A Study of Quality Assessment in Higher Education within the Context of Sustainable Development: A Case Study from Czech Republic
Xuesong (Andy) Gao
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors make a presentation on the implementation of the quality system in universities.
What were the research methods?
After the application of this quality system, what has improved?
Has the number of students increased, has the number of students hired increased after graduation?
Specifically, what has changed since the application of this system?
I would propose to make some comparisons at international level with other universities that have implemented this quality system at university level.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript is a nice presentation on how quality is assessed, controlled and maintained in two universities. However, as a critical reader, I would like to see a much more critical engagement with the idea of quality assurance in higher education. I have the following concerns:
- The introduction needs to identify and present a significant knowledge gap that justifies the study on quality assurance (sustainable quality assurance) in higher education. What research has been conducted on the topic and what findings we do have from previous research and what do we still need to know so that we can have sustainable quality assurance. I am also critical about the authors' uncritical embrace of corporate quality assurance mechanisms in running universities. It depends on contexts. In some contexts, universities are considered public goods providers and it is necessary for authors to be familiar with the rising critique of new managerialism in university management.
- I do not see any research element built into this mansucript. If this is fine with the journal editor, then I am fine with it. Nevertheless, I would like it to be presented as a case study. The authors need to present some information on the sources of information and data analysis. Are the authors employees of the two universities? In this case, how can readers be sure that they are presenting a critically engaging objective account of the two universities.
- I would like to see the authors distancing themselves from what is being practiced in the two universities. It is important for the authors to convey a clear critical message for readers so that they can take home with to facilitate sustainable quality assurance in university management in their own contexts. Tell readers what they can do with the reported experience of the two universities here.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors raise a topic of great importance for those interested in the management of university organizations. The reviewer shares with the authors many of their ideas and has enjoyed deeply reading the manuscript. A manuscript that, on the other hand, is very easy to read.
The authors present their valuable experience in implementing a quality assurance system, first in the Technical University of Ostrava and later in another group of universities in the Czech Republic.
However, what we have here, although interesting and valuable, is not a research paper but a management experience. Even though a theoretical framework can be perceived, there is no methodology, analysis, or results. On the other hand, while in the final part of the manuscript the authors summarize some of their conclusions, there is no discussion.
Although in the field of academic publications a certain flexibility of formats can (and should) be tolerated, in reviewer´s opinion, a work not supported in a deep analysis (qualitative or quantitative), without findings or evidences, has no place in a scientific journal of this level.
The reviewer reiterates again the value of the manuscript and congratulates the authors for sharing their experience and reflections with the academic community. However, in reviewer´s opinion, the authors should readjust this work to another format more suitable: a congress or perhaps a book chapter.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
"The main objective of this article is to present the approaches to the quality management systems’ development and their assessment at universities, as well as to share some lessons learned from this area of our research".
I found this in materials and methods and also in discussions.
I believe that the conclusions should be drawn separately
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for your efforts to revise. The revision does not help clarify the manuscript a lot. I am afraid that I do not think that universities can be managed like business corporations (or manufactoring companies).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have made a significant effort to readjust the work. A literature review is now provided. The methodology, although supported by merely qualitative techniques, also has its own section. Likewise, the authors also present differentiated sections for results and conclusions.
Additionally, the change in the title, explicitly indicating that it is a case study and not a traditional research article, provides the reader with a more accurate and honest vision of the work.
However, in reviewer’s opinion, some improvements are still needed.
- Methodology. More details of the techniques used should be provided. Types of interviews or focus groups? are they structured or semi-structured? are they group or individual interviews? number of subjects participating in them? All this must be detailed and justified with the pertinent bibliographic references.
- Results and Discussion. A discussion involves the comparison of the findings (or in this case the author's reflections) with what was stated by other authors. In the current paper there is no discussion. The reviewer´s recommendation is to keep the results section in its current state and move the discussion to the conclusions section (Conclusions and discussion). This section (Conclusions and discussion) should be enriched with mentions to other works.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
I do not have further comments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors, following reviewer’s recommendations, have introduced modifications in methodology and discussion-conclusions that substantially improve the work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
