Problem Solving by Agricultural Extension Students with Various Levels of Creativity through a Neurocognitive Lens
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors focuses on an interesting topic by studying the role of individual differences and brain correlates in agricultural extension students.
I believe this is a promising new research area that lacks studies in the sustainability field.
I have only a major concern related to the method. Although I understand the focus and the HC vs LC comparison, a control group is missing. We do not know whether these findings represent a peculiarity of agricultural students.
I would suggest the authors to stress their expectations better and justify the absence of a control group.
Conclusions should be more focused on the relevance of studying brain correlates within a sustainability framework.
Author Response
- The authors focus on an interesting topic by studying the role of individual differences and brain correlates in agricultural extension students. I believe this is a promising new research area that lacks studies in the sustainability field. I have only a major concern related to the method. Although I understand the focus and the HC vs LC comparison, a control group is missing. We do not know whether these findings represent a peculiarity of agricultural students. I would suggest the authors to stress their expectations better and justify the absence of a control group.
Our responses (#1.1):
The current research is done based on our previous two studies (Liang, Liu, Chang, & Liang, 2020; Liu & Liang, 2020). We used identical experimental materials, processes, and brainwave facilities. The subjects in these two studies served as control groups for the present research.
Liang, C., Liu, Y.-C., Chang, Y., & Liang, C.-T. (2020). Differences in numeric, verbal, and spatial reasoning between engineering and literature students through a neurocognitive lens. Cognitive Systems Research, 60, 33-43. doi: 10.1016/j.cogsys.2019.11.003
Liu, Y.-C., & Liang, C. (2020). Neurocognitive evidence for different problem-solving processes between engineering and liberal arts students. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 9(2), 104-131. doi: 10.17583/ijep.2020.3940
- Conclusions should be more focused on the relevance of studying brain correlates within a sustainability framework.
Our responses (#1.2):
We greatly appreciate that you recognized our efforts in revising this manuscript. We have rewritten the conclusion section. Please see the revised document.
Reviewer 2 Report
The author can find my comments in attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
- In my opinion, the paper meets the quality standards of Sustainability and so I recommend the article to be published in your journal after the following things are cleared up and fixed. The similarity rate of this paper 41%. (With the paper ”Neurocognitive Evidence for Different Problem-Solving Processes between Engineering and Liberal Arts Students” of this author is the similarity rate 13%.) If the author reduces this rate, the paper become more qualified.
Our responses (#2.1):
We greatly appreciate that you recognized our efforts in revising this manuscript. The current research is done based on our previous two studies (Liang, Liu, Chang, & Liang, 2020; Liu & Liang, 2020). We used identical experimental materials, processes, and brainwave facilities. We have carefully rechecked and revised the document.
Liang, C., Liu, Y.-C., Chang, Y., & Liang, C.-T. (2020). Differences in numeric, verbal, and spatial reasoning between engineering and literature students through a neurocognitive lens. Cognitive Systems Research, 60, 33-43. doi: 10.1016/j.cogsys.2019.11.003
Liu, Y.-C., & Liang, C. (2020). Neurocognitive evidence for different problem-solving processes between engineering and liberal arts students. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 9(2), 104-131. doi: 10.17583/ijep.2020.3940
- You can think the following papers to enriched your paper (But this is not mandatory! This is only an advice.): (i) https://doi.org/10.3390/su142113842 (ii) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2021.07.029
Our responses (#2.2):
We have read the suggested literatures, nonetheless felt unconfirmable to include them into our references due to the relatedness.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
