Sustainable Development of Emergency Response Ability of Novice Policemen—An Empirical Study Based on Case-Based Instruction
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for the opportunity to review this paper.
The abstract is not written clearly, which makes it difficult to understand what the study is about. It also contains errors associated with inconsistent capitalization.
From the outset, I had difficulty understanding the connection between this paper and sustainable development. The literature review on sustainable development (pp. 2-4) does not help to solidify this connection.
The research questions on p. 5 come as a surprise, since the introduction and literature review do not lead the reader to expect these specific issues. The research questions should flow naturally from the material that is presented earlier in the paper.
The analysis and results are interesting, but they are not set up well by the material appearing earlier in the paper. In short, the paper feels very disconnected.
I can envision this paper making an interesting contribution to the literature if reframed in a more cohesive manner. The sustainability focus is tenuous and I recommend dropping it. The introduction, literature review, and methods needs to be much more clearly connected with a more logical flow from one section to the next. I have fewer concerns about the analysis and results sections as long as they are proceeded and followed by material that is more tightly connected with their content.
I believe this paper would find its most suitable home in a journal focused on policing rather than sustainable development.
Should the authors decide to revise the paper, I wish them well.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We really appreciate your comments and made responses in the attachment file.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thanks again. : )
Best,
Di
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
my opinion is that your manuscript is of a good standard. Your manuscript needs only minor revision.
In Chapter 2 Literature Review, literary sources [13] and [14] are listed (line 120 and line 122) only after source [15], line 104. Correct numbering of sources.
Arguments and discussions of the findings are not very coherent and convincing. In Chapter 4 Results and discussion, you only talk about the results, I miss the discussion. Expand Chapter 4 with a discussion.
In Chapter 5 Summary and Implications, I lack recommendations for practice, for improving the current state of the issue being addressed. Write your suggested recommendations for novice police that could improve their ability to respond to emergencies.
Kind regards.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We really appreciate your comments and made responses in the attachment file.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thanks again. : )
Best,
Di
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
#1. The reviewer finds some references cited in the text are not uniform. For example, Page 3 Lines 118 and 120 (Kalipershad & Peristerakis, 2021, and Lavoie et al. 2020), and so on.
#2. Where is the structural description of this article in the Introduction part?
#3. Table 2 records several variables, such as Prior knowledge, Information processing & Judgement and so on. The reviewer wonders what the quantitative standard is. More details and descriptions should be given.
#4. As known to all, semantic data have fuzziness to some extent. How do you deal with such fuzziness? (Refer to: Wang et al., Scheme selection of design for disassembly (DFD) based on sustainability: A novel hybrid of interval 2-tuple linguistic intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and regret theory.)
#5. In Section 3.2.5, three models are constructed and analyzed in Table 3, yet some parameters SE, B, b are not explained and how can they contribute to the analysis of the results in Section 4.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We really appreciate your comments and made responses in the attachment file.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thanks again. : )
Best,
Di
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors have well addressed my comments and this paper can be accepted.
