Dear Editor thank you for sending me the comments on the revised paper.
I am pleased that both reviewer one and two are satisfied with the paper.
I have responded to all of the suggestions from the last reviewer and have provided
the details of changes below
Reviewer's report
Title: Perceptions of UK medical graduates' preparedness for practice: A
multi-centre qualitative study reflecting the relevance of the work of Lave and
Wenger and Eraut on work-based learning.
The title has been revised as Lave and Wenger and Eraut have been reduced the title
is now
Title: Perceptions of UK medical graduates' preparedness for practice: A
multi-centre qualitative study reflecting the importance of learning on the job.
Reviewer's report:
The revised paper is much better but further changes are required. These are
mostly in terms of order in which information is presented, particularly in the
results section which is a peculiar mish-mash of conceptual framework, results
and discussion.
In order:
p2 paragraph starting "Uk graduates ..." move this to the methods section, to
population/participants
This section has been moved as requested.
p4 - remove setence starting Armstrong et al (just sits there, without relating to
the rest of the section).
The sentence has been deleted as requested.
Rest of p4 and top of p5, better in methods section, label 2.2 Conceptual
framework" as sits very uncomfortably in the introduction. And add a sentence or
two at the end concluding neatly for the reader as to how using these theories
underpinned the study and enables further knowledge on the topic compared to
atheoretical work.
A section headed conceptual framework has been added and revised as requested.
Methods
A few stray typos - p6, first paragraph of participants.
Typos corrected.
Paragraph "The graduate sample" ... repeats the same point three times.
Remove the second sentence starting "Graduates were selected ...". Reorganise
order of the long section starting "Traingulated data". Move paragraph starting
"three groups" first, then paragraph "traingulated data" after this.
Revised as suggested.
top p8 change sentence "how typical the current cohort of F1s are" to good
English (try "The typicality of the current cohort of F1s"
This sentence has been revised.
2.3 could be heck of a lot more concise. Say it was an iterative process and
reference, rather than describing in details.
Details have been reduced as requested.
2.4 say constructivist grounded theory in the first sentence, then remove the
second sentence. Again, awfully long winded section - could the authors ask
someone good with reducing text be asked to review and tidy it up?
Text has been revised and reduced.
3.1 move to methods and label as conceptual framework.
Moved as suggested.
The results section overall suffers a lot from the mish-mash of theory, results and
discussion all bunged in together, and its long-winded. For example, most of the
first paragraph under 3.2.1 could go. Try just "in relation to the work of L and W,
this illustrates their tranisition from having a right to be there (legitmate) in an
observational and nonparticipative role to being included and having a clear and
active role in the community's practice".
Revised following suggestions.
last few sentences on p14 - starting "Wenger ..." again just seem dropped in here
with little to do with anything in the results presented before or after. Remove.
Deleted from here as suggested.
p15 sentence beginning Eraut - discussion not results.
Deleted from here as suggested.
p16. Most of the section "According to Lave ..." could be cut. Keep first sentence
of that paragraph, and the last, but finish the last sentence by adding " ...
reflecting the production of identify (Wenger).
Deleted from here – some of this moved to discussion.
p17 remove the end of the sentence after xray, first paragraph 3.3.1
Deleted as suggested.
p20 removed end of first paragraph from "This tension ....".
Moved as suggested.
Mid p23 , the paragraph starting "Wenger" should be in the discussion not
bunged in here.
Removed as suggested.
The discussion is generally OK although long-winded and lacking references
(possibly due to the misplacing of a lot of theoretical chat in the results section).
Adding a section conceptual framework to the methods section and bringing in
some theoretical discussion of the results into the discussion is required.
Lave and Wenger sections moved to discussion and reduced.
6 nees to end with a sentence "The use of x and y conceptual frameworks added
value to the analysis and extended understanding of this topic".
Added as suggested.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'