Comments on abstract, title, references

About the abstract and title:

• The aim is not clear.
• It's not clear what the study found and how they did it.
• The title does not fully reflect the text content.

About the References:

• Relevant and recent references are missing.
• They are quoted correctly throughout the text.
• Key studies were not included.
• References seem insufficient to support the study.

Comments on introduction/background

• There is an obvious lack of information on the topic.
• There is no clear research question. The authors are describing an 'experience report' and some learning objectives are presented.
• The research question lacks justification. No literature review on the topic was presented. Just some results from previous studies. In this case, the authors are quoting themselves.

Comments on methodology

• The authors did not present subject selection criteria. They probably used opportunity sampling using the most convenient participants available. But they do not state this explicitly.
• The authors describe how the experience was performed, but do not point to any specific variables to measure. Although they present some data collection instruments.
• It is difficult to say whether the study is valid because the authors did not provide a justification for the method used. Conceptual adequacy was not properly discussed in the text. The was not presented an integration between the theoretical framework and the method used.
• The authors used several sections of parallel experiments, increasing confidence in the results. They used complementary methods of validation of the results.
• Further detailing of the steps used could favor replication of the experiment.

Comments on data and results

• The authors did not present tables or figures or statistical data. They presented only transcribed reports from the focus group sections.
• Data are not presented properly. The number of focus groups or other characteristics of them was not indicated, such as: number of components, composition strategies of each group, script of questions used, among other fundamental aspects of the method.
• One of the strengths of the focus group is to present point and counterpoint discussion results. However, the records presented do not offer this perspective.
• It would be advisable to develop the technique according to a specific guideline and following a more rigorous focus group analysis pattern (Onwuegbuzie, Dickinson, Leech & Zoran, 2009).

Comments on discussion and conclusions

• The discussion and conclusion was not presented in an organized manner by the authors.
• The results are not discussed from various angles and this may have led to misinterpretation.
• The conclusions respond only partially to the objectives of the study (which were previously spelled out). And they are not supported by references or results from other studies.
• Study limitations and suggestions for future studies are not adequately described in the text.

Overall statement

The text addresses a relevant theme and could bring contributions to the field of Interprofessional Education, in the context of higher education. However, the study design needs to be revised to meet the study objective. There are numerous serious flaws that need to be fixed. For example, some important studies were not included. There was also no adequate methodological rigor and the results are not supported by references or results from other studies. Overall, the article is very fragile in terms of scientific rigor and needs extensive review.

Major points in the article which needs clarification, refinement, reanalysis, rewrites and/or additional information:

1. The title does not fully reflect the text content. It should focus on the interprofessional syllabus exercise and the proposed practice analysis.
2. The objective is not clear. It is presented only in the abstract. It would be better to express the general and specific objectives of the study clearly and concisely in the introduction. It is important to distinguish between the learning objectives of the exercise analyzed and the study objective without itself.
3. Relevant and recent references are missing. And some important studies were not included. I expected to see quotes from studies such as Reeves & Barr, 2016; Bridges, Davidson, Odegard, Maki and Tomkowiak, 2011; Gilbert, Yan and Hoffman, 2010; Scrooby, Reitsma & Waggie, 2019, to name a few.
4. The fact that the authors quote themselves repeatedly is a clear methodological error that needs to be corrected.
5. Both in the description of the experience report and composition of the simulation exercise, and later, for the focus group composition, the authors did not present subject selection criteria. This would require a broad review of the methodology used.
6. The number of focus groups was not indicated. It would be important to know the number of components for each group, how they were composed, the script of questions used, and other key aspects of the method.
7. The findings are not supported by references or results from other studies. It would be important to see in this phase of the article a greater theoretical-conceptual debate with the retaking of references cited previously and new references that compare results from other studies.

Minor points like figures/tables not being mentioned in the text, a missing reference, typos, and other inconsistencies:

1. An integration between the theoretical framework and the method used was not presented.
2. The date is not displayed correctly.
3. The discussion and conclusion were not presented in an organized manner by the authors.