• The title is informative and relevant
• Both primary and secondary aims are clear
• The study found was clear however the missing part was the response rate
• The overall references were relevant, recent, and cited correctly with some old ones: Linn LS, Dimatteo MR, Cope DW, Robbins A. Measuring physicians’ humanistic attitudes, values, and behaviors. Med Care.1987;25:504---15.2 Which could be replaced by more relevant and more recent And irrelevant one: Douglas SP, Rhee DK. Examining generic competitive strategy types in U.S. and European markets. J Int Bus Stud.1989; Fall:437---63
• Some appropriate key studies are not included like Pedersen R. Empirical research on empathy in medicine– a critical review. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;76:307-22. -It is clear about the topic but a rearrangement of some paragraphs should be carried out The author says (7where the author conducted a literature review on the) it should be (7where the author conducted a systemic review on )
• confusion of findings in the literature review The author says (5Some studies show that empathy mean scores decline during university medical education.11---15However, more recently, other studies present results where this decrease is not observed. For example, in Japan, Korea, and Portugal the levels of empathy increase in senior students.16---18In the study with Iranian medical students, the empathy increases from the 3rd year and there was a decrease from the 1stto the 2nd year.19This finding seems to be the opposite of Hojat’s longitudinal findings which showed that a significant decline occurs in the third year of medical school.
• The author says (15All studies present the same conclusions about female and male differences of empathy mean scores. Women obtain higher scores of empathy than men) But some studies found that there was no difference between Male and Female moreover other studies found that Male has more empathetic level than Female) for more information please see the following references (Brazilian version of the Jefferson Scale of Empathy: psychometric properties and factor analysis) (An assessment of dental students’ empathy levels in Malaysia)

-The research question is clearly outlined

-The process of subject selection is clear but the ethical approval reference number was not clear -as the direct communication between physician and patient may affect the empathy level, the author should mention in which study level are the medical students communicate with patients

• The data is presented in an appropriate way But the higher and lower values of ages are ignored
• The frequency of Male in relation to Female is 2.4 times which affect the accuracy of the comparison results so the author should mention this statement. the results discussed from multiple angles and placed into context without being over-interpreted But there was a lack of author point of view regarding the interpretation of the result the conclusions answer the aims of the study and supported by the results the limitations of the study are not mentioned however some opportunities for further research are mentioned the study design appropriate to answer the aim the study confirms the reliability of the empathy scale and identifies several dimensions of empathy the article consistent within itself Major points in the article which needs clarification, refinement, reanalysis, rewrites 1-some old Ref: Linn LS, Dimatteo MR, Cope DW, Robbins A. Measuring physicians’ humanistic attitudes, values, and behaviors. Med Care.1987;25:504---15.2 Which could be replaced by more relevant and more recent And irrelevant one: Douglas SP, Rhee DK. Examining generic competitive strategy types in U.S. and European markets. J Int Bus Stud.1989;Fall:437---63
• Some appropriate key studies are not included like Pedersen R. Empirical research on empathy in medicine– a critical review. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;76:307-22. 2-the ethical approval reference number 3-which study level are the medical students communicate with patients? 4- the limitations of the study should be mentioned 5-the author point of view regarding the interpretation of the results should be mentioned