Dissecting the School Management Rubric in a Japanese Reform-Oriented Municipality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. This paper is about Japanese School Management and investigates the school leadership approach from a cross-cultural perspective. 

2. The topic within the scope of Education Sciences.

3. The methodology is not sufficient. The paper is based on only a few interviews. The results should be supported with statistical data. 

4. The references are proper, but they should be extended.

5. The abstract is too short. The introduction part is understandable, and it also contains relevant facts.

6. The experimental methods are insufficient. There is no statistical approach that supports the results.  The data is not understandable. 

7. Some abbreviations are missing.

8. Table formats are missing. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is insufficient scope in the abstract, one could briefly include the objectives of the research, the methodology adopted, and the results obtained.

In the introduction section, the objectives, results, and limitations of the research can be added.

In Figure 1, the acronyms PD, SOS and BOE can be explained. In addition, the acronym BOE also appears in line 48.

Within the theoretical framework, it is possible to add a conceptual model or operational framework that offers the possibility of analysing the Toda City Version School Management Rubric. For example, you can see the link

https://ojs.pensamultimedia.it/index.php/siref/article/view/1115/1081

In the abstract, line 10, and in the theoretical framework, line 113, we find the terms 'cross-cultural' and 'culturally responsive schooling' it is necessary to explain these notions. Culture is intertwined with a common history, place, language, religion, or social class.

It is necessary to change the naming of Section 3 and Section 3.1 where methods are part of the methodology and not vice versa.

In Section 3, a sub-section entitled: 'Background and Objectives of Qualitative Research' can be added.

In section 3.1 it would be appropriate to describe the type of qualitative research method used.

In section 3.2 it would be appropriate to explain which data collection methods were used, including approaches such as constant comparison, self-reflection, and salience. Multi-method approaches such as participant observation and interviews could be included. It is important to specify the type of interviews used.

In section 3.3, it is important to bear in mind that analysis is not only limited to exploring and describing, but also includes the goal of explaining. It is aimed at producing conceptualisations based on structures of association between the data.

In section 4.3, to calculate the frequency of mention of each style, can one refer to the literature or use some software? Furthermore, it is possible to indicate which PSEL and HS documents were analysed in this way.

The concluding remarks are too general, they could be more detailed, according to paragraphs 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3

In lines 477-479 it is written: ‘the result illuminates how the same word of “school leadership” hinges on similar as well as distinct elements and nuances in the three countries investigated’ But what are the similar and distinct elements and nuances in the three countries analysed?'

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author/s,

This is an interesting topic and worthy of exploring. I feel the work can be strengthened with greater clarity of intention and exactly the rationale for the comparison and how this adds to scholarship.

The work feels rushed and there is some informality in the text and use of etc. that is inappropriate. The translation of the rubric does not seem tight enough and some language is not clear.

Grammar and sentence structure requires strengthening and the structure of the article should be reviewed for flow and sensemaking.

In parts, the article is not coherent, and therefore it is difficult to understand the contribution that is intended.

I suggest a restructuring to make a coherent and logical piece of work along with greater attention to detail on technical aspects of the work.

Thank you

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

As above.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have arranged the article according to our suggestions!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

 

Thank you again for reviewing my revised manuscript.

Although you did not suggest any further revisions, based on the suggestions made by the other reviewer, which is to at all times identify the object the referred to (occasionally a sentence refers to 'them' or 'many' without being specific that it is referring to Principals), I did a final read-through and made minor changes throughout the manuscript.

 

I’m hopeful that this revision would help this manuscript move toward publication. Again I appreciate your devoting time to my submission.

 

Best regards,

 

The Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript for a second time and to consider the changes made by the author/s.

Thank you to the authors for considering the changes and responding with detail. This has resulted in an improved manuscript that I consider is suitable for publication.

One small improvement that could be made is to at all times identify the object the referred to. Occasionally a sentence refers to 'them' or 'many' without being specific that it is referring to Principals.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

 

Thank you again for reviewing my revised manuscript.

Based on your suggestions, which is to at all times identify the object the referred to (occasionally a sentence refers to 'them' or 'many' without being specific that it is referring to Principals), I did a final read-through and made minor changes throughout the manuscript.

 

I’m hopeful that this revision would help this manuscript move toward publication. Again I appreciate your devoting time to my submission.

 

Best regards,

 

The Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf