Exploring Structural Relationships in Attracting and Retaining International Students in STEM for Sustainable Development of Higher Education
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The text is good and the research is clear. However, there are relevant issues to be adjusted:
The authors need to review the way they present the data under analysis. In the abstract, they say Taiwan was taken as an example. I understand that the research can be replicated in other places, however, the study and the conclusions taken are focused on Taiwan. In this sense, the tests were conducted using a sample from Taiwan, it could be clearer in the abstract and in the text.
In the introduction, there are some sentences (e.g., lines 55-58; 65-67; 308-317 – for the parameters used) that could have references to base them. It is important to strengthen the arguments.
Although the authors justify in the introduction the relevance of STEM students for sustainable development, considering the focus of the journal, I recommend the to increase the emphasis of this link.
In the introduction, the authors mixture the contextualization with information and justifications about their research, interrupting the text flow. I recommend them to reorganize the text, showing the context and relevance of the field, funnelling into the gap they address and then presenting they research, in the end.
The paragraph that begins in line 73 (During this period, …) should be better connected to the text. Also, what period are you talking about?
The item 2.1 seems more a text for the introduction than literature review. Maybe the information of it can be changed to section 1.
The items presented in Table 1 should be detailed in the literature review section.
Was the sampling non-probabilistic? If yes, this should be clearly stated.
Are the hypotheses proposed based in the literature? If yes, this should be clearer. If no, the authors should explain how they were developed.
Check the references, the 29 for example, is repeated.
There are at least 6 references of authors previous works. I recommend to do not exceed 4.
Further debates of the results considering the literature on the theme are required.
In the conclusions, study limitations and practical and theoretical implications are missing.
Author Response
Reviewer 1:
The text is good and the research is clear. However, there are relevant issues to be adjusted:
- The authors need to review the way they present the data under analysis. In the abstract, they say Taiwan was taken as an example. I understand that the research can be replicated in other places, however, the study and the conclusions taken are focused on Taiwan. In this sense, the tests were conducted using a sample from Taiwan, it could be clearer in the abstract and in the text.
Response: We revised the abstract and related text, see line 33-34 and line 299.
- In the introduction, there are some sentences (e.g., lines 55-58; 65-67; 308-317 – for the parameters used) that could have references to base them. It is important to strengthen the arguments.
Response: We have added some references after that sentence. Added citations with a red mark in the reference section.
- Although the authors justify in the introduction the relevance of STEM students for sustainable development, considering the focus of the journal, I recommend the to increase the emphasis of this link.
Response: We addressed the related link in the conclusion section.
- In the introduction, the authors mixture the contextualization with information and justifications about their research, interrupting the text flow. I recommend them to reorganize the text, showing the context and relevance of the field, funnelling into the gap they address and then presenting they research, in the end.
Response: We have reorganized the Introduction section to make it clear.
- The paragraph that begins in line 73 (During this period, …) should be better connected to the text. Also, what period are you talking about?
Response: We have revised it. See “During last decades, …..” line 77.
- The item 2.1 seems more a text for the introduction than literature review. Maybe the information of it can be changed to section 1.
Response: We moved the text of 2.1 to Introduction and made the necessary modifications.
- The items presented in Table 1 should be detailed in the literature review section.
Response: Yes, we have added related information to the literature section.
- Was the sampling non-probabilistic? If yes, this should be clearly stated.
Response: We consider the distribution of international students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics programs. The participants were invited on a department basis. Since the limitation of online sampling, it may belong to a non-probability one.
- Are the hypotheses proposed based on the literature? If yes, this should be clearer. If not, the authors should explain how they were developed.
Response: OK. The interpretation was presented in 3.2 A Testing Model for SEM.
- Check the references, the 29 for example, is repeated.
Response: We have deleted it.
- There are at least 6 references of authors previous works. I recommend to do not exceed 4.
Response: we have deleted some citations to fit the 4 maximum.
- Further debates of the results considering the literature on the theme are required.
Response: We have reinforced the related text in the Discussion and Conclusion section.
- In the conclusions, study limitations and practical and theoretical implications are missing.
Response: We have added limitations and implications to the conclusion section, see the final section.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I had the opportunity to review a manuscript entitled: Exploring Structural Relationships in Attracting and Retaining 2 International Students in STEM for Sustainable Development 3 of Higher Education
The manuscript is suitably structured and written in an interesting and engaging style for the reader.
Both the introduction and the Literature review provide sufficient arguments for the validity of the research.
I have only minor comments to the submitted paper.
Hypotheses are marked as H1 to H4, I think it would be appropriate to mark research questions in this way (instead of a. b. c. Mark as RQ1, RQ2, RQ3).
Hypotheses H1 to H4 are formulated as null hypotheses, but it would be more appropriate to state alternatives so as not to confuse what the research has confirmed or confirmed.
Table 8 and Figure 3 require better comment or justification.
I recommend checking the English spelling.
I wish the authors good luck in their further work.
Author Response
Reviewer 2:
I had the opportunity to review a manuscript entitled: Exploring Structural Relationships in Attracting and Retaining International Students in STEM for Sustainable Development of Higher Education
The manuscript is suitably structured and written in an interesting and engaging style for the reader. Both the introduction and the Literature review provide sufficient arguments for the validity of the research. I have only minor comments to the submitted paper.
- Hypotheses are marked as H1 to H4, I think it would be appropriate to mark research questions in this way (instead of a. b. c. Mark as RQ1, RQ2, RQ3).
Response: Thanks, we have changed the format as your suggestion.
- Hypotheses H1 to H4 are formulated as null hypotheses, but it would be more appropriate to state alternatives so as not to confuse what the research has confirmed or confirmed.
Response: Considering the consistency of the writing style in this paper, we leave the original format.
- Table 8 and Figure 3 require better comment or justification.
Response:
Table 8, we revised the following text. “The details of the p-values and 95% conference intervals of percentile confidence (PC) and bias-corrected (BC) intervals are listed in Table 8. Based on the criteria of bootstrapping test, the results revealed that the indirect effect was significant. In addition, the values of the 95% confidence intervals with PC and BC did not include 0. The findings suggest that the mediation effect of institutional mediation works in this model.”
Figure 3, we added the words: “It implies the model and its construct are reliable, when the targeted samples were extended to 2000 it is still robust.”
- I recommend checking the English spelling.
OK
- I wish the authors good luck in their further work.
Thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors answered my comments and addressed most of them. However, the following comments still need some adjustments (presented as “Comment round 2”):
1) Regarding the comment:
The authors need to review the way they present the data under analysis. In the abstract, they say Taiwan was taken as an example. I understand that the research can be replicated in other places, however, the study and the conclusions taken are focused on Taiwan. In this sense, the tests were conducted using a sample from Taiwan, it could be clearer in the abstract and in the text.
Response: We revised the abstract and related text, see line 33-34 and line 299.
- Comment round 2: The sentence added in the abstract is nice, but this sentence should be reviewed “Taking Taiwan as an example”.
2) Regarding the comment:
In the introduction, the authors mixture the contextualization with information and justifications about their research, interrupting the text flow. I recommend them to reorganize the text, showing the context and relevance of the field, funnelling into the gap they address and then presenting they research, in the end.
Response: We have reorganized the Introduction section to make it clear.
- Comment round 2: This was not addressed in the second version, the mixture is still in the text (e.g., 62-63; 74-76).
3) Regarding the comment:
The items presented in Table 1 should be detailed in the literature review section.
Response: Yes, we have added related information to the literature section.
- Comment round 2: Authors should add the codes presented in table 1 or highlight the sentences that presents the items throughout the literature review.
4) Regarding the comment:
Are the hypotheses proposed based on the literature? If yes, this should be clearer. If not, the authors should explain how they were developed.
Response: OK. The interpretation was presented in 3.2 A Testing Model for SEM.
- Comment round 2: The section 3.2 was already presented in the first version of the manuscript. However, although they state that they were based on the literature, this link is not specified. Authors should indicate more clearly the literature (the references) that based the hypothesis and how the link was done.
5) Regarding the comment:
Further debates of the results considering the literature on the theme are required.
Response: We have reinforced the related text in the Discussion and Conclusion section.
- Comment round 2: It is still missing a better connection between study findings and the literature. There is no dialog between the findings and previous studies in the paragraph, the authors just put reference while they talk about their results.
6) Finally, there is a new issue that occurred in this second version. The last paragraph of conclusion mixes limitations and future studies (line 515 starts to address future studies and line 517 goes back to the list of items from limitations). Authors must carefully review the text.
Author Response
Reviewer 1 (Round 2)
The authors answered my comments and addressed most of them. However, the following comments still need some adjustments (presented as “Comment round 2”):
1) Regarding the comment:
The authors need to review the way they present the data under analysis. In the abstract, they say Taiwan was taken as an example. I understand that the research can be replicated in other places, however, the study and the conclusions taken are focused on Taiwan. In this sense, the tests were conducted using a sample from Taiwan, it could be clearer in the abstract and in the text.
Response: We revised the abstract and related text, see lines 33-34 and line 299.
- Comment round 2: The sentence added in the abstract is nice, but this sentence should be reviewed “Taking Taiwan as an example”.
Response: We have removed the words and revised the sentence.
2) Regarding the comment:
In the introduction, the authors mixture the contextualization with information and justifications about their research, interrupting the text flow. I recommend them to reorganize the text, showing the context and relevance of the field, funnelling into the gap they address and then presenting they research, in the end.
Response: We have reorganized the Introduction section to make it clear.
- Comment round 2: This was not addressed in the second version, the mixture is still in the text (e.g., 62-63; 74-76).
Response: We have deleted the mixture parts in 62-63 and 74-74.
62-63 This is why we selected STEM as our research target.
74-76 Since this study targeted international students in STEM, it needs a more rigorous research design in order to explore whether a meaningful learning process was achieved among the international students.
3) Regarding the comment:
The items presented in Table 1 should be detailed in the literature review section.
Response: Yes, we have added related information to the literature section.
- Comment round 2: Authors should add the codes presented in table 1 or highlight the sentences that presents the items throughout the literature review.
Response: We have revised Table 1 with related codes and modified 3.1 to add the following information for readers: “The codes of the instruments were presented in Table 1, for example, PS1 to PS4, IL1 to IL3, IS1 to IS4, and S1 to S4. The proposed items are throughout the literature review.” In addition, the literature review section also displayed the related codes.
4) Regarding the comment:
Are the hypotheses proposed based on the literature? If yes, this should be clearer. If not, the authors should explain how they were developed.
Response: OK. The interpretation was presented in 3.2 A Testing Model for SEM.
- Comment round 2: The section 3.2 was already presented in the first version of the manuscript. However, although they state that they were based on the literature, this link is not specified. Authors should indicate more clearly the literature (the references) that based the hypothesis and how the link was done.
Response: We have revised the content to 3.2. First, we added related citations on push factors, institutional mediation, and satisfaction to make it more clear and associated between the testing model and literature. In this part, we emphasize that the original notion comes from literature. Then, we developed hypotheses based on our research questions.
5) Regarding the comment:
Further debates of the results considering the literature on the theme are required.
Response: We have reinforced the related text in the Discussion and Conclusion section.
- Comment round 2: It is still missing a better connection between study findings and the literature. There is no dialog between the findings and previous studies in the paragraph, the authors just put reference while they talk about their results.
Response: We have revised the Discussion section with related dialogues associated with the findings and previous studies. Please see page 13 with red marks. The Conclusion section has been modified. Please see page 14.
6) Finally, there is a new issue that occurred in this second version. The last paragraph of conclusion mixes limitations and future studies (line 515 starts to address future studies and line 517 goes back to the list of items from limitations). Authors must carefully review the text.
Response: We have removed the sentence and put it in the final paragraph as suggestions for future studies.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors addressed all the issues I sent. Thank you and congratulations for your work.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors addressed all the issues I sent. Thank you and congratulations for your work.
Response:
Thanks for your valuable suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
