Revision Summary

Learning Inside the System: What Community-Based MHPSS Practice in Pakistan Teaches Us About Global Mental Health Training

I sincerely thank all three reviewers for their careful evaluation of the manuscript and for their constructive and thoughtful feedback. The comments significantly strengthened the conceptual clarity, methodological positioning, and academic framing of the paper. In response, the manuscript was revised extensively to clarify its reflective practitioner methodology, strengthen the pedagogical framing, improve analytical transparency, soften overstatements regarding evidentiary claims, and refine the academic tone throughout.

Reviewer 1: Mavile Karaieva

I thank the reviewer for the detailed and constructive assessment of the manuscript. The comments were particularly valuable in improving the methodological transparency, evidentiary positioning, and analytical structure of the paper.

Comments	Reply	Changes in the Manuscript
The manuscript occasionally implies stronger empirical evidence base than is presented.	Language implying causal or evaluative claims was systematically revised. Terms such as “tested,” “demonstrated,” and “more effective” were replaced with more appropriate formulations.	Abstract; Introduction; Framework section; Conclusion
Add a separate “Reflective case-study approach” or “Methodological note” section.	A dedicated section titled “Reflective Practitioner Case Study Methodology” was added to clarify the nature of the paper, rationale for case selection, author positionality, sources of reflection, and study limitations.	New Methodology Section
Clarify why the four cases were selected and how insights were developed.	The revised methodology section now explains the purposive selection of the four cases and their relevance to different pedagogical dimensions of system-embedded pedagogy.	Methodology Section
Standardize the presentation of the four cases.	A synthesis table was added to map each case against pedagogical mode, learning mechanism, competencies fostered, and contribution to the proposed framework.	New Synthesis Table
Abstract overstates evidentiary status in places.	The abstract was substantially revised to better reflect the conceptual and reflective nature of the manuscript.	Abstract
Manuscript tone is occasionally rhetorical or conversational.	Conversational and rhetorically emphatic language was revised throughout to ensure a more consistent academic tone.	Introduction; Discussion; Conclusion

Reviewer 2: Jaisalmer de Frutos Lucas

I thank the reviewer for the thoughtful feedback regarding conceptual framing, pedagogical structure, and academic tone. The suggestions were highly valuable in improving the rigor and positioning of the manuscript.

Comments	Reply	Changes in the Manuscript
The introduction occasionally appears overly sensational or normative.	The Introduction was revised substantially to adopt a more analytically grounded and conceptually precise tone.	Introduction
Update the dated references in introduction section	All references have been updated.	Introduction; Literature Review; Conclusion
Include a brief operational definition of mental health education.	A concise operational framing of GMH education was incorporated to improve conceptual clarity.	Introduction
Acronyms require standardization.	Acronym usage was reviewed and revised according to journal conventions. Full institutional names are now provided at first mention.	Throughout manuscript
The statement regarding supervision skills requires a reference.	Additional references on supervision pedagogy and competency development were incorporated.	Literature Review Section
The pedagogical question emerges too late in the manuscript.	A clearer framing question and study objective were introduced earlier in the Introduction to strengthen structural coherence.	Introduction
The “What Academic Institutes Can Do Differently?” section requires more rigor and references.	Additional pedagogical and GMH references were incorporated, and recommendations were more explicitly grounded in the four cases presented.	Recommendations Section
The conclusion reads more like a strongly held opinion than a critical synthesis.	The Conclusion was revised to strengthen analytical synthesis and reduce normative or emphatic phrasing.	conclusion
The manuscript requires a more rigorous conceptual presentation overall.	The manuscript underwent extensive conceptual, stylistic, and methodological revision to strengthen academic coherence and positioning.	Throughout manuscript

Reviewer 3: Ruslan Kurmashev, MD

I thank the reviewer for the encouraging assessment of the manuscript and for the constructive suggestions regarding methodological framing, analytical clarity, and writing style.

Comments	Reply	Changes in the Manuscript
The methodological framing requires clarification.	A dedicated methodological section was added to explain the reflective practitioner case study approach, analytical strategy, and author positionality.	Methodology Section
The relationship between the cases and the framework should be more explicit.	The manuscript now includes a synthesis table and clearer transitions linking each case to dimensions of system-embedded pedagogy.	Framework Section; New Synthesis Table
Claims regarding implications for academic institutions are too broad in places.	The discussion and recommendation sections were revised to more directly connect recommendations with the cases and supporting literature.	Recommendation section
Some sentences are overly long and difficult to follow.	The manuscript underwent detailed language editing to improve readability, reduce sentence length, and streamline repetitive phrasing.	Throughout manuscript
Minor grammatical and stylistic issues require attention.	Grammar, syntax, and repetitive phrasing were carefully revised throughout the manuscript.	Throughout manuscript
The tone occasionally becomes conversational.	Conversational phrasing was revised to ensure a more neutral and academically consistent style.	Introduction; Discussion; Conclusion

The revised manuscript now presents a clearer methodological positioning as a reflective practitioner case study and conceptual pedagogical analysis. The revisions strengthen the analytical transparency, conceptual coherence, and academic framing of the paper while preserving its core contribution to ongoing discussions on experiential and system-embedded approaches to global mental health training.