Basic Training of Teachers and Public Health Nurses for Communication with Residents for Smooth Shelter Management: A Pilot Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article is scientifically interesting and in some respects deserves to be published in the journal Sustainability. However, for this to happen, you need some major changes to this article.
1. The article is based on a very small number of scientific sources - only 30. Not all of them are valuable. There is a need to review the literature and publications of other authors so as to base one's research on this background and, above all, compare it with other scientific achievements.
2. The article does not compare my own research with other studies of this type in the world literature. The discussion of the problem (the penultimate chapter) should be based on quoting other works, quoting the main results and comparing them to your own. This is missing from this work.
3. The summary is too laconic. Rewrite them, cite the main results, indicate their limitations and the possibilities for further research.
4. The article is too descriptive, not scientific enough - it looks more like a research report than it actually makes an important contribution to science.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
This article is scientifically interesting and in some respects deserves to be published in the journal Sustainability. However, for this to happen, you need some major changes to this article.
Response: Thank you for your critical observations and all the useful suggestions.
Comment 1: The article is based on a very small number of scientific sources - only 30. Not all of them are valuable. There is a need to review the literature and publications of other authors so as to base one's research on this background and, above all, compare it with other scientific achievements.
Response: Thank you for your precious advice. This time, we did an extensive literature review and added more 20 references mostly in mostly ‘Introduction’ and also ‘Discussion’ sections based on scientific interaction.
Comment 2: The article does not compare my own research with other studies of this type in the world literature. The discussion of the problem (the penultimate chapter) should be based on quoting other works, quoting the main results and comparing them to your own. This is missing from this work.
Response: Thank you for your useful recommendation. We have revised the manuscript with a comparison of global literature. We have drastically revised and rewritten the ‘Discussion’ with quoting and comparison of others works/published reports.
Comment 3: The summary is too laconic. Rewrite them, cite the main results, indicate their limitations and the possibilities for further research.
Response: We have revised and expanded the summary by adding the main results of this study. We have also indicated limitations and future implications of this study.
Comments 4: The article is too descriptive, not scientific enough - it looks more like a research report than it actually makes an important contribution to science.
Response: Thank you for your helpful comments. We have revised the manuscript extensively and tried to indicate the scientific points and importance.
Reviewer 2 Report
The title of the study is interesting. I think it is a study that reflects the characteristics of the country well as there are many various disaster situations in Japan. The results of this study may help to perform the role of a teacher in a disaster situation. However, some modifications are needed. Please check the comments below and correct them. - From the present introduction alone, I do not understand the need for this study. Can you emphasize the need for this study? - 2.3.2. training procedure describe more detail. - Move the contents of Ethics. Describe in Participants and Sampling. Did all the teachers who participated in this study get informed consent form to participate in the study? - Do not separate sections in the discussion. Describe the discussion without section separation. - It is hoped that the discussion will provide a more explanation based on previous studies regarding the improvement of cognitive scores. - The following is described in the discussion: “On the other hand, there was little interest in collaborating with the residents. Before training, the teachers did not believe that working with the community was their job. After training, they saw that working with the community was a part of their job.” Why did these results come out? - There will be a few more limitations of this study. Additional description. - The conclusion section is very simple. Expand the conclusion section further.Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
The title of the study is interesting. I think it is a study that reflects the characteristics of the country well as there are many various disaster situations in Japan. The results of this study may help to perform the role of a teacher in a disaster situation. However, some modifications are needed. Please check the comments below and correct them.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have tried to address all of your comments and fixed them.
Comments - From the present introduction alone, I do not understand the need for this study. Can you emphasize the need for this study?
Response: We have revised the ‘Introduction’ section and emphasized the research gap and the need for this study.
Comments - 2.3.2. training procedure describe more detail.
Response: We have revised and added the detailed training procedure under the ‘Training Procedure’ part of the ‘Materials and Methods’ section.
Comments - Move the contents of Ethics. Describe in Participants and Sampling. Did all the teachers who participated in this study get informed consent form to participate in the study?
Response: We have revised and transferred the content of ethics as per your advice. Yes, we have included all the teachers who provided informed consent to participate in the study (page 3, line 311, 312).
Comments - Do not separate sections in the discussion. Describe the discussion without section separation.
Response: We have revised and removed all sub-headings in the discussion.
Comments - It is hoped that the discussion will provide a more explanation based on previous studies regarding the improvement of cognitive scores.
Response: We have revised the discussion section extensively with the interpretation of previous studies.
Comments - The following is described in the discussion: “On the other hand, there was little interest in collaborating with the residents. Before training, the teachers did not believe that working with the community was their job. After training, they saw that working with the community was a part of their job.” Why did these results come out?
Response: We have revised and deleted this confusing text.
Comments - There will be a few more limitations of this study. Additional description.
Response: We have added more limitations in the discussion sections under the ‘Research Limitations’ part and in the ‘Conclusions’ section.
Comments - The conclusion section is very simple. Expand the conclusion section further.
Response: We have revised the conclusion section and expanded it according to your advice. Thank you.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors sufficiently corrected the article in relation to the reviews. The structure and the literature review were improved. I believe that the article may be published in the presented version.
