Research on the Evaluation Model of School Management Quality in the Compulsory Education Stage Based on Big Data Technology
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work is interesting and investigates an extremely important aspect, that of the quality of school management in compulsory education in China.
The paper offers interesting insights, especially in the effort to simplify the amount of data and information to manage.
Below I summarize what, in my opinion, are the four weakest aspects of the paper.
1. A rigorous analysis of the bibliography to help focus on the state of the art is missing. Objectively, the bibliography reported is rather weak and almost exclusively focused on Chinese authors.
2. Also for the reason explained above, what would be a useful work of comparison and benchmarking with the situations of other countries is absent. Something is mentioned in the 'Outlook': however, it is only a matter of a few interesting data, which let us guess what the benefit of a more in-depth comparison could be.
3. A clear and explicit definition and presentation of the limits of the paper is absent.
4. An explicit connection with the typical contents of the magazine is missing: the concept of 'sustainability' does not appear in any of its possible, many, declinations.
Author Response
Point 1: A rigorous analysis of the bibliography to help focus on the state of the art is missing. Objectively, the bibliography reported is rather weak and almost exclusively focused on Chinese authors.
Response 1: We have revise the point between page 1-2.
Point 2: Also for the reason explained above, what would be a useful work of comparison and benchmarking with the situations of other countries is absent. Something is mentioned in the 'Outlook': however, it is only a matter of a few interesting data, which let us guess what the benefit of a more in-depth comparison could be.
Response 2: We have revise the point between page 1-2.
Point 3: A clear and explicit definition and presentation of the limits of the paper is absent.
Response 3: We have revise the point in page 11 about the Research Limitations.
Point 4: An explicit connection with the typical contents of the magazine is missing: the concept of 'sustainability' does not appear in any of its possible, many, declinations.
Response 4: We have revise the point between page 1-2, and between page 11-13.
Reviewer 2 Report
The readership of this article is likely to be very wide, and not all may understand the numbers and formulas presented here. Researchers need to explain their meaning and review according to researchers and experts or practitioners.
Figure: It is necessary to explain the actions and activities at each stage carried out by researchers to complement this chart to make it clearer.
The discussion of research results has not been carried out by researchers. Researchers only present data without explaining the meaning of the data. The researcher should describe the analysis and synthesis carried out by the researcher and try to link it with various reference sources that have been cited, both supporting and contradicting.
The conclusion should contain the state of research or research findings that describe the overall resume of the research and the novelty of this research compared to others of its kind. The conclusion should not contain a sentence repeating the process carried out by the researcher.
References are still very lacking and limited, they should be added from reputable journal articles that have been published.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Point 1: The readership of this article is likely to be very wide, and not all may understand the numbers and formulas presented here. Researchers need to explain their meaning and review according to researchers and experts or practitioners.
Response 1: We have revise the point in the revised manuscript.
Point 2: Figure: It is necessary to explain the actions and activities at each stage carried out by researchers to complement this chart to make it clearer.
Response 2: We have revise the point in the revised manuscript.
Point 3: The discussion of research results has not been carried out by researchers. Researchers only present data without explaining the meaning of the data. The researcher should describe the analysis and synthesis carried out by the researcher and try to link it with various reference sources that have been cited, both supporting and contradicting.
Response 3: We have revise the point in the part of Conclusion and Discussion.
Point 4: The conclusion should contain the state of research or research findings that describe the overall resume of the research and the novelty of this research compared to others of its kind. The conclusion should not contain a sentence repeating the process carried out by the researcher.
Response 4: We have revise the point in the part of Conclusion and Discussion.
Point 5: References are still very lacking and limited, they should be added from reputable journal articles that have been published.
Response 5: We have revise the point between page 1-2.
Point 6: Does not explain the purpose and scope of the research.
Response 6: We have revise the point in the part of introduction.
Point 6: It is necessary to explain the actions and activities at each stage carried out byresearchers to complement this chart to make it clearer.
Response 6: We have revise the point between line 137-147.
Point 7: Figure 2 and 3 must have an identity/label, not written in the table title.
Response 7: The original identity/label of the figure 2 and 3 are Chinese language, and can’t be revised to English language, so we show the identity/label of the figure 2 and 3 through text in explain of the figure 2 and 3. And through the method reader can understand the detail information of the figure 2 and 3.
Point 8: What does the table 5 actually mean?
Response 8: The detailed description of Table 5 in line 238-247.
Point 9: What does the table 6 actually mean?
Response 9: The detailed description of Table 6 in line 248-297.
Thank you!
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper seems interesting. You sould address three issues to strengthen it:
1- Which authors addressed the same issue as yours? You should describe the studies and detail the methodology of the papers.
2- You should divide the results section into sub-sections and write the title of this sub-section, which would facilitate the understanding of the results.
3- You should add a discussion section. This discussion section should be heavily rich in literature and previous studies.
The paper should be edited by a native english editor to improve its language formulations.
Author Response
Point 1: Which authors addressed the same issue as yours? You should describe the studies and detail the methodology of the papers.
Response 1: We have revise the point between page 1-2.
Point 2: You should divide the results section into sub-sections and write the title of this sub-section, which would facilitate the understanding of the results.
Response 2: We have revise the point in the part of conclusion and discussion.
Point 3: You should add a discussion section. This discussion section should be heavily rich in literature and previous studies.
Response 3: We have revise the point in the part of conclusion and discussion.
Point 4: The paper should be edited by a native english editor to improve its language formulations.
Response 4: We have revise the point in the revised manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The article has been extensively reviewed and revised, the improvements are certainly concrete and appreciable.
As for the 4 specific critical points I had underlined, they all found sufficient response in the new version of the work.
Author Response
Thank you very much!
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks for the corections.
Section 5 should be titled "discussion and conclusions", where section 5.1 should be titled 'discussion', while section 5.2 should be titled 'conclusions'.
English language is now better, but it can needs more editing. For example, the manuscript includes a very long sentences that should be split into shorter ones.
Author Response
Point 1: Section 5 should be titled "discussion and conclusions", where section 5.1 should be titled 'discussion', while section 5.2 should be titled 'conclusions'.
Response 1: We have revise the point in section 5.
Point 2: English language is now better, but it can needs more editing. For example, the manuscript includes a very long sentences that should be split into shorter ones.
Response 2: We have revise the point in the revised manuscript. Meahwhile, the section that describes and explains the content of formulas and tables has not been modified because it is a normal description of the formulas and does not involve long or complex sentences. Moreover, readers can easily understand them.
Thank you very much!
