Evaluation of the Smart Indonesia Program as a Policy to Improve Equality in Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• From my point of view, the manuscript shows a  clear objective, and I consider it relevant to the context presented, besides, it is a well-structured document.  
•   The cited references are mostly recent publications (within the last 3 years) and  I consider that all are relevant and related to the issue studied. 
• The paper includes all the elements necessary for an investigation. However, as pointed out in the article, I consider there is some information missing in some aspects ( see comments).
• The use of tables and figures is well balance, however, I suggest improving Figure 1. SIC fund disbursement schemes.
• I consider the design of the research appropriate. However, I would like to find out more about the voice of the informants. 
• The paper lack information related to the ethics of the protocol. It is important to mention this aspect. 
•  The data was interpreted appropriately, however, there is some information that is suggested to include. See comments along the document. 
• The conclusions are well evidence and relevant. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1: The cited references are mostly recent publications (within the last 3 years) and  I consider that all are relevant and related to the issue studied.

Response 1: Thank you.

 

Point 2: The paper includes all the elements necessary for an investigation. However, as pointed out in the article, I consider there is some information missing in some aspects ( see comments).

Response 2: Thank you for your really helpful feedback. We've already gone over your comments on the document in the pdf files you supplied us. We have already made improvements to the article. Please check Page 2 paragraph 1, Page 2 paragraph 3, and Page 3 paragraph 4 as improvements in the Introduction section, then page 4 paragraph 3 as improvements in the literature review section, then page 5 paragraph 4, page 5 paragraphs 4-5, page 6 paragraphs 1-3 as improvements in the method section, then page 7 paragraph 3 as improvements in the sub-sub section of context evaluation, then page 9 paragraph 3 as improvements in the sub section of input evaluation, page 15 paragraph 3 and 4 as improvements in the discussion section, and page 15 paragraph 5 as improvements in the conclusion section.

 

Point 3: The use of tables and figures is well balance, however, I suggest improving Figure 1. SIC fund disbursement schemes.

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. We have already improved Figure 1. Please check Figure 1 on Page 2 paragraph 3.

 

Point 4: I consider the design of the research appropriate. However, I would like to find out more about the voice of the informants.

Response 4: Thank you very much for your evaluation. As per your advice, We have already included various informant voices in the Results section, on page 9 paragraph 3.

 

Point 5: The paper lack information related to the ethics of the protocol. It is important to mention this aspect.

Response 5: Thank you for your feedback. As you pointed out in the pdf modification of this publication, We have included information regarding ethics in the context evaluation. Please check Page 7 Paragraph 3.

 

Point 6: The data was interpreted appropriately, however, there is some information that is suggested to include. See comments along the document.

Response 6: Thank you for your assistance and helpful feedback on our article. As per your recommendation, I have already included some missing facts. Please check page 6 paragraphs 2 and 3.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, this article may need major improvement in form of the writings.A frw terms which used in this article is a bit confusing. May need to clarify further.

The literature review need to be more comprehensive. Currently, it is a bit shallow and to brief in providing the explanation about the issues, and how it could be situated from the perspectives of other countries which might have similar situation. There are a few statements which a bit confusing and may need further clarification and appropriately explained. A few statements also need to be supported by appropriate references. The title for Figure 1 seems not being explained in the article. Do not just display the diagram without proper explanation. Some of the points given in the discussion section looks like reporting the results rather than discussing them.

The methodology is not well explained and may need to be re-written. What is exactly the research design for this study? It is not well stated. CIPP has been used as the framework in analysing the research data. How about during data collection activities, does this components being used when designing the research instruments? Need to elaborate this. It is also important to justify why Central Java have been chosen as the population, and samples for this study. Why this province is significance for this study? The data analysis section need to be improved. It is important to explain how the the data analysis activities were carried out. How these will facilitate in answering the research questions or achieving the research objectives? It is also mentioned that 'triangulation' was undertaken. Please clearly explain how it carried out. What are the data resources which involved in the triangulation.

The results looks okay. However,the discussion should be more focus on explaining what the results from this study were actually imply. There should not repeat the figures which already presented in the results section, but more on discussing what are those results mean or indicate. Support all these interpretation with appropriate references.

The conclusion need to be re-written. In the Conclusion part, just focus on highlighting the overall implication of this study. No need to repeat the numbers or figures from the results section.
What is exactly the research tell us, and what is the way forward. Put it in a precise and concise writings.

Some of the references has been written based on Bahasa Indonesia. I would leave to the editorial whether they will accept this kind of references writing format.

Please refer to the article to get more specific comments. It is also suggested for the articles to be proof read by English Proof Reader.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Point 1: The literature review needs to be more comprehensive. Currently, it is a bit shallow and too brief in providing the explanation about the issues, and how it could be situated from the perspectives of other countries which might have similar situation. There are a few statements which a bit confusing and may need further clarification and appropriately explained. A few statements also need to be supported by appropriate references. The title for Figure 1 seems not being explained in the article. Do not just display the diagram without proper explanation. Some of the points given in the discussion section looks like reporting the results rather than discussing them.

Response 1: Thank you. We would like to thank you for your extremely constructive remarks and suggestions. We sincerely appreciate your time and work in reviewing our manuscript. We have already rewritten numerous paragraphs based on your suggestions to improve the readability and uniformity of the content.

Please check Page 2 paragraph 1, Page 2 paragraph 3, and Page 3 paragraph 4 as improvements in the Introduction section, then page 4 paragraph 3 as improvements in the literature review section, then page 5 paragraphs 4-5, page 6 paragraphs 1-2 as improvements in the method section, then page 7 paragraph 3 as improvements in the sub-sub-section of the context evaluation, then page 9 paragraph 3 as improvements in the sub-section of the input evaluation, page 15 paragraph 3-4 as improvements in the discussion section, and page 15 paragraph 5 as improvements in the conclusion section.

 

Point 2: The methodology is not well explained and may need to be re-written. What is exactly the research design for this study? It is not well stated. CIPP has been used as the framework in analysing the research data. How about during data collection activities, does this components being used when designing the research instruments? Need to elaborate this.

Response 2: Thank you for your insightful comments. We have improved the manuscript. Please check on page 5, paragraphs 4 and 5

 

Point 3: It is also important to justify why Central Java have been chosen as the population, and samples for this study. Why this province is significance for this study?

Response 3: Thank you for your insightful comments. We have improved the manuscript. Please check the sub-section of 3.2 on page 6, paragraph 1.

 

Point 4: The data analysis section need to be improved. It is important to explain how the the data analysis activities were carried out. How these will facilitate in answering the research questions or achieving the research objectives? It is also mentioned that 'triangulation' was undertaken. Please clearly explain how it carried out. What are the data resources which involved in the triangulation.

Response 4: Thank you for your insightful comments. We have improved the manuscript. Please check the sub-section of 3.1 on pages 5-6.

 

Point 5: The results looks okay. However, the discussion should be more focus on explaining what the results from this study were actually imply. There should not repeat the figures which already presented in the results section, but more on discussing what are those results mean or indicate. Support all these interpretation with appropriate references.

Response 5: Thank you. We have improved the manuscript. Please check Page 15, paragraph 3 and 4.

 

Point 6: The conclusion need to be re-written. In the Conclusion part, just focus on highlighting the overall implication of this study. No need to repeat the numbers or figures from the results section.

What is exactly the research tell us, and what is the way forward. Put it in a precise and concise writings.

Response 6: Thank you for your advice. I attempted to follow your recommendation by just adding some points from the study's results, so the reader would have a better understanding of the findings. Please check the section of 6 on pages 15-16.

 

Point 7: Some of the references has been written based on Bahasa Indonesia. I would leave to the editorial whether they will accept this kind of references writing format.

Response 7:  Thank You.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, the article has been improved as suggested from previous review. Thank you for your effort.