Thank you for the excellent work and well designed study. The title of the paper is informative and is directly related to the objective of the study. The abstract is well structured and highlights the important points representing the work. The most important results are evident in the abstract and there is sufficient coherence leading to a well formulated conclusion.

The introduction describes very well the body of research that exists on this subject. This identifies the opportunity for adding to the existing work that the authors have identified. The research question is very well outlined and fits perfectly into the previous work that was done in this field even identifying the need to use a different inventory as per previous work recommendations and justifying the selection of the inventory that was used.

The process of subject selection is clear and well described and the non selection criteria are also well described. The variables are well defined and measured. Details described are sufficient and well described to allow for reproducibility of the study. The data is represented in an appropriate way. Units are appropriate and rounding of the decimals is done perfectly Categories are grouped appropriately. The text in the results add to the data and is complementary. statistical significant results are clear. The conclusions answer the aim of the study and are supported by references and results.

Points to consider: 1- References are sufficient, although many are not updated. more than 50% of references can be revisited. 2- The hypothesis in my opinion offers very little insight in my opinion to the value of the study and rather answers a very standard question that has been answered in previous literature. 3-There is a problem of generalizability of the results if the hypothesis is justified and thus there needs to be a revisit to the main message intended by the authors. 4- The choice of one school students to identify the learning styles of students is not identified as a very reliable method that will ensure reproducibility and generalizability of the study findings. internal validity of the method is maintained but external validity is scrutinized given the selection criteria that are not designed to develop a representative sample. 5-Table 4 representing the demographics would have been better represented with a figure to allow for better visual comparison of the sample since the sample is really based on convenience. 6- Table 6 would have been better presented as in text narration rather than a whole table for this little amount of information. 7- In Table 3 the title of the first and third column needs to be elaborated and identified. The internal reliability coefficient Chronbach's alpha tested less than 0.7 in three variables which undermines the internal reliability of the Turkish scale

Opinion: There is an obvious over interpretation of the results underhand with the assumption that the structure of the physiotherapy students all over Turkey are similar to those in this particular school. Limitations of this study are irreparable and are in direct contradiction or conflict with the bold assumption made in the conclusion section. This can be solved by revising the aim of the study and the title or maybe identifying a rather bigger more representative sample.