FROM : Exploring the Self-efficacy and Its Influencing Factors of University Nursing Students in Taiwan during the Clinical Practicum

Reviewer Comments-1

Yes, the manuscript is important for the scientific community. As the authors specified, this topic is a very much needed, as we need to focus on the self-efficacy aspects of nursing students. There are very few limited studies on this topic. This topic can act as a yard stick for the administrators to enhance the self- efficacy of nursing students. The title is little bit confusing. Does it include the clinical practicum or is during internship only? It needs more clarification. Do third year students have internship in their curriculum. The abstract need to be more comprehensive. The abstract is mentioning 264 students selected by convenient sampling. How many students do you have in each year?

It would be good if the number of students in each class and the samples you have selected from each class is more comprehensive. Still details of the tool should be included. Please mention the name of the tools used. It can be much improved. There are some grammar, spelling and punctuation mistakes that need to be rectified. The introduction started with internship. It is not clear why, internship was mentioned. The title includes clinical practicum. It should be specified accordingly. Review of literature: This is well written. But the scholarly articles do not require this section separately. Is it the journal policy to include review of literature? Many standardized journals follow the IMRD (introduction, Methodology, Results and Discussion method) Results should include different tables and figures. There is only one table and no figures are seen. In methodology, there is a mention of ANOVA and t-test. There is no inclusion of tables showing these.

Discussion:

It is not as much supporting the results. It should be much more supporting. Results are also not clear. Check the symbols in the figures of results. The wordings need to be more refined.

Response Report

All have corrected as per the reviewer’s comments

Reviewer Comments-2

Excellent flow. Good transitions and headers. The results of ANOVA should also be presented with graphical representations.

Yes. This is vital information to improving the number of nurses in the profession and how to help them be more secure in their pursuit of nursing. Good abstract. One suggestion—under results “was slightly lower than the respondents of the original one.” Clarify what is meant by “original one”.  Minor revisions marked (track changes) on the manuscript and in this review.

Response Report

Thank you for the comments. I have changed in the article as per the reviewer comments