Overall, thesis is much improved over the previous version. However, the changes are not sufficient to pass.<\/p>\n
Additional comments
\nThere is still lack of focus and coherence. The background is comprehensive and contains lots of information (most of which are relevant), but the background as a whole need to be revised to clearly motivate the research gap and the need for this review. That is still unclear.<\/p>\n
The previous comment on the results and discussion are still not adequately addressed. Aside the headings \u201cresults\u201d and \u201cdiscussion\u201d, it is unclear from reading the content what the differences are between the two sessions.<\/p>\n
There are concluding remarks in the discussion section but not a separate section on \u201cconclusion\u201d for the entire thesis.<\/p>\n
Other details<\/p>\n
There is a section titled \u201cRisk of bias (quality) assessment\u201d but it still doesn\u2019t clearly show how the quality criteria was applied and how the analysis and reporting was done in relation to the quality assessment.<\/p>\n
Under Eligibility criteria, it is stated that \u201cThe Inclusion and exclusion criteria can be seen in the tables below\u201d However, I cannot locate the Tables with exclusion and exclusion criteria. Table 2 is labelled \u201cTable 2 PICOS Criteria, Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria\u201d but it is not unclear what is the inclusion or the exclusion criteria.<\/p>\n
In the methods section it is stated that \u201cTherefore, the report used qualitative data analysis to collect and analyze data to give the results\u201d. It is unclear what is meant by this in the context of this systematic review?<\/p>\n
What is labelled as Figure 2 is rather a Table.<\/p>\n
The references still to be revised to be consistent, example in respect of details given for year of publication. The last reference is misplaced.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Overall, thesis is much improved over the previous version. However, the changes are not sufficient to pass. Additional comments There is still lack of focus and coherence. The background is comprehensive and contains lots of information (most of which are relevant), but the background as a whole need to be revised to clearly motivate the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"disciplines":[1110],"paper_types":[],"tagged":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/9942"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/questions"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9942"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/9942\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9942"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"disciplines","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/disciplines?post=9942"},{"taxonomy":"paper_types","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/paper_types?post=9942"},{"taxonomy":"tagged","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tagged?post=9942"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}