Quality Evaluation Model of Vocational Education in China: A Qualitative Study Based on Grounded Theory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciated the focus on the evaluation of quality vocational education in that much of the discussion so far has been borrowed from the field of general education and may lack relevance.

My major concern with the paper is its reliance on the "rooting theory" model which it appears the author(s)  have established with this study (p. 3, line 111). It seems to be used alongside "rooted" theory but most Western readers would know it as "grounded" theory.

They also make a reference to "zapping theory" which is taken from media studies and not elaborated on in the paper. It led me to think that it was a typographical error. At the very least, its inclusion will need a little elaboration. In addition, references to "Zagan theory" also need to be elaborated on. 

Author Response

Regarding your concern about the "rooting theory" model, we have made the necessary revisions in the paper. We have replaced "rooting theory" with "grounded theory" to align with the terminology commonly used by Western readers. We apologize for any confusion caused by this inconsistency.

Once again, we appreciate your valuable feedback, and we have taken the necessary steps to address your concerns in the revised version of the article.

Reviewer 2 Report

The submitted manuscript is interesting, however it presents a series of aspects that could be improved, which I list below:

Name the DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS section correctly:

- I recommend adding the discussion in the following sections:

o Main findings of this work

o Discussion with other previous contributions regarding the same topic. I recommend increasing the number of references in this section.

o The implications of these results in the field of study of the research o Future lines of research

- Establish a new section in which you list the main conclusions reached with this investigation

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered your suggestions and made the following modifications:
1.We have renamed the section "Conclusion and Discussion" to "Conclusion and Future Prospects" to accurately reflect its content.
2.In the conclusion, we have added a subsection highlighting the main findings of our work.
3.We have increased the number of references in the discussion section to provide a more comprehensive overview of previous contributions on the same topic.
4.In the conclusion, we have included a subsection discussing the implications of our results in the field of study and future prospects for further research.
5.We have added a summary of the main conclusions reached with this investigation in a new section.
We appreciate your insightful comments and believe that these revisions have significantly improved the manuscript. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

CONGRATULATIONS