Teaching Maths within a Transmedia Learning Approach. What Is It and How Sustainable Can It Be?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The Authors present a paper: "Teaching maths within a transmedia learning approach. What is it and how sustainable can it be" interesting as review of the literature and personal conclusions by Authors.

Only a minor mistake: line 13 first page: not taching but teaching.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for the review and for the comments, which help us to improve the proposal. In the attached document, you will find the response to the changes you suggested. 
Yours sincerely,
the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript Sustainability- 1464906, I thank and congratulate the authors for the article "Teaching mathematics within a transmedia learning approach. What is it, and how sustainable can it be?" This review addresses the concept of transmedia learning proposed by Jenkins from teaching mathematics and the sustainability of this type of process. The authors extracted information from several databases.

To improve their work, I suggest.

1. Change the title to give a better view to the reader. 2. Indicate that it is a scoping review because it does not address it in depth. For example: "Teaching mathematics and sustainability with a transmedia learning approach: A scoping review".
2. Check the English grammar and spelling of the entire paper.
3. The introduction is too long; I suggest restructuring it into two sections, e.g., I) Introduction and II) Literature review.
4. Review more articles related to Scoping review to improve the review method. For example, you can review:

• https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/19/10794
• https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/12/5707
• https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/19/10840
• https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/19/11115

5. To improve the method, you can review http://www.prisma-statement.org/Extensions/ScopingReviews
6. Restructure your review article better.
7. Broaden your search from 42 articles is too few.
8. Indicate the methodology applied in the review; you can use an outline.
9. Reinforce the explanation of the method used in the bibliographic review.
10. Separate the Discussion and Conclusions section.
11. Reinforce the Discussion section.
12. Strengthening the Conclusions section is very poor.
13. To make your research more supportive, place the study data in a dataset; you can create one at https://data.mendeley.com/.
14. Update the references; 61.4% of the 57 references do not correspond to the five years of validity.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for the review and for the comments, which help us to improve the proposal in a more than obvious way. In the attached document, you will find the response to the changes you suggested. We hope that your concerns have been satisfactorily addressed.
Yours sincerely,
the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear author(s),

Thank you for your manuscript. However, I had several concerns regarding your manuscript. Hopefully, these comments might facilitate your continuous improvement for this manuscript to be published.

1. Novelty - the contribution of this manuscript is not visible.
2. Depth - the analysis and number of articles are shallow.
3. Delivery of idea - the writing flow need further editing from professional editor so that the idea is deliverable smoothly.
4. Methodology need refinement and should be written in detail.
5. Fourteen articles are not strong enough to draw any robust conclusion. Unless if the author(s) could strongly justify the small sample size of articles included in the PRISMA.

General Comments

1. There are typos in the manuscript.

Thank you.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for the review and for the comments, which help us to improve the proposal in a more than obvious way. In the attached document, you will find the response to the changes you suggested. We hope that your concerns have been satisfactorily addressed.
Yours sincerely,
the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The article has improved, with the changes applied. I suggest it be considered for publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for your revision. We are glad to see that the improvements satisfy your concerns and feel very grateful for your help.

Best regards,

the authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for your response to the review. For the second comment about the depth of analysis, could you please add your justification as in the response letter into your manuscript? This could facilitate audience and scholars to understand why limited number of literatures were included in this manuscript.

Please justify the usage of scoping review - why does this approach is relevant compared to systematic literature review as mentioned before? It is needed to emphasize the significant and contribution of your manuscript.

What is the issue with Google Scholar? As you did mentioned it is difficult to use Google Scholar efficiently. 

Thank you.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments, which again help us to improve our manuscript. In the attached document you will find the response to your suggestions.
Yours sincerely,
the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx