Modelling Research Competence in Social and Engineering Sciences at Master’s Level Programs: A Scoping Review
, Maria Magdalena Dicu 2, Sofia Loredana Tudor 1, Claudiu Langa 1 and Adriana Nicoleta Lazar 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors
Clear and interesting presentation of the problem under study, but the research questions must be supported. What makes them contingent on the topic? Where does it come from? Are they just intuitive? These questions must be well argued.
It must be much more transparent, and where the links of the selection process can be contrasted based on the questions raised.
A review of scientific literature of these characteristics does not show, you should look for more flexible expressions in the discussion.
The Conclusions would recommend that it be transparent with respect to the research questions.
Regards
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for reviewing our manuscript and making it so much stronger, I appreciate a lot all you work. It was very helpful.
Please find the modification made according to the comments and recommendations received.
Point 1: Clear and interesting presentation of the problem under study, but the research questions must be supported. What makes them contingent on the topic? Where does it come from? Are they just intuitive? These questions must be well argued.
Response 1: Thank you for the specific recommendations! The following paragraph was added: “The political, educational and socio-economic environment is changing rapidly, shifting to more digitalised and technologically mediated interaction. In response to dramatically changing environment and labour market, educational institutions have to adapt to better respond to societal needs and provide high quality education []. Numerous studies are trying to help universities in this process, yet with regards to Master studies, there is a limited research body. Moreover, evidence-based decisions are crucial to any field, and preparing students for the unknown future should be done be developing to a great extent RC”. (Page 4, 2nd paragraph, rows 137-144).
Point 2: It must be much more transparent, and where the links of the selection process can be contrasted based on the questions raised.
Response 2: Thank you, we added some information in the inclusion criteria table, as well as some other specific information regarding the selection process was added. The following paragraph was added: “The process of identifying the most appropriate papers were challenging, mostly, because there are not so many comparative studies on RC development, studies in Engineering Sciences do not focus on teaching process of RC, therefore, in order to build up an understanding regarding the process of RC modelling studies across other disciplines were also included.” (Page 6, 2nd paragraph, rows 202-206).
Point 3: A review of scientific literature of these characteristics does not show, you should look for more flexible expressions in the discussion.
Response 3: Thank you for your feedback. We added: “This SCR provide some characteristics of RC that appear relevant in the teaching process: critical thinking [5, 43], scientific reasoning [5, 27, 43], scientific argumentation [5]. Faculty are encouraged to make their students aware of available digital technologies to support research and design conditions where all required skills could be practiced.” (Page 15, last paragraph, rows 374-378).
Point 4: The Conclusions would recommend that it be transparent with respect to the research questions.
Response 4: Thank you for your feedback. To make the conclusion more transparent with research questions some sentences were added:
“Research competence is defined and developed differently in Social and Engineering Sciences in accordance with future perspectives and trends of specific study domains.” (Page 17, last paragraph, rows 468-470).
Page 17, rows 471-484 corresponds to research question 2.
And for the last question, page 18, rows 486-490.
We also added the following paragraph: Further detailed scientific literature reviews are needed to be conducted to identify re-search pattern on teaching [61], enhance effective student engagement and experience [62, 63], improve educational and research opportunities for master students. This SCR identified existing gaps in literature that can be addressed when it comes to teaching research at master level in both Engineering and Social Sciences. More comparative studies can be done in the future to contribute to the development of a more coherent framework of teaching research and building RC. Furthermore, knowledge transfer and teaching experiences across various disciplines might generate innovative further competence-oriented higher education programs.
Thank you again for your valuable and great feedback.
The Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper titled "Modelling Research Competence in Social and Engineering Sciences at Master Level Programs: A Scoping Review" with reference sustainability-2027404 is recommended for minor revision.
The paper has good flow and organisation.
The paper has good structure and is well referenced.
The authors have good knowledge of the field.
However there are some issues with the referencing style. The MDPI style is block bracket such as [1],[2-4].
The paper requires some proof reading and minor English language editing.
The conclusion section should also include highlights on the key findings of the paper. They should also show the limitations of the scoping review and areas of future research.
The authors should also reference some recent papers in the introduction to improve its significance and citeability. Add these: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12090627; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100699; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912006; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100651; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132312935
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for reviewing our manuscript and making it so much stronger, I appreciate a lot all you work. It was very helpful.
Please find the modification made according to the comments and recommendation received.
Point 1: However, there are some issues with the referencing style. The MDPI style is block bracket such as [1], [2-4].
Response 1: Thank you for the recommendation. The references were modified according to MDPI style.
Point 2: The paper requires some proof reading and minor English language editing.
Response 2: The entire manuscript was proofread – spelling errors were corrected; sentences were rephrased to enhance clarity and some ideas were removed to prevent redundancy/ repetitiveness. The modifications are visible in the track changes copy of the manuscript.
Point 3: The conclusion section should also include highlights on the key findings of the paper. They should also show the limitations of the scoping review and areas of future research.
Response 3: Thank you, we modified accordingly.
Point 4: The authors should also reference some recent papers in the introduction to improve its significance and citeability. Add these: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12090627; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100699; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912006; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100651; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132312935
Response 4: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12090627 was cited, line 486; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100699, line 490; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912006, line 494; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100651, line 495; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132312935, line 495.
Thank you again for your valuable and great feedback.
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
many thanks for the paper, it is a pleasure for me to review it.
I find the topic of research competence quite interesting and important nowadays.
Please find below some comments:
I would recommend to pay your attention on abbreviations such as RC, SCR that you use in abstract, they are not described, it would be better to describe them right away where you first use them.
line 31. are providers of research-based what? something is obviously missing here. I kindly ask you to check these kind of bugs.
line 37. master studies aim..please check english misspellings and mistakes like these.
Generally, I recommend your article to be published after minor revision.
with best regards
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for reviewing our manuscript and making it so much stronger, I appreciate a lot all you work. It was very helpful.
Please find the modification made according to the comments and recommendation received.
Point 1: I would recommend to pay your attention on abbreviations such as RC, SCR that you use in abstract, they are not described, it would be better to describe them right away where you first use them.
Response 1: Thank you for the specific recommendations! We modified accordingly (page 1, Abstract, rows 15 and 16).
Point 2: line 31. are providers of research-based what? something is obviously missing here. I kindly ask you to check these kinds of bugs.
Response 2: It was modified with “Higher education institutions are the appropriate providers of “research-based education” [3] (p. 561). (page1, row 39).
Point 3: line 37. master studies aim. please check English misspellings and mistakes like these.
Response 3: We modified “master studies aims” with “master study aim” (page 1, row 47). The entire manuscript was proofread – spelling errors were corrected; sentences were rephrased to enhance clarity and some ideas were removed to prevent redundancy/ repetitiveness. The modifications are visible in the track changes copy of the manuscript.
Thank you again for your valuable and great feedback.
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This study depicts a comprehensive picture of the research competence (RC) teaching and development in social and engineering sciences at mater level programs through a scoping review methodology. Overall, this is a concise and well-organized manuscript. The introduction is relevant and theory based. Sufficient information about the previous study findings is presented for readers to follow the present study rationale and procedures. The methods are generally appropriate and the results are clear and compelling with detailed figure and table. Generally speaking, the authors make a systematic contribution to the research literature in this area of investigation, which can provide pedagogical guidance to define and develop RC in social and engineering sciences at master level. However, there is still a lot of room for improvement in the following aspects:
Firstly, extensive editing of English language and style is required. For example, the first two sentences in the “Abstract” part are incorrect and lengthy, which greatly impedes the reader’s understanding. To be specific, from “the building of …” to the end of the first sentence, this part appears after the word “and”, which should be a complete sentence instead of several phrases. Meanwhile, two commas are misused in line 8 and line 9, because a comma couldn’t join two sentences. In line 11, a comma should be added before “a scoping review” to make the sentence clearer. In line 31, there must be something missing after “research-based”. The misuse of comma appears again in line 36. In a word, the authors should pay more attention to language quality. Secondly, the distribution of research questions could be reconsidered. Research question 2 and 3 are conspicuous under the “Discussions” part, while research question 1 is answered in the former part without a title. Thus, it is suggested that question 1 could be relocated at the beginning of “Discussions” part and added with a tag consistent with question 2 and question Thirdly, there was no mention of the limitations of the study.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for reviewing our manuscript and making it so much stronger, I appreciate a lot all you work. It was very helpful.
Please find the modification made according to the comments and recommendation received.
Point 1: Firstly, extensive editing of English language and style is required. For example, the first two sentences in the “Abstract” part are incorrect and lengthy, which greatly impedes the reader’s understanding. To be specific, from “the building of …” to the end of the first sentence, this part appears after the word “and”, which should be a complete sentence instead of several phrases.
Response 1: Thank you for the specific recommendations! The following paragraph were paraphrased: “Research-teaching nexus in higher education is has been strongly discussed and debated especially when it comes to developing research competence and introducing evidence-based practice into the Master’s degree curricula for Educational Sciences and Engineering Sciences. Previous systematic reviews have summarised the progress in how research is taught in higher education (specifically in medical sciences), and revealed that there is a lack of cross-disciplinary comparative analysis in re-search-pedagogy in various scientific disciplines, as well as in assessing and measuring the development of research competence at higher education level. (Page 1, 1st paragraph, rows 4-12).
Point 2: Meanwhile, two commas are misused in line 8 and line 9, because a comma couldn’t join two sentences. In line 11, a comma should be added before “a scoping review” to make the sentence clearer.
Response 2: The sentences were rewritten (Rows 4-12).
Point 3: In line 31, there must be something missing after “research-based”.
Response 3: Thank you, we modified as follows “Higher education institutions are the appropriate providers of “research-based education” [3] (p. 561). (page1, row 39).
Point 4: The misuse of comma appears again in line 36. In a word, the authors should pay more attention to language quality.
Response 4: Thank you, we modified accordingly. “… future developments in the educational and engineering fields [1]]; therefore, linking research and university teaching is a priority.” (Page 1, row 46)
Point 5: Secondly, the distribution of research questions could be reconsidered. Research question 2 and 3 are conspicuous under the “Discussions” part, while research question 1 is answered in the former part without a title. Thus, it is suggested that question 1 could be relocated at the beginning of “Discussions” part and added with a tag consistent with question 2 and question 3.
Response 5: Thank you, we modified accordingly, page 12, rows 296-303.
Point 6: Thirdly, there was no mention of the limitations of the study.
Response 6: Thank you, we added some limitations of the study, page 15, rows 507-513.
Thank you again for your valuable and great feedback.
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
I think the paper has been improved based on comments despite some minor language problems. I suggest it be revised carefully by a native speaker before publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for taking time and reviewing our manuscript.
Based on your recommendation “I suggest it be revised carefully by a native speaker before publication”, the manuscript was proofread by a native speaker. The modifications are visible in the track changes copy of the manuscript with blue color.
Thank you again for your valuable feedback.
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
