Examining the Influence of Exploration and Parental Education Attainment on Students’ Acceptance of Collectivist Values

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

vThank you so much for your work entitled Exploring the Influence of Exploration and Parental Education: Attainment on Students' Acceptance of Collective Values.

However, there are tremendous problems need to be addressed as follows:

1.     The sample size is too small without sufficient evidence; A sample of 343 college students was analyzed based on Bayesian Mindsponge 12 Framework to explore this relationship.

2.     The introduction is too simple without comprehensive analysis of Parental Education and the contextual background;

3.     There is lack of literature review section;

4.     There is no theoretical model to support your idea;

5.     The detail is needed in the method section;

6.     The discussion is not sufficient.

Thank you so much for your work entitled Exploring the Influence of Exploration and Parental Education: Attainment on Students' Acceptance of Collective Values.

However, there are tremendous problems need to be addressed as follows:

1.     The sample size is too small without sufficient evidence; A sample of 343 college students was analyzed based on Bayesian Mindsponge 12 Framework to explore this relationship.

2.     The introduction is too simple without comprehensive analysis of Parental Education and the contextual background;

3.     There is lack of literature review section;

4.     There is no theoretical model to support your idea;

5.     The detail is needed in the method section;

6.     The discussion is not sufficient.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I hope this message finds you well. I would like to sincerely express my gratitude for taking the time to review my work. Attached herewith, please find our Letter of detailed responses, which incorporates your valuable feedback and suggestions.

 

Your input has been instrumental in improving the quality and clarity of the content. I truly appreciate your expertise and thoughtful comments, which have undoubtedly contributed to enhancing the overall integrity of the document.

 

Once again, thank you for your time and dedication to this review process. I am immensely grateful for your guidance and support.

Warmest regards,

Ruining Jin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The research is well done and is presented with very good scientific sound. Concepts and work methodology are presented, as well as the results obtained. The discussions agree with the results obtained and refer to other similar researches.

The recommendation is to differentiate between discussions and conclusions. The conclusions are not obvious, but rather intuited among the discussions.

The article deserves to be accepted for publication after making this minor change.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I hope this message finds you well. I would like to sincerely express my gratitude for taking the time to review my work. Attached herewith, please find our Letter of detailed responses, which incorporates your valuable feedback and suggestions.

 

Your input has been instrumental in improving the quality and clarity of the content. I truly appreciate your expertise and thoughtful comments, which have undoubtedly contributed to enhancing the overall integrity of the document.

 

Once again, thank you for your time and dedication to this review process. I am immensely grateful for your guidance and support.

Warmest regards,

Ruining Jin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting article. The overall discussion of collectivist values, especially in a Chinese context, is solid. I am not convinced that empathy is necessary in a collectivist orientation. Empathy is actually a rather individualistic way of relating to others. Some wording like “sensitivity to group concerns” might be better. But I won’t contest your use of the word.

The overall theoretical perspective—mindsponge—seems appropriate here and I rather liked it. The model has a strong and interesting implication for trust. I cannot, however, vouch for the precise statistical modeling since this is a new kind of analysis for me. It seems plausible however. Please check other reviewers for that technical review.

The major limitation is that the analysis hinges on two individual responses: exploring and collective. The “exploring my surroundings” is especially opaque since it does not specify physical (natural or engineered), social, organizational, or even political. You have a good discussion of the implications of surroundings but I was not fully convinced huanjing had that full a range of implications—you might note the actual translational issue. The overall career questionnaire provides some other options from which a scale could probably be developed that might be stronger. At the very least, you should note the issue in “limitations” at the end. I think it is a much more important limitation than the ones you note (which are fine).

I would suggest that you use “collectivist value” rather than “collective value.” The latter to me implies a value that is collectively held, not collectively oriented. It is ambiguous. “Collectivist orientation” might also be an option; it pairs well with “individualistic orientation.”

Also suggest you not use “explor~” twice in the title.

Overall, the writing is generally clear but there are some glitches. For example:

Line 14.  acceptance degree – should be “their degree of collectivist orientation”

Line 17. Here and elsewhere use “acceptance of collectivist values” (or “acceptance of a collectivist orientation”)

Line 33. Good comment on cohesiveness in policy.

Line 37. Since the late 1980s.

Line 64. This is the place to justify that broad sense of surroundings with some comments on the translation of huanjing.

Line 71. This phrasing IS clear: “individualism and collectivism”

Line 75. Remove “values”

Line 78. “Collectivist” not “collected”

Line 86: Should be “methods section”. Also: should be “goals” not “questions” (what you list are not grammatically questions)

Line 99: “mindsponge mechanism complement and can be used to help”: simplify to “mindsponge can be used to help”

Line 119: Good point about trust

Line 142. I had some qualms about “subjectively.” Do you just mean “internally”? The process you describe seems to me neither precisely objective nor precisely subjective.

Line 156. Find some way to make this sentence work with accept or reject – not both.

Table 1. Suggest you use Parent Ed. or Educ. Not Parent edu. Also line up that last column.

Line 188. Again you need to note you are inferring a lot from this one somewhat ambiguous statement.

Line 193. Take out “of the students.” It garbles the sentence.

Lines 345-348. I’m still trying to unpack this sentence.

Lines 360-364. I agree, but break this sentence up.

Line 378. Do you mean “during the mindsponge evaluation process”?

Lines 389-394. Ah, yes. The problem of individualism within collectivism – or the balance of the two? Or the relegation of the two to their proper realms?

 

See general comments to authors.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I hope this message finds you well. I would like to sincerely express my gratitude for taking the time to review my work. Attached herewith, please find our Letter of detailed responses, which incorporates your valuable feedback and suggestions.

Your input has been instrumental in improving the quality and clarity of the content. I truly appreciate your expertise and thoughtful comments, which have undoubtedly contributed to enhancing the overall integrity of the document.

 

Once again, thank you for your time and dedication to this review process. I am immensely grateful for your guidance and support.

Warmest regards,

Ruining Jin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This is an interesting and well-written article. The authors offer a good definition of collectivism and that China is in the process of becoming more individualized. Social and natural explorations are also well-defined.

The literature review is very strong and makes the case for the examination college students' values and those of their parents, according to parental educational level.

The methodology section is strong. It is very helpful to have an overview of the mindsponge theory and to define its characteristics. The model conceptualization and construction sections are strong. Table 1, the variable descriptions, is very useful, followed by a clear narrative regarding the variables.

I am not a research methdologist/statistician and the statistical analyses are well beyond my comprehension. I do hope you have another reviewer with this expertise who can be helpful. While I see this as a very worthy article, I must defer to the reviewer who does have this expertise and her/his recommendations.

The Discussion section is clear in reporting the findings that college students' experiences of social and natural exploration do have a positive impact on collective values. Also, the slight effect of level parental education is important.

The authors do a good job with describing limitations of the study. They also do a good job of offering important recommendations. I like to end an article on a positive note and therefore suggest the authors switch the current last paragraph and make it the next-to-the-last paragraph. Ending with the recommendations paragraph is better.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I hope this message finds you well. I would like to sincerely express my gratitude for taking the time to review my work. Attached herewith, please find our Letter of detailed responses, which incorporates your valuable feedback and suggestions.

 

Your input has been instrumental in improving the quality and clarity of the content. I truly appreciate your expertise and thoughtful comments, which have undoubtedly contributed to enhancing the overall integrity of the document.

Once again, thank you for your time and dedication to this review process. I am immensely grateful for your guidance and support.

Warmest regards,

Ruining Jin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I suggest to accept this article in current form. 

Moderate. 

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestion. It's greatly appreciated.

Best,

Ruining