Review Reports

Comment

Response

English is a bit of a challenge in some sections of the paper. I recommend using “Grammarly” an AI software, to avoid repeating terms and misusing punctuation. Most universities’ libraries offer it for free for faculty and students. 

Thank you. At the end you say there are no issues with the English, but a colleague in our prestigious Academic Writing Centre has now checked the revised manuscript.

2.        When discussing higher education's “main core” missions, reverse the emphasis: Teaching and research, and not vice versa. Also, rephrase the focus on these two as well. Many universities worldwide have “transfer” as their third mission. In the Anglo-Saxon context, transferring is becoming “engagement” to transform societies. This approach is “reshaping” the “previous two,” making things more complex than the binary teaching-research approach. Here you have a book that explains some of these dynamics: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-40312-5 (For instance, see chapter 10)

Thank you for this comment. Our point is that the dominant narrative is precisely in the order we have – overwhelmingly so in the case of research-intensive universities, and whether or not that is justified. We have now, thank you, added in reference to wider missions and purposes, although the focus of this entry is on research in relation to teaching (and the associated learning).

3.        The Introduction, Terminology, and Rationale section makes it difficult to see where each subsection is going. The issues seem to interexchange, confusing the reader. Provide a clear sense of the problem and the purpose of this study. 

That is very helpful (though not supported by the other reviews) – thank you. Hopefully that is now achieved, though this is an entry (overview of the existing state of knowledge), so the purpose is slightly different from that of a research paper. 

4.        The Materials and Methods section needs much more precision. Is a qualitative approach among the best available resources for the ethical issues in RHETL? What kind of technique or approach do the researchers suggest is the best to tackle the problem?  

Thank you – we completely agree, for a research paper. On the advice of MDPI, this section is now ‘additional material’, and of a scale/scope appropriate to an entry paper.

5.        The paper mentions “we” and “the researcher.” Which one is it? 

Now clarified in the paper – thank you.

6.        The conclusions are very limited. There is no clear sense of direction or theoretical discussion about the problem. 

The related literature is ‘theory-lite’, as we now point out in the conclusion. Again, we understand the nature of conclusion appropriate for an entry paper to be different from that of a research paper. We have, though, pointed to some direction for future development.

Thank you so much for your constructive critique, throughout.

Comment

Response

Thank you for inviting me to review this extraordinary manuscript that addresses ethical issues in educational research in universities, and which, in my opinion, I consider to be essential for contributing to quality research in the teaching and learning processes in Higher Education.  The manuscript precisely addresses each of the sections of the ethical codes in the research processes and identifies the possible problems that arise in its development, to propose different ethical approaches to improve their integration. During reading I have been able to understand the approaches described here, however, I have not seen reflected what has recently been discussed about "Academic Capitalism in educational research", making room for accountability to neoliberal society through of publications paid for through public funds, to what extent do the voices of the participants give this consent? What position should researchers consider in the face of this neoliberal pressure? Is it ethically important that these capitalist practices are destroying intellectual freedom as researchers? I think this is an important issue that I do not know if it has been identified in this research, especially when raising the research questions when talking about community and ethical responsibility in research groups. In short, this is an additional reflection that I encourage the authors to consider as limitations in their study and approach to future lines of research.

Thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback. This is an important consideration that, as we now argue, we think is commonly less of an issue in RHETL than in many other fields of research – but is nevertheless present. We now address the related issues in two places in the main body – and in the conclusion – see highlighted areas in revised manuscript.

Comment

Response

1. The definition section needs more details about the issue; add methods, findings, and conclusion lines to it.

Now included; thank you

2. Keywords should be 4 to 5 but must be precise and used in the title/abstract [most of them]

Thank you. These are now reduced in number, but prioritised according to key search terms in the relevant literature. All are included in the abstract.

3. A few statements/claims are frequently found unattended. There should be proper citations for these statements. [for reference, see p1, lines 18 to 31. Also, check the whole manuscript for such issues]

Now addressed in the revised manuscript.

4. The conclusion and way forward sections also need more attention and focus on findings more than general discussion.  

Thank you for this suggestion. Since this is an ‘entry’ paper, giving an overview of the current state of knowledge in the field, we respectfully suggest that the usual norms for a research paper do not apply unconditionally. However, we have developed the conclusion in the ways you suggest.

Thank you so much for your constructive critique.

Comment

Response

The manuscript is a bit lengthy and should be shortened, in particular the first section (introduction) which should be more focused. 

Thank you. This is of course an entry paper, so needs to be located within the field before reviewing the current state of relevant knowledge. Nevertheless, we have take your comments into account where we can. It is a large field, and the indicative length of an entry is up to 10k words, excluding abstract and references; the revised version stands at under 8k words, though we appreciate the reviewer might still feel that is overly-long!

The main body (third section) should also be shortened. Also, keeping in mind that an entry should present "reliable, objective and established knowledge", I wonder why a couple of subsections do not contain any references (p. 8, pp. 9-10).

That’s a valid and helpful comment – many thanks. Our review of digital issues is now rationalised, so as to give greater coherence, and ppp 8-10 revisited for justifications from the literature.

The bibliographic references need revision, as they are not homogeneous (writing of journal titles, DOIs...) and as some of them seem uncomplete.

Thank you. Yes, now that the manuscript is in a  better-developed form thanks to the constructive feedback we have received, we have revisited all bibliographic references for consistency and completeness (though DOIs are not of course always available).

The text contains three links ("here" - pp. 10, 11, and 13) which don't work; they should be replaced by references.  

These are minor revisions; the whole paper seems interesting and worth publishing.

Done, as suggested.

Thank you so much for your constructive critique.