Views from Multinational Pharmaceutical Companies on Allocation of Clinical Trials in Saudi Arabia—Qualitative Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

After careful evaluation of the manuscript "Multinational Pharmaceutical Companies Views of Clinical 2 Trials allocation in Saudi Arabia- Qualitative Study ", you can find below my comments. 

               The paper presents the findings of an in-depth semi-structured qualitative study, which consisted of in-depth interviews conducted with key personnel involved in pharmaceutical companies' clinical trials in Saudi Arabia. Prior to the interviews, a document analysis of related data was carried out in order to develop empirical knowledge of the factors influencing pharmaceutical companies' clinical trials in Saudi Arabia. This was followed by the in-depth semi-structured interviews. The results are of interest and importance to researchers in relevant fields of medicine. The presented findings are significant to the advancement of research in this field. The article is likely to be cited in the future. Please consider the following corrections to improve this manuscript: -        I recommend a revision of the manuscript according to the requirements of the journal (English, technical editing, bibliography, etc.);

-        I recommend a more comprehensive literature review in the Introduction paragraph on this topic to provide scientific support for the results obtained;

-        The Results and Discussion section presents the results of the study. However, it is important that this section also includes an interpretation of the results and a comparison with several similar studies in the literature;

-        The results of the article may be of interest to a range of academic disciplines. However, in order to be considered for publication, it is recommended that the research be complemented by further research (proposing concrete operational measures to improve the efficiency and ethical conduct of clinical trials of pharmaceutical companies in Saudi Arabia) to substantiate the significance of the findings.

-        I recommend the inclusion of a larger number of more recent studies on the subject and their insertion in bibliographic references;

-        I recommend a more concise and thorough description of the data collected, their interpretation and the experimental conclusions that can be drawn;

-        I recommend that conclusions be formulated which emphasise the importance of the results obtained, as this paragraph is missing.

Based on the above mentioned, I recommend this paper for publication after performing the suggested correction.

 

Best regards,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached copy.  A review of English should be performed and help with grammatical issues.  I would use barriers instead of hindrances or hinders.  Watch using words such as Moreover, Furthermore.

Many aspects are overstated or stated with too much confidence.  Keep to the results as found.

The methods section needs more information on the interviews.  Please describe these methods in detail.  Who did the interviews, how were the questions derived, and did just one person do them (were they trained?)?

In the results, quotes are used from subjects 4,5,6,7  --what about the others?  I did not see a true thematic analysis with results from all interviews.  I think your conclusion gives the themes clearly, but how was this derived? 

You report no limitations to the study, but there are limitations to discuss.  Those must be reported.

3.1 Theme 1 needs expanded with more explanation.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article needs some significant revisions related to the English language.  

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Elaborate on the key findings and make them more tangible in the abstract. You may want to delete some repeated phrases.

Address grammatical issues and improve sentence structure for more formal and academic tone.

It’s not hinders, it’s barriers.

Methodology section is robust.

Discussion: While the challenges surrounding IRBs are discussed, there is no mention of potential solutions. The discussion would benefit from suggestions on how to overcome these hurdles

Conclusion: The concluding sentences are vague. The phrases are a repetition of earlier points without offering new insights or strong takeaways. The conclusion should summarize the key points more explicitly and perhaps suggest actionable recommendations or areas for future research.

Highlight specific interventions or solutions that could emerge from the study as a part of the conclusion.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

• There are several grammatical errors, such as "this number is small", instead they would have used "this number is notably low").
• Sentences like "Allocating clinical trials in Saudi Arabia will brings great benefit but requires tackling limited aspects" contain errors ("brings" should be "bring" and "limited aspects" is vague). Several such minor grammatical errors were defined.
• The sentence structures in some parts feel informal