Neurocognitive Profile of Creativity in Improving Academic Performance—A Scoping Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article titled "Neurocognitive Profile of Creativity in Improving Academic Performance. A Scoping Review" addresses an important area of research – the role of creativity in influencing academic performance. The topic is timely and relevant, as there's growing recognition of the role of diverse cognitive abilities in academic success. However, after a thorough review, I think there are some areas that need further clarification and improvement to provide a holistic understanding.
1. The introduction touches on various unrelated topics, from the neurocognitive profile of leadership creativity to gamification and the therapeutic applications of creativity. This breadth makes it difficult for readers to grasp the main point of the article, which is supposed to be the relationship between creativity and academic performance. The introduction should ideally set the context for the specific topic the review aims to address and guide the reader towards understanding the importance and rationale of the research.
2. Several ideas are reiterated multiple times, albeit with slightly different phrasing. For example, the complex nature of creativity and its association with academic performance is mentioned more than once. This redundancy contributes to the introduction's lack of conciseness, making it harder for readers to discern the main arguments.
3. The structure of the introduction seems disjointed, jumping from one topic to another without clear transitions or logical progression. For example, it delves into the specifics of gamification and then shifts abruptly to therapy without clear justification or flow. There isn't a logical building or scaffolding of ideas, which makes the narrative difficult to follow.
4. The primary aim or purpose of the review (i.e., "This systematic review aims to investigate whether there is a correlation between creativity and academic capabilities...") is positioned right at the end of the introduction. Typically, the main objective or the research question should be clearly stated earlier on to give readers a clear sense of direction and focus.
5. One of the main issues in the Methods section is the very stringent selection criteria. From a pool of 550 articles, only seven made the final cut. This can significantly limit the range and depth of the information you're capturing. It could indicate that your criteria might be too restrictive. While maintaining rigorous standards for selection is commendable, there is a balance to be struck. It's possible that some relevant studies might have been excluded based on one minor criterion.
6. You used three databases: PubMed, Scopus, and Heal-link. While these are reputable databases, focusing only on these might have excluded potentially relevant articles from other databases. Why not use databases like ERIC or PsycINFO, which specialize in educational and psychological research might have been beneficial for your revie?
7. The articles included had to be written in English. This excludes a significant body of research that might be written in other languages. Especially when considering creativity and academic achievement across cultures, this introduces a notable bias.
8. Another of your criteria is that the article should be published in a "reputable scientific journal." The term 'reputable' is subjective and could introduce bias, especially if there isn't a pre-defined standard or list of what constitutes 'reputable'.
9. Results are problematic and are related to points raised earlier.
10. Discusson section has significant limitations too. I think, the flow of ideas seems a bit scattered. Ideally, the discussion should have a logical progression from discussing primary findings to secondary insights and then the limitations.
11. The section could benefit from comparing/contrasting these findings with existing literature more extensively. Also, given the global implications of creativity and education, the discussion could delve deeper into cross-cultural considerations based on the findings.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguagePlease, see above.
Author Response
The article has undergone a comprehensive reformatting, addressing all the topics you raised from 1 to 11 in the process. Specifically, the modifications and improvements made to the article have been highlighted in yellow.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I read your articles carefully and I could not find clear explanation of Neurocognitive Profile of Creativity that you indicate in the title. If you write about neurocognitive profile of creativity, please specify exactly what you mean by this terminology in the first paragraph. I find the title somewhat little related to the content and I would re-consider to change it - so that it better reflects the content of the review.
I would suggest to delete all paragraphs about therapies and psychological disorders, since the review talks about healthy population (at least this is implicated - if not, please clearly state the disorders and point on them in the article).
In the results and discussion, I would recommend to include also the numbers - correlation coefficients, or other significant data that prove your conclusions.
Further, I would try to refine the criteria for search and perhaps include meta-analysis articles with corresponding topics, so that you can include more articles in your review and draw some wider conclusions.
Author Response
The article has been forced to a thorough reformatting, encompassing all the topics that were raised during the process. The article has been highlighted in yellow to indicate the specific modifications and improvements that have been made. Furthermore, the paragraphs concerning therapies and psychological disorders have been removed, and the criteria for the systematic review procedure have been revised in accordance with your instructions.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. I do not believe the manuscript meets the standards for a systematic review or scoping review. I have provided details below.
The title indicates this is a scoping review. The abstract and other parts of the manuscript refer to a systematic review. I have assumed that this is intended as a systematic review, but it is unclear.
There is a serious lack of citations. Important information that is foundational to the argument is presented lines 20-49 with no citations.
The title and some of the background literature emphasise neurocognitive profiles. There is no mention of neurocognitive profiles in the aim (line 138).
The items listed below refer to items on the PRISMA 2020 checklist for systematic reviews.
Item 4 – there is no explicit statement of objectives or questions relevant to a review. The aim noted on line 138 refers to a correlation, not a review question/objective.
Items 5-7 – The inclusion/exclusion criteria are not sufficiently specific, the date the search was conducted is missing, the search strategy lacks detail.
Items 8-9 – More detail is needed to indicate how decisions were made about articles meeting inclusion criteria. How many reviewers were involved. Was any software used? It also seemed unusual that there were no duplicate articles in the two searches. Was an ancestral or similar search conducted to be sure all articles had been identified?
Items 10-27 – I won’t cover these in detail, but I couldn’t see any attempt to cover some of the main points such as consideration of bias, certainty of evidence etc.
The data extraction didn’t highlight neurocognitive profiles of creativity and I’m not sure that this was addressed in all articles, yet there is a very strong causal statement lines 403-404 about the influence of neurocognitive profile of creativity on academic performance. None of the studies reviewed seemed to be intervention studies, so this isn’t a claim that should be made based on this review. The claim is also made in the first line of the abstract, but without the neurocognitive profile component.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The citations should fit with the sentence structure. “According to [1]” for example, is poor use of citations. Check through the manuscript for clarity.
Author Response
The article has undergone a comprehensive restructuring, incorporating all the subjects that were discussed throughout the procedure. The article has been marked with yellow highlighting to denote the specific alterations and enhancements that have been implemented. As accurately pointed out, additional citations have been included, and the neurocognitive aspect has been identified and elucidated.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The structure and content of the study are appropriate, and the following corrections should be made.
1) The first two sentences of the abstract present the results (past tense). I suggest that these two sentences be added to the end of the abstract.
2) The introduction makes significant statements without evidence (references). I ask the author to change this. I also suggest more precise wording in the introductory chapter and throughout the paper in general. For example, at the end of the third paragraph of the first (introductory) chapter, the following sentence is written "Here are some potential influences of creativity on academic achievement:..."
Although the genre of the study is 'scoping review', overly subjective findings, lists and conclusions detract from its quality. I recommend that the author justifies his statements, conclusions and decisions with well-founded criteria and literature in each case.
For example, in cases like the first sentence of the chapter "Materials and methods". Here, the choice of three databases could be justified.
3) I recommend avoiding unnamed and numbered references. „According to [1], …”
4) The "scoping review" genre allows (even encourages) the identification of knowledge gaps. In this context, in the case of the introductory chapter, I felt that the author presented the literature on gamification and leadership in relative detail, certainly in the context of creativity, but did not address the gaps.
I would suggest that the author consider whether some examples could be presented in this chapter (and then in the conclusion) in the context of possible knowledge gaps in this area.
5) Scientific text / relevant and irrelevant information
I ask the author to think about whether some of his/her statements contain relevant information, whether they are relevant, whether they are in good taste. For example: 'Researchers from different nations and cultural backgrounds published the articles (n=7)'.
6) Table 1 needs to be corrected. The table contains too many complete sentences, it could be simplified and the complete sentences included in the main text. The fourth column of the table ("Tools") could also be used for abbreviations and the meaning of the abbreviations could be explained in a note. This would also improve the clarity of the table. It is up to the author to change this, but not the fact that the numbering of the references in the first column of the table does not correspond to the numbering in the bibliography.
7) It is not a criterion for publication, but I would ask the author(s) to consider whether he/she/them wishes to reflect on literary examples that are the same or very similar to the subject of his or her paper, and whether he or she wishes to compare their results with his or her own. For example:
Akpur, U. (2023) Creativity and Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis Study Article
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.652
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100831
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-017-0090-9
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.148
(the reviewer is not an author of any of these studies and has no interest in citing them)
If the author does not wish to address related literature in his/her paper, he/she may briefly justify this in his/her paper, provided that the related literature is significant.
8) Please proofread the abstract and the whole paper (claims, verb tenses, spacing between references), improve fluency and style. In this context, I suggest that the author consider whether he is repeating statements. For example, the fact that he is discussing English literature may appear three times in different places in the text. It is sufficient to include this information once, in the selection criteria.
9) I ask for a formal revision of the bibliography, it is not uniform everywhere.
Comments on the Quality of English Language-
Author Response
The article has undergone a comprehensive reformatting, addressing all the topics you raised from 1 to 7 in the process. The modifications and additions made to the article have been specifically highlighted in yellow. We express our gratitude for the collaboration and the dedication you have shown towards our manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for revising the paper. It has improved significantly. Please, expand the conclusion section by (1) highlighting 3-4 key findings of your scoping review study, (2) mention limitations of your study; and (3) provide 2-3 areas for future research. Thank you.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIt would be helpful to proofread the manuscript before publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We appreciate the time you devote to the amelioration of our article. The section of conclusion is revised as you indicated, adding key points of our manuscript, limitations and future directions.
On behalf of our team,
Kind regards
Constantinos Halkiopoulos
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have no other comments or suggestions.
Author Response
Thank you for the time you devoted to the amelioration of our article.
On behalf of our team
Kind regards
Constantinos Halkiopoulos
