Perceived Unfairness in University Settings: Findings from a Qualitative Study among Students in Germany
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
First of all, thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. It is very well written, scientifically rigorous, and logically structured. It contains the most important information on theory, research background and methodology.
Some comments and suggestions:
- It would be important to insert a short sub-section with a few paragraphs on the context of German higher education. This would also be important because at the moment a lot of information is not necessarily understandable for a reader who is not familiar with the German higher education system (e.g. types of universities, the structure of German higher education, why the number of semesters can be 13 or 20). Furthermore, the authors themselves write down that the German education system is very different from that of other countries.
- According to the manuscript, a quota sampling approach was used, but we do not know anything about the quotas, so the interpretation of the sample is difficult. It would also be important to show the distribution of the total target population by age, sex, subject area, no. of semesters, and kind of university (this is closely related to the necessary introduction of the most important characteristics of German higher education). Of course, the qualitative sample will not be representative, but tracking biases is important for understanding.
- It is also very good that the manuscript includes a sentence or two on the limitations. It would also be important to underline that the study was carried out exclusively from the student's point of view (perceptions) and that opinions can be highly subjective in the context of past perceived or real events and grievances. Furthermore, background factors that could refine the interpretation of the results (e.g. academic history, learning paths, achievements) are not indicated.
- It would be useful to highlight further the novelty value of the study and the results in the discussion and conclusions section.
Overall, it is a complex manuscript of interest, the publication of which I support.
Yours sincerely,
Reviewer
Author Response
General comment:
Dear Authors,
First of all, thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. It is very well written, scientifically rigorous, and logically structured. It contains the most important information on theory, research background and methodology.
Some comments and suggestions:
Response: We thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our manuscript. We have carefully revised our manuscript based on the helpful comments of the reviewers. Please find our detailed responses to the comments below. All changes in the manuscript are highlighted in yellow.
Comment 1: It would be important to insert a short sub-section with a few paragraphs on the context of German higher education. This would also be important because at the moment a lot of information is not necessarily understandable for a reader who is not familiar with the German higher education system (e.g. types of universities, the structure of German higher education, why the number of semesters can be 13 or 20). Furthermore, the authors themselves write down that the German education system is very different from that of other countries.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. We agree that providing further information on the context of German higher education is insightful for the reader, which is why we added a paragraph on information about the German higher education system (page 2, lines 71-76).
Comment 2: According to the manuscript, a quota sampling approach was used, but we do not know anything about the quotas, so the interpretation of the sample is difficult. It would also be important to show the distribution of the total target populationby age, sex, subject area, no. of semesters, and kind of university (this is closely related to the necessary introduction of the most important characteristics of German higher education). Of course, the qualitative sample will not be representative, but tracking biases is important for understanding.
Response 2: We agree with the reviewer that we need to give more information on the sampling procedure. In the revised version of the manuscript we provide more details on the quota sampling and added information on the distribution of the total target population (page 2, lines 86-92).
Comment 3: It is also very good that the manuscript includes a sentence or two on the limitations. It would also be important to underline that the study was carried out exclusively from the student's point of view (perceptions) and that opinions can be highly subjective in the context of past perceived or real events and grievances. Furthermore, background factors that could refine the interpretation of the results (e.g. academic history, learning paths, achievements) are not indicated.
Response 3: We highly appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We included these aspects in our section on limitations (page 9, lines 386-388).
Comment 4: It would be useful to highlight further the novelty value of the study and the results in the discussion and conclusions section.
Response 4: We added two sections that provide further information of the novelty value of our study by stressing the beneficial aspects of the chosen qualitative approach in regard of the topic as well as proposing further proposes of our findings for future research (page 9, lines 376-379; page 10, lines 415-417).
Closing comment:
Overall, it is a complex manuscript of interest, the publication of which I support.
Yours sincerely,
Reviewer
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe statement on lines 113-114 about a third party funded project was somewhat explained at the end regarding the development of UFair, which is cited to a 2001 article (15) that does not appear (looked at the abstract) to be a developmental project or psychometric evaluation. This is somewhat unclear and could be further explained.
Validated surveys for perceived racial discrimination, psychological safety, depression, and anxiety could have been included for possible correlations with unfairness and injustice. However, the purpose outlined the scope of the project and this suggestion should not interfere with the publication of these finding.
Overall very interesting and well-written.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our manuscript. We have carefully revised our manuscript based on the helpful comments of the reviewers. Please find our detailed responses to the comments below. All changes in the manuscript are highlighted in yellow.
Comment 1: The statement on lines 113-114 about a third party funded project was somewhat explained at the end regarding the development of UFair, which is cited to a 2001 article (15) that does not appear (looked at the abstract) to be a developmental project or psychometric evaluation. This is somewhat unclear and could be further explained.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We revised our manuscript to be clearer (page 3, lines 122-123).
Comment 2: Validated surveys for perceived racial discrimination, psychological safety, depression, and anxiety could have been included for possible correlations with unfairness and injustice. However, the purpose outlined the scope of the project and this suggestion should not interfere with the publication of these finding.
Response 2: We highly appreciate this helpful suggestion. We have included this idea as an implication for future research in our section on conclusions (page 10, lines 415-417).
Closing comment: Overall very interesting and well-written.
Response: We thank the reviewer for this positive comment.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFirstly, I find that this article, which focuses on the topic of ‘perceived unfairness and its impact on students' mental health and engagement,’ is crucial yet underexplored. This makes the research a valuable addition to the literature. The study makes a significant contribution to scholarship by identifying specific sources of perceived unfairness among university students.
Secondly, the article is well-structured, with a clear flow from the introduction to the conclusion. However, I feel that the clarity of the paper could be improved. Including a more thorough discussion of the limitations of the study and the generalizability of the findings would enhance transparency and clarity.
Thirdly, the literature review is comprehensive and provides a solid theoretical foundation for the study. The methodology is sound, with a clear description of the sampling, data collection, and analysis procedures. The results are presented systematically, and the discussion effectively links the findings to the broader literature on organizational justice and student well-being. However, I believe there are some areas for improvement the authors should consider: 1) addressing potential biases in the sampling method and discussing how these were mitigated, and 2) providing more detailed demographic information about the participants. Addressing these points would enhance the study's rigor.
Fourthly, while the article demonstrates strong engagement with relevant sources and recent scholarship, to further strengthen this engagement, the authors could consider incorporating more international studies on perceived unfairness in educational settings. This would provide a comparative perspective and highlight the global relevance of their findings.
Fifthly, as an additional suggestion for improvement, the authors could consider expanding the scope of the study to include a more diverse sample and exploring the impact of perceived unfairness in different cultural and institutional contexts. Additionally, providing more practical recommendations for addressing perceived unfairness in university settings would increase the study's applicability and impact.
Lastly, regarding the overall merit, I believe this article is a valuable contribution to the field of educational research. It addresses a significant issue with potential implications for student well-being and academic success. The study's methodology is robust, and the findings are presented clearly and logically. The discussion and conclusion sections effectively summarize the key findings and their implications, making the research accessible to both academic and practitioner audiences. With the strong foundation of this article, along with the improvements mentioned earlier, I am confident that it will be useful to the academic community, especially in the field of education. I propose to the editor that it be accepted for publication after the above corrections have been made.
Author Response
Comment 1:
Firstly, I find that this article, which focuses on the topic of ‘perceived unfairness and its impact on students' mental health and engagement,’ is crucial yet underexplored. This makes the research a valuable addition to the literature. The study makes a significant contribution to scholarship by identifying specific sources of perceived unfairness among university students.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our manuscript. We have carefully revised our manuscript based on the helpful comments of the reviewers. Please find our detailed responses to the comments below. All changes in the manuscript are highlighted in yellow.
Comment 2: Secondly, the article is well-structured, with a clear flow from the introduction to the conclusion. However, I feel that the clarity of the paper could be improved. Including a more thorough discussion of the limitations of the study and the generalizability of the findings would enhance transparency and clarity.
Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have included a more thorough discussion of the limitations of the study and the generalizability of the findings in our section on limitations (page 9, lines 386-388). This aspect was also pointed out by Reviewer 1.
Comment 3: Thirdly, the literature review is comprehensive and provides a solid theoretical foundation for the study. The methodology is sound, with a clear description of the sampling, data collection, and analysis procedures. The results are presented systematically, and the discussion effectively links the findings to the broader literature on organizational justice and student well-being. However, I believe there are some areas for improvement the authors should consider: 1) addressing potential biases in the sampling method and discussing how these were mitigated, and 2) providing more detailed demographic information about the participants. Addressing these points would enhance the study's rigor.
Response 3: We agree with the reviewer that we need to give more information on the sampling procedure and its potential biases. In the revised version of the manuscript, we provide more details on the quota sampling (page 2, lines 86-92). Demographic information about the participants is provided in Table 1 (page 4).
Comment 4: Fourthly, while the article demonstrates strong engagement with relevant sources and recent scholarship, to further strengthen this engagement, the authors could consider incorporating more international studies on perceived unfairness in educational settings. This would provide a comparative perspective and highlight the global relevance of their findings.
Response 4: We highly appreciate the reviewer’s comment. We have included these ideas as implications for future research in our section on conclusions (page 10, lines 418-422).
Comment 5: Fifthly, as an additional suggestion for improvement, the authors could consider expanding the scope of the study to include a more diverse sample and exploring the impact of perceived unfairness in different cultural and institutional contexts. Additionally, providing more practical recommendations for addressing perceived unfairness in university settings would increase the study's applicability and impact.
Response 5: In the revised version of the manuscript, we provide more practical recommendations for addressing perceived unfairness in university settings (page 10, lines 407-413). Furthermore, we included the idea of expanding the scope of the study as implications for future research in our section on conclusions (page 10, lines 418-422).
Comment 6: Lastly, regarding the overall merit, I believe this article is a valuable contribution to the field of educational research. It addresses a significant issue with potential implications for student well-being and academic success. The study's methodology is robust, and the findings are presented clearly and logically. The discussion and conclusion sections effectively summarize the key findings and their implications, making the research accessible to both academic and practitioner audiences. With the strong foundation of this article, along with the improvements mentioned earlier, I am confident that it will be useful to the academic community, especially in the field of education. I propose to the editor that it be accepted for publication after the above corrections have been made.
Response 6: We thank the reviewer for this positive comment.
