Integrating Social Innovation into the Curriculum of Higher Education Institutions in Latin America: Insights from the Students4Change Project

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A relevant study for the scientific community is presented due to its scope and timeliness. Everything concerning innovation and entrepreneurship in education is always an attraction for readers interested in this field of knowledge. In addition, the teaching community can see their professional practice improved with this type of work.

However, to improve the quality of the manuscript, authors should address the following observations:

-The authors present a dense theoretical body. However, the theoretical framework would be reinforced with the analysis of the articles that are proposed as an example of good practices in innovation and entrepreneurship in the field of education:

Moreno-Guerrero, A., Soler-Costa, R., Marín-Marín, J., & López-Belmonte, J. (2021). Flipped learning and good teaching practices in secondary education. Comunicar, 68. https://doi.org/10.3916/C68-2021-09

López Belmonte, J., Pozo Sánchez, S., Fuentes Cabrera, A., & Rodríguez García, A. M. (2019). Análisis del desempeño docente en la educación para el emprendimiento en un contexto español. Aula Abierta, 48(3), 321-330. https://doi.org/10.17811/rifie.48.3.2019.321-330

-The state of the matter analyzed is adequate. Although it is pertinent to analyze and include works such as those set out below, related to innovation in education and good practices:

-The methodological section should be presented in greater detail and clarity. That is, to establish more rigorously the type of research design carried out, as well as the particularities of the sample and the procedure carried out.

-The authors must improve the quality of the figures presented.

-The discussion is limited regarding the comparison with other studies. Therefore, the authors should add more study in this section, which serves as a contrast with other manuscripts in the literature.

-The limitations of the investigation should be studied in greater depth. And establish future lines of action.

-The authors must check the language, to correct mistakes made in the writing of the manuscript.

-Finally, the authors must define the implications or prospects derived from this study. That is, what this study has served for.

Author Response

1. The authors present a dense theoretical body. However, the theoretical framework would be reinforced with the analysis of the articles that are proposed as an example of good practices in innovation and entrepreneurship in the field of education. 

Author’s response:

Following the above recommendation, we have analysed the proposed articles and references from them have been included in the following lines:

Section 4. Discussion Line 643

Section 4. Discussión Line 659

 

2. The methodological section should be presented in greater detail and clarity. That is, to establish more rigorously the type of research designed carried out, as well as the particularities of the sample and the procedure carried out.

 

Author’s response:

Following the comment of the reviewer, this section has been completely changed. Mainly, the following changes have been made:

• We have identified the aims of the research more clearly.
• The procedure carried out to conduct the research has been explained further.
• We have included more details about the particularities of the sample.
• We have included a new table, (consequently the previous one has been removed, which lists project documents and reports consulted.

3. The authors must improve the quality of the figures presented.

 Author’s response:

Comprehensive work has been done regarding this comment, which is as follows;

1. In this new version of the article some tables and figures didn’t fit well with the new version. Consequently, we have reduced the number of tables from 7 to 6 and the number of figures from 11 to 8
2. Figures and tables have been edited in accordance with the editing rules of the magazine. Thus, we have kept a similar structure, type and size of word and headings in all the figures and tables.
3. Finally, we have improved the quality of the figures. 

4. The discussion is limited regarding the comparison with other studies. Therefore, the authors should add more study in this section, which serves as a contrast with other manuscripts in the literature.

 Author’s response:

We have followed the recommendations given by the reviewer; therefore, this section has been considerably improved by contrasting findings from the research with other manuscripts in the literature. For example, we have included in this section the references to the recommended articles and we have also highlighted similarities with a study carried out in the South East, among others.

5. The limitations of the investigation should be studied in greater depth. And establish future lines of action.

Author’s response:

On pages 18 and 19, we have introduced not only a particular section regarding limitations of the research but also a specific section related to futures lines of research. Thus, three main limitations to the research have been identified while 5 main future lines have been highlighted.

6. The authors must check the language, to correct mistakes made in the writing of the manuscript.

Author’s response:

The manuscript has undergone English language editing by an English-native speaker. The text has been checked for correct use of grammar and common technical terms, and edited to a level suitable for reporting research in a scholarly journal. 

7. The authors must define the implications or prospects derived from this study. That is, what this study has served for,

Author’s response:

On page 18, at the end of the discussion section, we have included a brief explanation about the contribution of the research to both the academic and the practitioner field. Due to the novelty of this research, we have highlighted that findings from this research could feed further research on this issue in the Latin American context. In fact, we strongly encourage developing further comparative research on this topic to strengthen knowledge on the role that universities and social innovation can play in societies to face contemporary challenges.

 Thank you very much for your consieration,

Yours sincerelly,

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper has potential but occasionally struggles with organization, presentation of data, and English expression.  Below are some examples:

1. The Materials and Methods section should be rewritten as it contains single sentences and not paragraphs.  This section is particularly weak.  A better identification of the methodology would be helpful.  The table is good, but a more thorough guide through the research phases would have helped.
2. The figures look very promising but would benefit from additional details.  These details include axis titles and titles for example.  The figures and titles have so much potential, but are missing the standard elements at times.  The formatting, capitalization, size, etc. are also inconsistent.  The tables and figures are very helpful and I am happy they are included, but further polishing will help.  
3. Section 3.3.2. Research is confusing.  This should be renamed.  Some sections should be moved to the literature review portion, others to the results, and others still to the discussion section.

This paper, like others that I have seen with similar issues, has a contribution to make.  Unfortunately, the lack of clarity/organization of the message (in its current form) interferes with its appeal.  I would suggest revisiting the organization of the paper.  A reworking of the content will be a huge help.

Author Response

1. The materials and methods section should be rewritten as it contains single sentences and not paragraphs. The table is good but a more thorough guide through the research phases would have helped.

Author’s response:

In response to the reviewer, this section has been rewritten again and, therefore, this has been improved. The main changes undertaken in this section are:

• We have identified the aims of the research more clearly.
• The procedure carried out to conduct the research has been explained further.
• We have included more details about the particularities of the sample.
• We have included a new table, (consequently the previous one has been removed, which lists project documents and reports consulted.

1. The figures look very promising but would benefit from additional details. These details include axis titles, and titles for example. The figures and titles have so much potential, but are missing the standard elements at time. The formatting, capitalization, size, etc, are also inconsistent. The tables and figures are very helpful and I am happy they are included, but further polishing will help.

Author’s response:

Comprehensive work has been done regarding this comment, which is as follows;

1. In this new version of the article some tables and figures didn’t fit well with the new version. Consequently, we have reduced the number of tables from 7 to 6 and the number of figures from 11 to 8
2. Figures and tables have been edited in accordance with the editing rules of the magazine. Thus, we have kept a similar structure, type and size of word and headings in all the figures and tables.
3. Finally, we have improved the quality of the figures.

2. Section 3.3.2 Research is confusing. This should be renamed. Some sections should be moved to the literature review portion, others to results, and others still to the discussion section.

Author’s response: Following the general recommendation offered by the reviewer, we have decided to change significantly section 3, in the following way:

• Removing some extra information that we thought did not add value to the article.
• Organising internally the structure of the section. Thus, in this new version of the article, we can find 2 main subsections: first, a subsection regarding SI and SE approaches from Latin American universities and second, in-depth analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data obtained from the implementation of the project to identify enablers and barriers to introduce SI and SE in the curricula.
• Moving some information from section 3 Results to section 4 Discussion.

Consequently, the total number of pages has been reduced from 27 to 20. 

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours sincerely,

Authors

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have carried out the recommendations established for the improvement of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

I am impressed by the quality of the revisions and the thorough work done to elevate the article.  The article is much improved and now acceptable in my view.