Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The abstract needs to be clarified and need rewriting for clarity. It took time to decipher from the abstract the topic under study. I suggest revisiting the entire paper, starting with the abstract and working on a style that makes it clear to present your arguments.

The idea of school being the main source of knowledge transmission. While the school as an institution is vital for knowledge acquisition, it is not the primary source of knowledge.

Please revisit the paper focusing on the following.

Use of passive voice in some instances, need to review and rewrite for clarity

Dangling modifier 

wordy sentences

grammatical error

spelling error

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

1. Summary

We would like to extend our heartfelt appreciation for your time and dedication in reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable comments and suggestions. Your thorough evaluation and constructive feedback have been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our work, and we are sincerely grateful for your contributions. Please find the detailed responses below.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable	Response and Revisions
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	( )	(x)	( )	Please see Response 3.1
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The abstract needs to be clarified and need rewriting for clarity. It took time to decipher from the abstract the topic under study. I suggest revisiting the entire paper, starting with the abstract and working on a style that makes it clear to present your arguments.

Response 1: We acknowledge your concern regarding the abstract and the need for greater clarity. Your point is well-taken, and we understand the importance of a well-crafted abstract in effectively conveying the essence of our research. In response to your suggestion, we have revisited the abstract and made substantial revisions to enhance its clarity and conciseness. In addition to the abstract, we made substantial changes to the introduction, aiming to improve the contextualization of the study about previous research, as well as the research questions. We also emphasize that to ensure clarity and accuracy throughout the document, we subject the manuscript to a comprehensive review by an official native translator.

Comments 2: The idea of school being the main source of knowledge transmission. While the school as an institution is vital for knowledge acquisition, it is not the primary source of knowledge.

Response 2: We appreciate your comment, and we want to express our regret that our initial text conveyed a perspective that was not our intention. We would like to clarify that we do not view school as the primary source of knowledge. As mentioned before, we have revised the manuscript, and we believe that our perspective is accurately reflected. However, if you believe that at any point in the revised manuscript, this idea is still being conveyed, we would be extremely grateful if you could specify the exact section where this occurs. Your specific feedback would be invaluable in helping us align the article with the intended perspective.

4. Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1. Please revisit the paper focusing on the following.

Use of passive voice in some instances, need to review and rewrite for clarity

Dangling modifier 

wordy sentences

grammatical error

spelling error

Response 1: Thank you for your feedback regarding the quality of the English language in our paper. We take your comments seriously and have carefully reviewed the manuscript with the assistance of an official native translator to ensure that all aspects have been considered.

5. Additional clarifications

All changes made to the manuscript are highlighted in blue. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Here are the major issues that authors should fix.  1. The title is very generic. 2. The findings are not succinctly presented in the abstract.  3. Issues discussed in the introduction are not clear and focused. 4. Theoretical and conceptual frameworks are not clearly discussed and presented. 6. The study just reports the descriptive findings, which can not be applied as major findings, to propose a theory or conclusion. 

Overall, I could not see how the study contributed to the field of study. and in What field of study? The author should re-focused on the issues to be raised and what actually the study would like to propose and answer.  

English is ok

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

1. Summary

We would like to extend our heartfelt appreciation for your time and dedication in reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable comments and suggestions. Your thorough evaluation and constructive feedback have been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our work, and we are sincerely grateful for your contributions. Please find the detailed responses below.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable	Response and Revisions
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	( )	( )	( )	(x)
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	( )	(x)	( )	Please see responses 1 and 2 bellow
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	( )	( )	( )	(x)
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	( )	(x)
Is the article adequately referenced?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	( )	( )	(x)	( )

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Here are the major issues that authors should fix.  1. The title is very generic. 2. The findings are not succinctly presented in the abstract.  3. Issues discussed in the introduction are not clear and focused. 4. Theoretical and conceptual frameworks are not clearly discussed and presented. 6. The study just reports the descriptive findings, which can not be applied as major findings, to propose a theory or conclusion. 

 

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate your comprehensive feedback, which has provided us with valuable insights for enhancing our manuscript. We have taken your comments to heart and made the following revisions: 1) We have revised the title to make it more specific and reflective of the content of our research, addressing your concern about its generality; 2) We have reworked the abstract to ensure that the results are presented succinctly, enabling readers to efficiently grasp the core of our research; and  3) We have also reformulated the introduction section. In this initial segment of the manuscript, we have worked diligently to offer a more lucid and targeted exposition of the study's context and background. We have further elucidated the significance of the study, refined the precision of our research questions, and underscored their purpose. In this sense, and to respond to the concerns indicated in your comment, we took the opportunity to clarify that “our study endeavours to initiate a series of projects aimed at identifying, mapping, and scrutinizing the scientific research conducted in Portuguese universities.  Specifically focusing on the doctoral level, this paper delves into three core dimensions of analysis for characterizing doctoral research in the domain of TE in Portuguese universities. These dimensions encompass Authors and Dissertations, Issues Studied, and University Contexts.”

Comments 2: Overall, I could not see how the study contributed to the field of study. and in What field of study? The author should re-focused on the issues to be raised and what actually the study would like to propose and answer.  

 

Response 2: As outlined in our previous response, we have refined the title, abstract, and introduction. We hope that the changes we have made will address your concerns and provide a clearer understanding of the contribution of our study. If you have any additional questions or require further clarification, please feel free to let us know. Your feedback is instrumental in improving the quality and relevance of our research.

4. Comments on the Quality of English Language

Comments 1: English is ok

 

Response 1: Thank you for your feedback regarding the quality of the English language in our paper. Even so, we have carefully reviewed the manuscript with the assistance of an official native translator.

5. Additional clarifications

All changes made to the manuscript are highlighted in blue.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper needs a good edit to check grammatical issues, such as sentence structure, in order to help with clarification of meaning. For example, the 2nd sentence of the abstract is confusing and could be broken up. Plus there seems to be a "in" missing "in this specific field". Another example is the very first sentence of the introduction. Too many clauses confuses the reader and creates a disjointed sentence. The content and author's meaning becomes unclear. Same with the 2nd paragraph, same section. These first two paragraphs are one sentence each. Each sentence does not present a logical flow and is very confusing. Same with the 4th paragraph. This type of writing is very frustrating to read. I have also found incomplete sentences: "In an initial approach, with the aim of extending or replacing the role of the teacher in the transmission of information." There is sometimes an overuse of the word "it". It would be helpful to name what "it" is being discussed.

For the rest of the introduction, I tried to look past the inaccurate sentence structure and grammatical issues to analyse the content of the paper. The premise of the paper is good. A study to find trends in dissertation research can be beneficial to the field.

The introduction section seems to include the Literature Review. It would be helpful and better organised if this became it's own section with additional subheadings.

I would recommend being more explicit in saying why your research is important. At the moment, this is subtly done in the paragraph beginning with "Looking at the literature review." 

The methodology section was detailed and had a better writing style, so it was clear what methods the authors used.

The results sections and subsections were clear and showed interesting trends.

The discussion and conclusion also brought about interesting points.

Overall, this is a good study. However, the introduction needs some major revising/editing.

Overall, this is a good study. However, the introduction shows a lower quality of the English language in terms of grammar and sentence structure and needs some major revising/editing.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

1. Summary

We would like to extend our heartfelt appreciation for your time and dedication in reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable comments and suggestions. Your thorough evaluation and constructive feedback have been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our work, and we are sincerely grateful for your contributions. Please find the detailed responses below.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable	Response and Revisions
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	( )	( )	(x)	( )	Please see response 1
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:

The paper needs a good edit to check grammatical issues, such as sentence structure, in order to help with clarification of meaning. For example, the 2nd sentence of the abstract is confusing and could be broken up. Plus there seems to be a "in" missing "in this specific field". Another example is the very first sentence of the introduction. Too many clauses confuses the reader and creates a disjointed sentence. The content and author's meaning becomes unclear. Same with the 2nd paragraph, same section. These first two paragraphs are one sentence each. Each sentence does not present a logical flow and is very confusing. Same with the 4th paragraph. This type of writing is very frustrating to read. I have also found incomplete sentences: "In an initial approach, with the aim of extending or replacing the role of the teacher in the transmission of information." There is sometimes an overuse of the word "it". It would be helpful to name what "it" is being discussed.

For the rest of the introduction, I tried to look past the inaccurate sentence structure and grammatical issues to analyse the content of the paper. The premise of the paper is good. A study to find trends in dissertation research can be beneficial to the field.

The introduction section seems to include the Literature Review. It would be helpful and better organised if this became it's own section with additional subheadings.

I would recommend being more explicit in saying why your research is important. At the moment, this is subtly done in the paragraph beginning with "Looking at the literature review." 

Response 1: We appreciate your thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your input on the grammatical and structural aspects is particularly valuable. We have taken your comments seriously and made significant improvements to enhance the clarity and coherence of our paper.

Namely, we have revisited the abstract and made substantial revisions to enhance its clarity and conciseness.

We have also reformulated the introduction section. In this initial segment of the manuscript, we have worked diligently to offer a more lucid and targeted exposition of the study's context and background. We have further elucidated the significance of the study, refined the precision of our research questions, and underscored their purpose. We also take the opportunity to clarify that “our study contributes to the advancement of scholarship by offering a nuanced perspective on the evolving intersections between technology, education, and research. This investigation not only enriches academic discourse but also provides valuable insights for educational practitioners, policymakers, and stakeholders seeking to harness the potential of technology to enhance learning outcomes and shape the future of education.”

We also emphasize that to ensure clarity and accuracy throughout the document, we subject the manuscript to a comprehensive review by an official native translator.

We hope that these improvements address your concerns and contribute to a more coherent and reader-friendly manuscript. If you have any further suggestions or areas of concern within the paper, please do not hesitate to share them. Your feedback is essential to our ongoing efforts to improve the quality and relevance of our research.

Comments 2: The methodology section was detailed and had a better writing style, so it was clear what methods the authors used. The results sections and subsections were clear and showed interesting trends. The discussion and conclusion also brought about interesting points. Overall, this is a good study. However, the introduction needs some major revising/editing.

Response 2: Thank you for your positive feedback on our methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion sections. We appreciate your valuable insights. As we mentioned in the previous response, we essentially focused on revising the introduction and abstract to improve the overall quality of the manuscript.

4. Comments on the Quality of English Language

Comments 1: Overall, this is a good study. However, the introduction shows a lower quality of the English language in terms of grammar and sentence structure and needs some major revising/editing.

Response 1: Thank you for your feedback regarding the quality of the English language in our paper. We take your comments seriously and have carefully reviewed the manuscript with the assistance of an official native translator, as mentioned in response 3.1.

5. Additional clarifications

All changes made to the manuscript are highlighted in blue.

Reviewer 4 Report

Congratulations! Good paper but must be improved showing differences and similarities with other contexts.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4

1. Summary

We would like to extend our heartfelt appreciation for your time and dedication in reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable comments and suggestions. Your thorough evaluation and constructive feedback have been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our work, and we are sincerely grateful for your contributions. Please find the detailed responses below.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable	Response and Revisions
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	( )	(x)	( )	( )

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Congratulations! Good paper but must be improved showing differences and similarities with other contexts.

Response 1: Thank you for your positive feedback on our paper, and we appreciate your congratulations. We take this opportunity to inform you that we have revised the article to make its intentions clearer. In the introduction, we have worked diligently to offer a more lucid and targeted exposition of the study's context and background. We have further elucidated the significance of the study, refined the precision of our research questions, and underscored their purpose. In this sense, and to respond to the concerns indicated in your comment, we took the opportunity to clarify that “our study endeavours to initiate a series of projects aimed at identifying, mapping, and scrutinizing the scientific research conducted in Portuguese universities.  Specifically focusing on the doctoral level, this paper delves into three core dimensions of analysis for characterizing doctoral research in the domain of TE in Portuguese universities. These dimensions encompass Authors and Dissertations, Issues Studied, and University Contexts.” In this regard, your suggestion will be considered in the studies we plan to develop soon.

4. Comments on the Quality of English Language

N/A

5. Additional clarifications

All changes made to the manuscript are highlighted in blue.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

 

While you have revised some sections of the paper, it is still hard to decipher due to the writing style. For instance, the methodology section must be more precise when looking at the search variables used on the RENATES platform. It needs to be clarified why you isolated some dissertations from this study. While the research is exciting and would contribute to scholarship, it might be best to dedicate more time to reworking this paper. Revisit the methodology section and present data. 

The paper needs to be revised, focusing on things like passive voice, punctuation, hanging sentences, and some modifiers, among other things. Improving these areas might help with clarity in some sections. I suggest revisiting this paper and reworking it for conciseness.

Author Response

We greatly appreciate your thorough review of our paper and the valuable comments and suggestions you provided. Your input has been instrumental in enhancing and clarifying various aspects of our work. We are confident that your contribution has played a pivotal role in improving our research. Please find the detailed responses below.

 

Comments 1. While you have revised some sections of the paper, it is still hard to decipher due to the writing style. For instance, the methodology section must be more precise when looking at the search variables used on the RENATES platform.

To clarify the use of the RENATES platform, we would like to highlight that we have included the link (https://renates2.dgeec.mec.pt/) to provide a direct reference to the platform where we conducted our research. Furthermore, it seemed important to explain that we repeated the procedure described for all universities in Portugal that offer doctoral programs in the field of education. These adjustments are indicated in the manuscript, highlighted in blue, from line 288 to line 293. Following these adjustments, the manuscript highlights three cases in which it was not possible to extract a document in one go, as the system only allows for a maximum of 200 results to be extracted at a time.

Comments 2. It needs to be clarified why you isolated some dissertations from this study. While the research is exciting and would contribute to scholarship, it might be best to dedicate more time to reworking this paper. Revisit the methodology section and present data. 

We carefully revisited the methodology section. To ensure a comprehensive and transparent description of the procedures followed, we have reinforced the idea that the thesis selection process was based on deliberate criteria. We emphasize that the decision to select some theses that showed some connection with the use of technology in educational contexts, even if they did not fall within the specialties specific to the field of TE (as indicated in the manuscript), was based on the recognition that innovative research in the field of education often transcends traditional boundaries. Therefore, we aimed to encompass a broader spectrum of relevant works on the use of technology in educational settings. These adjustments are highlighted in blue in the manuscript, from line 321 to line 332.

Regarding the suggestion to 'present data,' we would like to emphasize that we are willing to provide the research data, as indicated in the manuscript (Data Availability Statement section). In this way, we aim to reinforce our ethical commitment to full transparency and accessibility to the data used in this study.

Comments 3. The paper needs to be revised, focusing on things like passive voice, punctuation, hanging sentences, and some modifiers, among other things. Improving these areas might help with clarity in some sections. I suggest revisiting this paper and reworking it for conciseness.

Thank you for your feedback and valuable suggestions. It's important to note that the manuscript has undergone a professional translation and revision process. We tried to be clearer and more concise, particularly in the conclusions to highlight the main contributions of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

In part of the introduction, you need to argue concisely and critically, about a gap to be filled from current research dealing with this area of research. The arguments and discussion of findings should be coherent, balanced and compelling to address the research question. Contribution, Novelty and Implication of the findings also should be more sounded in part of the discussion.

Author Response

We greatly appreciate your thorough review of our paper and the valuable comments and suggestions you provided. Your input has been instrumental in enhancing and clarifying various aspects of our work. We are confident that your contribution has played a pivotal role in improving our research. Please find the detailed responses below.

 

Comments 1. In part of the introduction, you need to argue concisely and critically, about a gap to be filled from current research dealing with this area of research.

Thank you for your observation. We sought to address this request by introducing a text that highlights the justification for this study (lines 58-71). We hope that this explanation contributes to a better understanding of the importance and relevance of the study we have conducted.

Comments 2. The arguments and discussion of findings should be coherent, balanced and compelling to address the research question. Contribution, Novelty and Implication of the findings also should be more sounded in part of the discussion.

We appreciate your valuable feedback regarding the coherence and balance of the arguments presented in the article's discussion. We revisited Sections 4 and 5 and chose to rephrase the conclusions based on the dimensions of the analysis emphasized in this study. In this revision, we also endeavoured to delve deeper into the contributions, novelty, and implications of the study's results, as we fully acknowledge the importance of these aspects for advancing knowledge. We hope that this reformulation aligns with your expectations. Thank you for your valuable comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

It is clear you have taken the reviewers' feedback into consideration and have made appropriate revisions.

Author Response

We greatly appreciate your thorough review of our paper and the valuable comments and suggestions you provided. Your input has been instrumental in enhancing and clarifying various aspects of our work. We are confident that your contribution has played a pivotal role in improving our research. We would also like to inform you that we made some adjustments, but they did not alter the essence of the text and may help clarify certain aspects, particularly the study's conclusions. All changes are highlighted in blue.

Comments 1. It is clear you have taken the reviewers' feedback into consideration and have made appropriate revisions.