Developing a Novel Model for ICT Integration in South African Education: Insights from TIMSS
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe subject of the article between mathematics and the development of technologies for learning in schools is rather light. If there isn't a lot of equipment, I don't really see the link that can be made between mathematics teaching and technology. The article seems to me to be rather well grounded in the state of the diffusion of technologies. It is therefore rather a prerequisite in relation to the problem linked to Mathematics. The article will provide a baseline on the situation of technology diffusion in South Africa.
Author Response
Please see the attached document detailing (point-by-point) how the suggestions have been incorporated.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI do not see how the author solved my previous concerns. I did not find a letter where the author answered my concerns. Most of my previous observations are still valid. Therefore, I reject this work.
Author Response
Please see the attached document detailing (point-by-point) how the suggestions have been incorporated.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1. Research questions, that drive the paper, should be built in the introduction from an ongoing and pertinent bibliography (up to 2024). A rigorous literature review is not enough; the research gaps it fills have to be significant.
2. Answer your research question in the conclusions; what did we learn compared with current, significant research (up to 2024). Is there something new about a particular theory, or is there evidence of theory advancement? You have to indicate what is your novel finding and the guidance you provide for future research in the related area.
3. The manuscript fails to make sufficient contribution to an international audience. The results can be of interest to a local audience but there is little that other readers can derive from.
4. You have insufficient conference or (refereed) journal paper references (besides your own) from 2022 onward. Considering how prolific the field is, you have to substantially extend your bibliography with significant, current references (up to 2022). It is not just about citing up to date literature, it is providing scope and coverage of the field.
5. How general are your results? These have to be of interest to the whole community. Relate these with your limitations.
6. What are the limitations of your work?
7. In the abstract you have to indicate: What is the problem? What did you do? What were your results? What did you learn (that is not already known in the literature) and what is the added value to theory? Please leave it to no more than 250 words.
8. The paper requires to be proofread by a native English speaking editor.
Comments on the Quality of English Languageneeds editing
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsArticle based on data from TIMMS on the level of mathematics in countries. The biggest problem concerns part 3.2. Participants, it is not very clear whether it is the entire TIMMS survey that is mobilized. There is talk of a complementary questionnaire. It is surprising that there was no non-response. In the same way, the tables only show percentages, but what is the basis? At a minimum, it is necessary to present a data table which allows the validity of the results presented in the form of percentages to be assessed. This part is not clear, it really needs to be clarified. The proposals for action methodologies are interesting, but are really theoretical. An empirical feasibility approach would be a real plus.
The conclusion is still poor.
A bit of work to make the article enlightening.
