-->PONE-D-25-43439-->-->The experiences, challenges, and enablers for promoting interprofessional education among medical students: A Scoping Review-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Assibi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 24 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ebtsam Aly Abou Hashish, Professor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

4. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex.

5. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. The topic is timely and relevant, exploring experiences and challenges in promoting interprofessional education (IPE) among medical students. Your work can make a useful contribution to the literature once methodological clarity and reporting consistency are improved.

Please address the following key points in your revision:

However, while the topic fits well within the aims of PLOS ONE, the current submission requires substantial revision to achieve methodological clarity, consistency in reporting, and compliance with the journal’s formatting and transparency standards.

Both reviewers agreed that the paper’s potential is evident but expressed serious concerns regarding methodological rigor, internal consistency (particularly in the PRISMA diagram and results section), and overall writing quality. These areas must be addressed comprehensively before further consideration.

Detailed comments

1. Clarity and Consistency

Define “interprofessional education (IPE)” at its first appearance, then use the abbreviation consistently throughout.

Review and correct all in-text citations and reference formatting to match PLOS ONE style requirements.

Avoid long or fragmented sentences and ensure grammatical correctness throughout the manuscript. The writing should be clear, concise, and professional.

2. Methodological Transparency

Expand the Methods section to provide full detail on:

Databases searched, search terms, and date of last search.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria and rationale for each.

Screening and selection process, including how disagreements were resolved.

Criteria used for data extraction, coding, and thematic synthesis.

Clarify how data were “extrapolated” and “charting of trends” was done—currently these are vague and non-reproducible.

Justify the search period (2014–2024). Reviewers noted that all included studies appear to fall between 2019–2024, raising questions about completeness of earlier data.

Provide a more detailed explanation of why only 11 studies were included from an initial pool of 1,500.

3. PRISMA Flow and Reporting Issues

Correct inconsistencies between the text and the PRISMA diagram:

The text states that 1,440 duplicates were removed and 60 records were screened, while the diagram shows “Records after duplicates removed (n=1500)” and 59 screened.

These numbers must reconcile exactly.

Follow PRISMA-ScR (2020) guidance precisely. Include:Clean flow diagram (no color highlights).

PRISMA checklist with page references.

Justifications for any “not applicable” items.

4. Results and Interpretation

Present the narrative results before tables and figures.

Add descriptive footnotes under all tables to specify statistical measures (mean, SD, significance level, and test used, if applicable).

Consider simplifying or merging repetitive tables to reduce redundancy.

Clearly connect findings to the review objectives. Avoid general statements such as “improved teamwork” without evidence.

Provide at least one example of how extracted data informed each theme or conclusion.

5. Discussion and Critical Analysis

Strengthen the critical discussion by referencing recent literature on IPE implementation, especially in low-resource or LMIC contexts.

Explicitly highlight how your findings address gaps in the existing evidence base.

Avoid overstating conclusions; focus on synthesizing key patterns, challenges, and enablers supported by the data.

Add a short paragraph on implications for educators and institutions developing IPE programs.

6. Data Availability and Transparency

Ensure the Data Availability Statement is accurate and compliant with PLOS ONE policy.

Upload the PRISMA-ScR checklist, search strategy, and data extraction sheet as supplementary files.

7. Technical and Formatting Corrections

Correct typographical errors, fragmented sentences, and inconsistent tenses.

Ensure tables and figures are numbered sequentially and cited in-text.

Check for missing details in references (author initials, issue numbers, page ranges, DOIs).

Summary of Required Actions

Please include the following with your revised submission:

A corrected PRISMA 2020 flow diagram.

A completed PRISMA-ScR checklist with page references.

Full search strategies for each database.

Data-charting form or extraction template.

Clear explanations for “data extrapolation” and “trend charting.”

A tracked-changes version of the manuscript.

Clean, final version of the manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: No

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

-->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: General:

Do not use ‘IPE’ without first introducing the abbreviation. When you mention interprofessional education for the first time, include (IPE) in parentheses.

Once you introduce the full term, continue to use IPE only throughout the manuscript.

The in-text citation style does not match the journal requirements.

Results and PRISMA diagram:

In the results section, the authors mentioned:

“Duplicates of 1,440 were eliminated through EndNote software and manual screening as well. A total of 60 unique records were revealed to be worked on.”

The PRISMA diagram does not accurately represent any of the data. The diagram shows “Records after duplicates removed (n =1500)” and ’59 articles’ were screened. Please fix these errors. Remove the highlighted colours from the PRISMA diagram.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. It addresses an important topic-- the experiences, challenges, and enablers of interprofessional education among medical students. Unfortunately, there are numerous methodological and weaknesses that make me concerned as a reviewer about originality, rigor, and interpretability. See below for examples of my concerns.

1) There are many sentences throughout the manuscript that seem to be fragments or otherwise are incomplete or grammatically incorrect.

2) There are several places where assertions are made about the state of the literature in this field without citing sources

3) The methods section is confusing and makes statements like "a very strong methodological approach was used" but then doesn't provide the level of detail for readers to come to that conclusion themselves

4) The reasons for the search period (2014-2024) are not clear and it seems unlikely that there would be no articles meeting the criteria from the period between 2014-2018 (all of the included articles were from 2019-2024)-- one potential is that the authors selected articles to include as examples but it's not clear from the manuscript.

5) The authors describe extrapolating data that wasn't clear but do not provide a description of how they did this or examples of what types of data were extrapolated. Similarly, they describe charting trends but do not describe how they did this.

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

-->PONE-D-25-43439R1-->-->Experiences, challenges, and enablers for promoting interprofessional education among medical students: A  scoping review-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Assibi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by  May 11 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

• A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

-->

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ebtsam Aly Abou Hashish, Professor

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments :

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript.

The revision shows clear improvement. The methodological framework is now transparent, the reporting aligns with PRISMA-ScR standards, and the manuscript demonstrates a coherent and well-structured synthesis. The study addresses a relevant topic and offers a useful contribution.

Required Editorial Revisions

1. Strengthen the Discussion (Priority)

The discussion is informative but remains partially descriptive.

Revise to:

Emphasize interpretation rather than repetition of results

Clearly explain what the findings mean in practice

Strengthen linkage between findings and implications

Add short, direct statements that answer:

What do these findings change?

Why do they matter?

2. Sharpen the Conclusion

The conclusion should be more focused and impactful.

Revise to:

Avoid repetition of earlier sections

Clearly state:

the main contribution

the key implication

one forward-looking insight

Keep it concise and synthesis-driven.

3. Improve Flow and Reduce Repetition

There is some redundancy across:

Results

Discussion

Revise to:

Avoid repeating the same ideas in multiple sections

Ensure each section has a distinct purpose

4. Consistency and Clarity

Please ensure:

Consistent terminology throughout the manuscript

Alignment of dates and inclusion criteria

Minor language polishing for clarity and readability

Final Note to Authors

We look forward to receiving your revised version.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

-->

Experiences, challenges, and enablers for promoting interprofessional education among medical students: A  scoping review

PONE-D-25-43439R2

Dear Dr. Maxwell Ateni Assibi

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ebtsam Aly Abou Hashish, Professor

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript. The paper has improved significantly in response to the reviewers’ feedback.

Strengths of the manuscript include:

Clear articulation of the research gap focusing specifically on medical students rather than mixed professional groups

Appropriate use of a scoping review methodology aligned with PRISMA-ScR guidelines

Logical organization and improved flow across sections

Meaningful synthesis of findings highlighting key challenges such as role ambiguity, hierarchy, and organizational constraints

Practical implications for curriculum integration and interprofessional education design

The discussion is now more focused and better aligned with the results. The conclusion clearly reflects the core contribution, particularly the identified disconnect between positive attitudes and role understanding in interprofessional education.

The manuscript is now suitable for publication in its current form.

Congratulations to the authors on this work.

Reviewers' comments:

-