Importance–Performance Analysis (IPA) in Analyzing the Satisfaction of Administrative Support in Teaching Practice Research Programs
, Pei-Ling Kuo 1, Ching-Hsu Yang 3, Yun-Chen Chang 4,5,* and Tung-Liang Chen 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
- The subject of this article is interesting and within the scope of the Journal, but authors should add the content which deal directly with the pathology and practice of Teaching Practice Research Programs in Taiwan. Its reason is for readers to understand this paper, most of the existing contents should be the description and results of Importance–Performance Analysis on pathology and practice of Teaching Practice Research Programs in Taiwan.
Response：This study aims to use the Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) model to investigate the assistance and impact of school administrative support on teachers' implementation of teaching practice research projects. We have temporarily decided not to include an examination of pathology in our research article.
- There are two questions of the Title of this paper, 1. “IPA” should be Importance–Performance Analysis Model. 2. The Title of this paper is too long to get its real idea and meaning.
Response：Thank you for your suggestion. We have chosen to utilize the IPA model due to concerns that the topic may be overly lengthy. Additionally, many previous articles have used the IPA model in their titles [1-3].
REDERENCE
- Xiao, L., Intangible Cultural Heritage Reproduction and Revitalization: Value Feedback, Practice, and Exploration Based on the IPA Model. Comput Intell Neurosci, 2022. 2022: p. 8411999.
- Hsu, W.-K.K., H.-F. Yu, and S.-H.S. Huang, Evaluating the service requirements of dedicated container terminals: a revised IPA model with fuzzy AHP. Maritime policy & management, 2015. 42(8): p. 789-805.
- Lee, S.-J. and H.-Y. Jung, Identification of quality attributes of university foodservice and factors required for the improvement of customer satisfaction: A case study using IPA model. Journal of the Korean Dietetic Association, 2010. 16(3): p. 208-225.
- There are two questions of the abstract of this paper, 1. the pathological relationships of diabetic neuropathy and its EEG should clearly classified, this paper should prove it’s the logic and theoretical support of these results. 2. Starting with the abstract, it is hard to read for readers, for its topics did not illustrate clearly the motivation, method, results, and suggestion of this paper, the authors should present the more important ones in the abstract.
Response：We apologize for not mentioning the pathological relationships between diabetic neuropathy and EEG in the abstract of our article. Could you please confirm this for us? Thank you.
- I think that the paper needs to be better organized. First of all, the Introduction is too less to contain enough information that I think would be more used to support the motivation and purpose of this paper.
Response：Thank you for your kind guidance. Due to the limited space in the journal, we have completed a comprehensive literature review, which can be found in the supplementary material for your review.
- Regarding the literature review, there seem to be may papers that were ignored, and authors should try to see recent papers published.
Response：Thank you for your kind guidance. Due to the limited space in the journal, we have completed a comprehensive literature review, which can be found in the supplementary material for your review.
- The section “Proposed system” does not have any theoretical framework, I don’t understand the economic and financial assumptions of this interaction mechanism. Theoretical framework refers to which theory you want to use to observe or study your research questions in your research. Or it can be understood as: which theory do you want to use to string up the concepts in your research. The theoretical framework is the relationship between concepts that you have assumed in your research. These hypothetical conceptual relationships are called models after you test them. Without the theoretical framework, there would be no relationship between key concepts, but just scattered concepts.
Response：We apologize for not including the "Proposed system" section in our article. Could you please confirm this for us? Thank you.
- I suggested the research design and analytic methods should be clearer with the conceptual/theoretical development in this paper. Research design and analytic methods refers to which theory you want to use to observe or study your research questions in your research. Or it can be understood as: which theory do you want to use to string up the concepts in your research. The Research design is the relationship between concepts that you have assumed in your research. These hypothetical conceptual relationships are called models after you test them.
Response：We clearly introduced the IPA model in the introduction section, and we described the spirit of the IPA model in 1.5. IPA. Could you please confirm this again? Thank you.
- In the conclusion, the authors should put forward suggestions, research ideas, improvement opinions, and some problems to be solved. And conclusion writing should be precise, complete, clear and concise.
Response：Thank you for your helpful suggestion. I have rephrased the conclusion to provide a clearer description.
- Please proofread the manuscript. There are some problems with the writing.
Response：Before submitting the manuscript, we had it edited by a native speaker. The certificate is shown in the following.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this submitted manuscript.
This is an interesting study. The paper is generally well written and structured. Also, it was well-founded, with adequate analyzes, and met the aim proposed by authors. However, in my opinion the paper should adress:
The discussion part should be rewritten. The purpose of the discussion is to interpret and describe the significance of your findings in light of what was already known about the research problem being investigated, and to explain any new understanding or fresh insights about the problem after you've taken the findings into consideration.
This section is often considered the most important part of research paper. In this link you will find some general rules that should be followed in discussions of this type of work.
https://library.sacredheart.edu/c.php?g=29803&p=185933
I consider that a discussion should explain the results (which is contemplated in this article) but also make reference to other previous research, an aspect that has not been taken into account.
I reiterate that this is a very interesting article and worth reviewing this consideration for publication.
Author Response
We appreciate the helpful suggestion provided by the reviewer. We are thankful for the reviewer's sharing of resources on academic writing, which will assist us in enhancing our articles. In the Discussion section, we have incorporated additional dialogue with previous studies. In the conclusion, we have reiterated and elaborated on our findings.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I am not sure why some questions are mistyping, but the logic of this paper is still hard to understand for me. Pls answer the following questions.
I don’t agree this opinion “We have chosen to utilize the IPA model due to concerns that the topic may be overly lengthy. Additionally, many previous articles have used the IPA model in their titles [1-3].” Most papers use “Importance–Performance Analysis”, I have checked WOS, about 50 papers used only IPA, but it is your paper, this is suggestion.
In the abstract of this paper, the relationships of teachers’ emotions, their perceived importance and satisfaction of administrative services should clearly classify, this paper should prove it’s the logic and theoretical support of these results.
The introduction section should be improved based on research questions, research objectives and theoretical contributions. I don't think Table 1 could explain this problem. And there should be no subsections in Introduction, even its punctuations should check carefully.
The section “Materials and Methods” does not have any theoretical framework of the relationships of teachers’ emotions, their perceived importance and satisfaction of administrative services.
The section “Results” should clearly classify the theoretical and empirical logics of the purposes and results.
Implications of theory and practice should be added in conclusion section.
There are still some typo questions: as the sequence of reference. Pls Check.
Authors should add recent papers published. as
Micro- and Small-Sized Enterprises’ Sustainability-Oriented Innovation for COVID-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127521
Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) of metro service attributes during the COVID-19 pandemic DOI: 10.1016/j.cstp.2022.06.005
Evaluation of Educational Service Quality of Vocational High School (VHS) Based on Importance Performance Analysis (IPA) Quadrant DOI: 10.14689/ejer.2022.97.02
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for heeding the recommendations about the discussion. Your research is now more critical and has gained scientific quality.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your review and feedback, it was very helpful for our manuscript.
