This manuscript addresses joint displays of findings from mixed methods studies. The author(s) provide a definition and background as to why joint displays are an important means for providing information about both the qualitative and quantitative data from a study. Additionally, an overview of mixed-methods designs is provided. The majority of the manuscript is the result of a methodological review of joint displays in published nursing research. Findings presented are a secondary analysis of a prevalence study (in press) of published mixed-methods nursing research. The methods for the prevalence study are summarized.
While the prevalence study will be published, the methods of that study are not clearly explicated in this paper. It is unclear why the 10 journals were selected, given that some key nursing research journals were not included (e.g., Western Journal of Nursing Research, Journal of Nursing Scholarship). It is also not clear if only articles in which a nurse was the 1st author were considered; and how many individuals reviewed the articles.
Overall, the major critique of this manuscript is the number of lists in the text. This reviewer counted 16 lists in the text. This made reading the article very difficult. A recommendation is that the current tables 2 & 3 be considered as supplemental material, and the content at least some of the lists be placed in tables for ease of understanding. For example, in the Mixed Methods Design section – there is a list of core and complex designs – this can be placed in a table to visually see and understand these difference designs. Similarly, there are lists of key elements concerning data integration; 4 different ways in which integration occurs; in the Joint displays section there are lists of what should be included in the joint display; how mixed-methods should be identified; and a typology (9 items). There continue to be lists throughout the manuscript. While the content in these lists are important, it is difficult for the reader to grasp in text alone.
The authors include recommendations in the Discussion section in the text and in the bullet points on page 16. If a bulleted list is to be included, all recommendations should be listed there instead of including some in the text (e.g., pg 16 line 22 (“It is imperative that nurse researchers use recent and advanced approached to data integration…”.

The authors were very responsive to reviewer comments and the manuscript is much improved. A few edits are still needed:
- page 4, 5th line down - should be "do so could compromise" [not 'comprise']
- page 4 - 2nd line from bottom, should be "...populations that are studied using each design." [not 'suing']
- too many uses of 'in order to' - these can be edited to 'to'
- page 15 - the first line notes that 'it is essential that researchers report all three kinds of meta-inferences..." - this same language is used beginning in line - 6. This redundancy can be eliminated.
- Figure 1 - under 'Records after duplicates removed' should be (n-2,094). Not [n=2.094]
-Table 1 - Delete all of the 'It involves" phrases in the Definition and Purpose column.
- Table 2 - The Definition column does not need to restate the Integration Technique. For example - The definition for Connecting can begin with "Analysis of one...."
-Table 3 - The phrase 'The display is' that begins each row 3 can be deleted.

Revisions are responsive and acceptable.