Barriers in Sustainability of Dental Students Choosing Academic Career Path: Comparison between the United States and Japan
, Masahiko Maeno 2, Xixi Zhou 3, Daisuke Sasaki 4, Yukinori Kuwajima 5, Yoshiki Ishida 6, Takehito Nakamura 7, Kenichiro Kobayashi 7, Yasushi Hojo 7 and Shigemi Nagai 7,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is well written, needing only some corrections/clarifications as stated below.
Sentence 107-108:;……existence of 107 dept between JDS and UDS. Dept or debt?
Sentence 109-112 (3. Results)
It is not mentioned about the number of participants from UDS. The statistics data shown in Figure 1 – 5 reveal the findings for UDS. How the percentage of participants from UDS are obtained? This is the main concern of this paper.
The writing of this paragraph (110-112) should be located under 2. Materials and Methods.
There must be some reasons the two JDS-specific questions were added into the JDS. Please explain.
119-122, Figure 1. ‘Comparison of percentage of patient’s education level….’, Surprisingly the word ‘patient’ appears in the title.
‘Dental Technology as a new barrier faced in faculty recruitment’ – this can be further discussed in the recommendation for future research.
Author Response
Thank you for the review. The manuscript was revised accordingly, and a response to each comment was uploaded.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
It will continue to review the following sections:
1. Summary to review and improve it must incorporate the conclusions obtained in the study if it is incomplete.
2. In the introduction you need to review and incorporate related studies in Japan.
3. The methodology has not been developed, so it is necessary to incorporate: research design, type of research, population and sample, the instrument used, indicate whether it has been validated, and the administration process. Indicate if the subjects under study were informed about the Informed Consent.
4. In the discussion it is necessary to incorporate quotes from studies carried out.
5. In the conclusions there must be coherence between the objective of the study and the results obtained. What the researchers have proposed is very superficial.
6. I believe that a section should be included regarding the new lines of research that are generated from this inquiry.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for the review. The manuscript was revised accordingly, and a response to each comment was uploaded.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
After having reviewed the article, he has incorporated the suggestions proposed in the previous review.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
