This reviewer has asked to remain anonymous. The author of the review, as stated above, is the journal editor, posting on behalf of the reviewer.

1. Complete, coherent, and well-organised presentation: Unfortunately, I have read the paper several times, and I simply do not understand what it is about. There are dozens of home-made abbreviations – not sustainable and not paying attention to universal design (which is completely at odds with sustainable physiotherapy). These abbreviations make the text hard to read and harder to understand. The article needs professional copy editing from German-English to English-English. Very long sentences and some of them are unintelligible.

2. Sufficient explanation of the significance of the problem: There is no introduction that states the context, the aim or the research questions clearly.

3. Clear demonstration of the relevance to the field (beyond the case presented): Not demonstrated.

4. Original contribution to the topic of physiotherapy education: There are a lot of unsubstantiated claims about physiotherapy that I neither recognize nor can follow. There is no introduction to where this study sits, no examples from the context where the material is produced, and a poorly considered use of some concepts e.g. sustainability.

5. Compelling presentation of the problem within a theoretical framework (where appropriate): Not demonstrated.

6. Establishment of a relationship between the problem and other relevant literature: Not demonstrated.

7. Appropriate research design and method: Not demonstrated.

8. Accurate and useful interpretation: The tunnel-model has two timelines. Despite this, the elements are not presented in the same order below – which disturbs both the reading and the model.

9. Sound argument and analysis: Not demonstrated.

10. Effective conclusion about the implications for physiotherapy education, research, and/or practice: Not demonstrated.

 

[jetpack-related-posts]