Determining Service Quality Indicators to Recruit and Retain International Students in Malaysia Higher Education Institutions: Global Issues and Local Challenges

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study was based on international student mobility services in Malaysian public 26 Universities to test service quality indicators that could be used to improve higher education practices. The sample comprised 1,273 international students. The SERVQUAL model and instrument were used, and the indicators were 28 determined using the measurement model (MM-SEM) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Some of the concern points have been listed as follows:

 

1.     The current citation format did not follow the journal’s style.

2.     Figure 1 is unreadable.

3.     Please provide the distribution of international students to the destination country.

4.     L129-160, please reshape the text or cite the original sources related to the text in this paragraph.

5.     In the method section, it needs more work to address how RO1 and RO2 have been connected to MM-SEM and AHP design.

6.     AHP may be used simply as a model for MM-SEM testing in this study. If this is the case, this study may need to consider that both methods should work more meaningfully.

7.     Some variables in AHP have been found that share very limited weights, it should be explained or they can be deleted for better model reasons. Please clarify.

 

8.     Please enhance the practical implications for the research field.

Author Response

Thanks for reviewing our paper. We have now included the countries of the participants as requested. The implication has been improved by extending the findings to other contexts. 

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well-written and coherent piece of work. There is evidence of engagement with the subject matter and comparative analysis. The paper provides a useful framework for ongoing understanding and analysis.

The paper addresses an existing gap in literature and provides value in this regard.

There are minor spelling/grammatical issues in the paper that a thorough proof reading will resolve.

It might be helpful to include additional text outlining the inclusion of the various country examples - why were they specifically chosen and what inherent value do they bring to the discussion and analysis?

What are the implications of this research/framework for other countries that perhaps do not follow the same approach to international student recruitment as a function of economic growth?

Author Response

Thanks for reviewing our paper. I have responded to your comments and made the necessary changes. You requested for further proofreading and we have done that. One of the authors is an American and she has edited and proofread the paper again for the second time. 
On the issue of MM and AHP connections, we have tried as much as we can to connect both and the importance of using both and their benefits. We even provided citations for the usage and justification. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Sustainability

An interesting aim with the study but unfortunately to bad and unorganized manuscript. It has to be improved before publishing. The manuscript must be written in a more structural  way and that is will be easier to follow methods and the conclusions of the study. To many abbreviations used and when they have been explained once they still are described several times.

The sample is small and student from other countries than Asia and Africa are few. Interesting with Cultural diversity! Could this be recognized in the results? Or could you comment on this?

Difference public and private universities and why is it difficult to locate them?

Examples:

Line 29-30: Should it be MM or MM-SEM?

Line 37: Key words in alphabetical order.

Line 85-86: Did you answer this? These factors that drive student mobility, 85 cultural diversity in higher education, and economic development are the focus of the study.

Line 114-155: Use GAP model or SERVQUAL model. It is very difficult to follow in the text when using many different names on the same model.

 

Line 180 and 183: GAP model or Or Gap Model (SERVQUAL)? Mixed!

 

Line 247: What does this mean? The study reported non-academic academic services;…

 

Line 334-336: Already mentioned AHP and MM! And should it be MM-SEM?

 

Line 364: Use AHP

 

Line 373: GAP model? Be consequent in using the name of the model.

 

Line 382: New model?  Messy! A lot of mixing with names and abbreviations

 

Line 404-406: New model and repetition of earlier model!

 

Line 446: Will higher values give a better consistency?

 

Line 455-459: Many abbreviations and what do they stand for?

 

All figures and Tables are not well prepared and must be prepared in a better way. Each figure and table must have a legend that gives a description of what is presented in the figures and tables.

 

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer 

Thanks for reviewing our paper. I have worked hard to answer your questions. We have explained the connection between MM and AHP and their meaningfulnesses. 

Reviewer 4 Report

 

Determining Service Quality Indicators to Recruit and Retain 1 International Students in Malaysia Higher Education 2 Institutions: Global Issues and Local Challenges

 

The research aims to provide service quality indicators that can be used to improve international student mobility services in Malaysian public universities. This study is helpful to understand the services needed to improve the quality service system of Malaysian public universities and other universities, especially those in Southeast Asian countries that participate in international practices. It provides practical significance for improving the international practice service quality of higher education institutions, and puts forward suggestions for future research. However, the paper still has the following problems:

1.This study added seven factors to the 30-year-old Parasuraman service quality model

to meet today’s needs. What is the basis for adding 7 factors?

2. The Part 2 is recommended to be simplified appropriately.

3. Please supplement the contents of the questionnaire in the appendix.

4. Please supplement the data processing of AHP and other methods in Part 3 and Part 4.

5. It is suggested to simplify the Conclusions.

 

Author Response

Thanks for your review. We improved the recommendation and conclusion although, we did not under your statement of asking to simplify the recommendation and conclusion as the recommendation and conclusion were written based on the research findings. 

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear Authors, please consider the following corrections from my side.

 

 

Point 1. The “Reference” section should be formatted according to the journal guidelines (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph/instructions#references). I would recommend using “Zotero” software to correctly format all references in a semi-automatic way (use “Zotero” style file for “Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute”; add sources by DOI – it will ease the whole process).

 

Point 2. Manuscripts must contain the required sections: Materials & Methods, Results, Funding Information, Author Contributions, Conflict of Interest and Ethics Statements. Check the Journal Instructions for Authors for more details.

 

Point 3. The sections “Literature Review”, and “Practical Implications, Limitations and Future Research” should go as subsections.

 

Point 4. The Figure 5. has to be cited in the text.

 

Point 5. The “Findings” section should be renamed as “Results”.

 

Point 6. The Table 1. should be reformatted for the so the words would not be divided into two or even three parts.

 

Point 7. The Table 3. should be reformatted so it would share the same style as all the others tables presented in the article.

 

 

Sincerely Yours,

Reviewer

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer 

Thanks for reviewing our paper. I have worked hard to answer your questions.

We did not understand the statement of simplying the recommendation  and conclusion. However, we have simplied it according to our undertstanding. 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

1. It still does not fit the journal's publication requirements. For example, reviewing recent works on Sustainability in terms of citing some of the related published articles in Sustainability or related journals; The format of the presentation in the citation section could be another issue, the authors may prepare a well-done manuscript for considering publication in this journal.

2. Moreover, AHP and the SEM model are so complicated, both Figure 1 and Figure 2 are hard to read. 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks for reviewing our paper again. You suggested citing some papers pubished my Sustainability journal. We have cited 1-2 papers from the journal and unfornately, there are scarcity of journals that are very related to the nature of our research. 

Again, you commented on the fugures (model) for not being complicated to read/understand. Well, this is the nature of SEM by crossing arrows from one factors to another. Same goes the AHP. First, we need to report the model-fitness and for AHP, we need to explain the process of applying AHP. These are normal procedures when using both statisical analsysia. 

However, we have answered on the rest of your comments and we have done the necessary changed and corrections that you requested. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear editor,

The revision have increased the status of the paper. However there are still some changes that have to be made.

Explain MOE line 90 and WTO line 497.

Still there are abbreviations which are described several times. Check this!

MM line 768, 1086

AHP line 788-789, 796, 1087...

There are two Tables 2!! Change and check the references of the Tables in the text.

Line 881 should be Table 3.

Table 3 should be Table 4.

Table 4 should be Table 5.

Missing Figure 4 but there is a Figure 5?? Should be Figure 4.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thanks for reviewing our paper again.

We have done all the corrections and changes

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have made a lot of revisions and have met the publishing requirements.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thansk for reviewing our paper.

All the corrections are done

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear Authors, I appreciate Your hard work.

Please, consider the following.

 

 

Point 1. Add the Funding Information, Author Contributions, Conflict of Interest, and Ethics Statements.

 

Point 2. Figure 5. has to be cited in the text; for example, “The Pareto chart (Figure 5.) below…”

 

Point 3. The “Findings” section should be renamed as “Results”.

 

 

Sincerely Yours,

Reviewer

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thanks for reviewing our paper. We have added the funding part and other corrections have been made.