Case Study of the Integration of Digital Competencies into Teacher Preparation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Your manuscript presents clear strengths. I would like to note some aspects that would need improvement.
The theoretical background is introduced in section 1 and somehow extended in section 2; the latter serves to present certain aspects of the research context. I would suggest you to work more extensively the theoretical foundation on pre-service teacher training and teachers digital competencies (initiatives, policies, ...). (From line 125 you include specifications from previous studies, in my view it would enrich section 1 or a more focused theoretical background. )
To narrow your analysis "Due to limited space" (line 181) is not scientifically sound. You could either use the needed space or offer a more consistent reasoning to focus this manuscript. // You wouldn't need any kind of justification if the introduction & theoretical background underpin this choice.
In lines 94-99 all the universities taking part in the project are listed. It is correct but can mislead, as later in lines 212-215 we discover the sample is from only 3 of the Faculties. It is all correct, but I would mention in advance not all participants in the project participate in this concrete study.
Please, if you built the questionnaire, you should explain how you validated it scientifically. There is no reference to a validation process nor values referred to its reliability such as Cronbach's alpha. // In method section, this research tool could be better explained.
In my view, results section could be shortened (13 pages!), maybe placing some complementary information in annexes (?) and making it more succinct. But this is just a personal opinion.
Discussion must be complemented by previous literature (you just do a couple of cites in the whole section). Otherwise, there is not objective discussion. You must also avoid subjective expressions like "this is a surprising result...", especially if is not evidenced how it contradicts the previously published literature on the topic (and if it is surprising because it was not that obvious, then you need further justification anyway).
Review some minor details such as: "comlex" (line 59); revise spaces between number and %: 64% but 32 % (lines 122-123); avoid subjective expressions such as "From our point of view" (line 687), as you have done a consistent work to pose it objectively; some mistakes can be found on the references list (e.g. years of journals are expected in bold).
Author Response
Prosím pozri si prílohu
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In “Discussion” section, any of the reflections about the study results, must be related to other research published in journals of international impact, which should be detailed in the article. This comment was also included in the first review.
As it was indicated in the review questionnaire, questions, objectives and/or hypothesis -from Materials and Methods section- have to be detailed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
It has been a pleasure to review this manuscript. The following are some aspects that need to be improved:
The background section is brief. Not enough references are provided to contextualise the topic of the study. This part needs to be improved. The objectives of the study are not reflected at the end of the theoretical framework, as tends to be the case in manuscripts published in this journal.
The method section is not divided into sections to facilitate understanding of aspects related to the instrument, the procedure, or the sample. In this regard, how were the participants recruited into the study, what process was followed to administer the instruments, how was it all done, what type of analysis was used, and what were the data collected? This section needs to be completely reworded.
The Discussion section does not provide an in-depth comparison of the findings with other studies. This part needs to be improved.
The authors include two conclusions sections. The first one is linked to recommendations for the future and the other one to outstanding conclusions.
These sections are correct.
They should include the limitations of the study.
Revise the English.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, Thank you for having considered my comments and suggestions. I would like to comment some points / details again:
The first paragraph you added is a bit repetitive. Other parts of the manuscript you have extended also need to be revised in terms of writing.
You could keep working on the theoretical background.
About the questionnaire, you say it was created "by us", in line 199. Instead of that, it would be better to introduce your expertise on the topic to convey confidence. Write a sentence or two showing it was developed by you referring to your academic / professional profile.
Lines 329 to 340 intend to confirm reliability, but this paragraph must be better explained.
You stick to make opinion explicit. In the first review suggested you to avoid such expressions since this is supposed to be a scientific paper and not an opinion one. Now I still read "In our opinion", in Results section (line 388). Re-read attentively your whole manuscript to identify expressions alike and other kinds of errors.
Discussion has been extended, but it should be better developed (not more extensively, but in terms of contrasting own results with previous literature).
Although you are doing efforts for this work to be published, I don't see considerable improvements in the main issues I reported: background, discussion, etc. The workload done is evident, and the paper has strengths, so it's worth to keep working on it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has been improved from the previous version.
It would be necessary for the authors to expand the background and highlight its relationship to sustainability. Similarly, this relationship to sustainability should be highlighted in the discussion and conclusions. It would also be necessary to include the limitations of the study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Your efforts to accomplish with reviewers suggestions show improvements in your manuscript. Yet acknowledging this advance, I still would maintain the general comments I did in previous reviews. In addition, the new version presents lack of accuracy as there are several mistakes (numbers in citations, writing can be improved, some references, ...).
I encourage you to take your time to improve the work and resubmit it to Sustainability or to another journal with no hurry.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has improved since the last revision. The authors have addressed all my concerns.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
