The study estimates the prevalence of burnout symptoms among preclinical and clinical medical students of only one university (AlFaisal University) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia using a validated questionnaire. The findings report considerable levels of burnout among students, more observed in females than males, and the percentage of burnout decreases along with the increase of the study year. Unlike gender, the study year is not considered a risk factor for burnout. However, the findings of the study can't be generalised because of the limited sample size.

Overall, The manuscript is good and quite clear. There is enough data to reproduce the study, and findings are related to the aim of the study. The study spots the light for further research regarding the burnout syndrome of medical students around the globe and finding the interventions that help early detection and prevention. However, other studies contribute to the same effect.

I have a little information in the statistics field; an experienced statistician is required for reviewing the results section.

Page 1 in the structured abstract section, It is better to write the first paragraph under the name of the objective rather than the background. Page 1, the author used abbreviations in the abstract section that is not understandable. Therefore, I recommend writing the whole words. Page 2, In the introduction section, two sentences were contraindicating to each other “Researches from Saudi Arabia have identified a high prevalence of burnout among medical students.” and “the in-depth literature review showed a scarcity in the epidemiological studies exploring the prevalence and impact of burnout among medical students per se in Saudi Arabia.”. So which value does the study add to the current literature? Page 2, Participants, sampling method, and sample size in methodology. Although the authors stated the validity of sample size” The sample size of 278 medical students was determined valid by Rao Soft® sample size calculator at 80% power and 5% margin of error.”, They didn’t state if the sample size can still be valid if divided to clinical and preclinical students.
Page 2 and 3, Data collection instrument and procedure section in methodology, the authors are using undefined abbreviations.