equipment and software (CPR=1.482; 95%CI: 1.061–2.069; p=0.018) and laboratories (CPR=1.438; 95%CI: 1.047–1.974; p=0.024) ( Table 4).
Characteristics | Scientific research productivity | CPR (95%CI) * | P-value | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
No (n=289) | Yes (n=111) | ||||
n (%) | n (%) | ||||
Institutional culture: | |||||
Participatory culture | Management commitment | ||||
Yes | 135 (66.83) | 67 (33.17) | 1.493 (1.077-2.068) | 0.015 | |
No | 154 (77.78) | 44 (22.22) | |||
Agreements | |||||
Yes | 82 (70.09) | 35 (29.91) | 1.114 (0.795-1.561) | 0.534 | |
No | 207 (73.14) | 76 (26.86) | |||
Research policies | |||||
Yes | 147 (71.01) | 60 (28.99) | 1.097 (0.798-1.507) | 0.568 | |
No | 142 (73.58) | 51 (26.42) | |||
Motivational culture | Personal growth | ||||
Yes | 211 (69.41) | 93 (30.59) | 1.632 (1.041-2.558) | 0.024 | |
No | 78 (81.25) | 18 (21.74) | |||
Interest in research | |||||
Yes | 181 (69.08) | 81 (30.92) | 1.422 (0.988-2.048) | 0.051 | |
No | 108 (78.26) | 30 (21.74) | |||
Recognition | |||||
Yes | 106 (66.67) | 53 (33.33) | 1.385 (1.012-1.896) | 0.043 | |
No | 183 (75.93) | 58 (24.07) | |||
Teamwork culture | Multidisciplinary research teams | ||||
Yes | 146 (69.86) | 63 (30.14) | 1.199 (0.871-1.652) | 0.263 | |
No | 143 (74.87) | 48 (25.13) | |||
Strategic alliances | |||||
Yes | 129 (67.19) | 63 (32.81) | 1.422 (1.032-1.959) | 0.03 | |
No | 160 (76.92) | 48 (23.08) | |||
Knowledge management: | |||||
Socialization | Access to information | ||||
Yes | 201 (72.56) | 76 (27.44) | 0.964 (0.687-1.3549) | 0.834 | |
No | 88 (71.54) | 35 (28.46) | |||
Dissemination of results | |||||
Yes | 75 (68.18) | 35 (31.82) | 1.214 (0.869-1.697) | 0.263 | |
No | 214 (73.79) | 76 (26.21) | |||
Research proposals | |||||
Yes | 90 (64.29) | 50 (35.71) | 1.522 (1.114-2.080) | 0.009 | |
No | 199 (76.54) | 61 (23.46) | |||
Mentoring by teachers | |||||
Yes | 224 (72.73) | 84 (27.27) | 0.929 (0.645-1.340) | 0.696 | |
No | 65 (70.65) | 27 (29.35) | |||
Externalization | Shared results | ||||
Yes | 65 (62.5) | 39 (37.5) | 1.542 (1.120-2.122) | 0.01 | |
No | 224 (75.68) | 72 (24.32) | |||
Participation in scientific networks | |||||
Yes | 110 (73.83) | 39 (26.17) | 0.912 (0.654-1.273) | 0.588 | |
No | 179 (71.31) | 72 (28.69) | |||
Access to scientific journals | |||||
Yes | 46 (66.67) | 23 (33.33) | 1.254 (0.859-1.831) | 0.255 | |
No | 243 (73.41) | 88 (26.59) | |||
Internalization | Incorporation of lessons learned | ||||
Yes | 126 (68.48) | 58 (31.52) | 1.285 (0.936-1.763) | 0.12 | |
No | 163 (75.46) | 53 (24.54) | |||
Use of research results | |||||
Yes | 105 (66.04) | 54 (33.96) | 1.436 (1.049-1.965) | 0.024 | |
No | 184 (76.35) | 57 (23.65) | |||
Technological capital: | |||||
R&D investment | Availability of supporting human resources | ||||
Yes | 86 (63.24) | 50 (36.76) | 1.591 (1.165-2.173) | 0.004 | |
No | 203 (76.89) | 61 (23.11) | |||
Visibility of investment | |||||
Yes | 112 (65.88) | 58 (34.12) | 1.481 (1.08-2.029) | 0.014 | |
No | 177 (76.96) | 53 (23.04) | |||
Technological resources | Equipment and software | ||||
Yes | 147 (67.43) | 71 (32.57) | 1.482 (1.061-2.069) | 0.018 | |
No | 142 (78.02) | 40 (21.98) | |||
Laboratories | |||||
Yes | 120 (66.67) | 60 (33.33) | 1.438 (1.047-1.974) | 0.024 | |
No | 169 (76.82) | 51 (23.18) | |||
ICT tools | Databases | ||||
Yes | 183 (73.49) | 66 (26.51) | 0.889 (0.646-1.225) | 0.476 | |
No | 106 (70.2) | 45 (29.8) | |||
Collaborative tools | |||||
Yes | 52 (65.0) | 28 (35.0) | 1.349 (0.95-1.917) | 0.105 | |
No | 237 (74.06) | 83 (25.94) |
The multiple logistic regression model found association between scientific research performance with management commitment (APR=1.392; 95%CI: 1.001–1.935; p=0.049) and availability of human resources to support research (APR=1.471; 95%CI: 1.063–2.063; p=0.02) ( Table 5).
Characteristics | APR* | 95% confidence interval | P-value+ |
---|---|---|---|
Management commitment | 1.392 | 1.001–1.935 | 0.049 |
Personal growth | 1.492 | 0.945–2.354 | 0.086 |
Recognition | 1.206 | 0.84–1.733 | 0.31 |
Strategic alliances | 1.283 | 0.886–1.859 | 0.187 |
Research proposals | 1.327 | 0.916–1.922 | 0.134 |
Shared results | 1.314 | 0.867–1.992 | 0.198 |
Use of research results | 1.05 | 0.673–1.638 | 0.83 |
Availability of supporting human resources | 1.471 | 1.063–2.036 | 0.02 |
Visibility of investment | 1.315 | 0.939–1.842 | 0.111 |
Equipment and software | 1.308 | 0.914–1.871 | 0.142 |
Laboratories | 1.278 | 0.919–1.778 | 0.145 |
The evidence presented in this study underscores the importance of understanding both the factors that inhibit and those that foster scientific productivity among undergraduate health sciences students. This focus is increasingly relevant, given the critical role universities play as engines of knowledge, innovation, and social development (Daher, Panuncio & Hernández, 2018). Although numerous higher education institutions have intensified their efforts to promote research, the findings highlight a disjunction between institutional policies and students’ lived experiences. Low productivity levels, reflected in modest percentages of publications and approved projects, contrast sharply with students’ substantial intrinsic interest in research as a key component of their personal and professional growth. This discrepancy suggests the need to reassess the institutional framework, resource availability, and faculty engagement to create environments more conducive to early and meaningful student involvement in research.
Comparisons with more established contexts are particularly enlightening. In universities known for robust research traditions and well-defined incentive policies, student engagement in scientific endeavors can surpass 40–50%. Such figures position the setting analyzed here as still in an early developmental stage—yet one that could be significantly enhanced by adopting strategies proven effective in international contexts (Oyarzún Maldonado et al., 2020). Rather than advocating the uncritical transfer of external models, this approach calls for a reasoned and flexible integration of best practices that align with local characteristics and the institution’s existing potential.
Improving scientific productivity among undergraduate students demands a comprehensive and systematic approach. Merely introducing isolated research methodology courses in the final years of study is insufficient. More effective is the early, transversal integration of research-related activities throughout the curriculum, supported by access to digital repositories, laboratories, academic networks, conferences, and specialized journals (Vera & Vera, 2015). Moreover, the faculty’s role transcends traditional instruction: as mentors, faculty guide the development of critical, analytical, and communicative skills. International evidence supports providing clear, sustained incentives for faculty mentors—such as academic recognition, targeted funding, and reduced teaching loads for those overseeing student research projects—to foster a virtuous cycle in which scientific inquiry becomes central to the university’s academic culture (Rueda-Barrios & Rodenes-Adam, 2016).
Cultivating a strong institutional research culture entails more than meeting preset benchmarks. It involves establishing an environment where scientific inquiry naturally permeates academic training. Systematically disseminating student achievements, consolidating multidisciplinary collaborative networks, creating competitive funding opportunities for undergraduate projects, forging alliances with universities and research centers, and encouraging student participation in conferences, symposia, and specialized workshops are strategies that, when applied consistently, help normalize research within the broader university experience (Tomàs-Folch, Ruíz & Labao, 2015; Castro-Rodríguez, 2019).
In the health sciences, these improvements have implications that extend beyond academia. Training professionals with robust research competencies not only enhances their capacity to integrate scientific evidence into clinical practice, but also prepares them to devise innovative solutions to complex health issues and continuously improve the quality of care. Such outcomes, documented across diverse contexts, reaffirm the importance of fostering a critical and reflective scientific mindset, aligned with the evolving demands of contemporary healthcare systems (Morán-Mariños, Montesinos-Segura & Taype-Rondan, 2019).
In conclusion, the limited scientific productivity observed among undergraduate students should not be viewed as an intractable, structural challenge. Instead, it represents an opportunity to implement informed, strategic, and sustainable reforms. The evidence presented here provides a foundation for adopting more assertive institutional policies, adequate resource allocation, enhanced faculty mentorship, and the expansion of collaborative networks both within and beyond the institution. By bridging the gap between students’ latent interest and the current conditions of research practice, universities can strengthen their national and international standing. Ultimately, integrating research as a fundamental pillar in health sciences education will shape the caliber of future professionals and contribute to the scientific and social advancement increasingly demanded by the global community.
Several limitations of this study should be taken into account when interpreting the findings. First, the focus on students from Norbert Wiener University may introduce selection bias, as this sample might not adequately represent the socioeconomic and educational diversity found in other universities or regions of the country. This limited representativeness constrains the generalizability of the results to other contexts, institutions, or populations. Future research should consider more heterogeneous samples encompassing multiple institutions with varied characteristics, thereby enhancing the external validity of these findings.
Second, there is the possibility of information bias due to unmeasured variables that could act as confounders. Factors such as prior research training, availability of mentors, extracurricular support, or specific academic incentives were not fully captured. These omissions may influence the observed associations and highlight the need for more comprehensive data collection and analytical models in subsequent studies to better isolate the effects of each variable.
Third, the potential for participation bias cannot be overlooked. Students who chose to participate may differ systematically—in terms of motivation, previous research experience, or academic performance—from those who did not take part. Such differences could affect observed productivity levels and perceptions of institutional culture, knowledge management, and technological support. Future studies should consider strategies to improve response rates or employ sampling methods that minimize self-selection effects, ensuring a more balanced representation of the student population.
Moreover, the complexity of assessing scientific productivity extends beyond the metrics used in this study. Although indicators such as journal classification, the H-index, and the frequency of publications in indexed journals provide valuable insights, they do not fully capture the breadth and depth of research engagement. Future research might incorporate additional measures—such as the quality of mentorship, interdisciplinary collaborations, or early involvement in projects—to gain a more nuanced understanding of the factors driving student scientific productivity.
Despite these limitations, this study offers valuable contributions as one of the first nationwide to examine, in an integrated manner, the relationship between student research productivity and factors related to institutional culture, knowledge management, and technological aspects. By addressing dimensions seldom explored in the literature, these findings not only support a more holistic view of the elements influencing student scientific activity but also lay the groundwork for developing more effective academic policies and institutional strategies. Moreover, this work may inspire future research aimed at delving deeper into the internal dynamics of universities, comparing diverse contexts, and evaluating concrete interventions designed to enhance research training, engagement, and productivity among undergraduate students in the health sciences and beyond.
Student performance in scientific research is influenced by several key factors, including management commitment, the sense of personal growth through research, university recognition, the existence of strategic alliances, the development of research proposals, the dissemination and application of students’ research findings, and the availability of technological resources. These findings align with existing literature and provide valuable insights into the current state of research within university faculties.
However, the study highlights a concerning low level of student participation in research activities, an issue insufficiently addressed by universities to cultivate a scientific mindset among their students. This gap could have medium-term repercussions on academic quality and the broader social impact of higher education institutions.
To address these challenges, it is essential to strengthen university programs and systems aimed at monitoring and supporting student engagement in scientific research. Additionally, further research is necessary to explore the factors influencing student performance in greater depth and to understand the future trajectory of university research at both national and international levels.
Zenodo: Conditioning factors for the scientific productivity of undergraduate students of health sciences at a private Peruvian University. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8378295 (Bonilla-Asalde et al., 2023a).
This project contains the following underlying data:
Zenodo: Conditioning factors for the scientific productivity of undergraduate students of health sciences at a private Peruvian University: A cross-sectional analytical study (SURVEY). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10162604 (Bonilla-Asalde et al., 2023b).
This project contains the following extended data:
Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
F1000Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
I have reviewed the changes and adjustments that were made to the final version of the article and I consider that they are well organized and do not affect the evaluation made initially. I give... Continue reading
I have reviewed the changes and adjustments that were made to the final version of the article and I consider that they are well organized and do not affect the evaluation made initially. I give my approval to the final version, in my role as evaluator.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Medical Education
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Partly
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Medical Education
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | ||
---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |
Version 3 (revision) 13 Jan 25 |
read | |
Version 2 (revision) 16 Dec 24 |
read | |
Version 1 03 Jan 24 |
read | read |
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Already registered? Sign in
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (0)