DesignIntelligence and the Ranking of Professional Architecture Programs: Issues, Impacts, and Suggestions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article can be improved if findings compard with THE and QS rankings of the schools in DI ranking. And aso adding explanation for data in the tables, expecially applied calculation techniques.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thanks!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Whilst it is backed up by an extensive body of literature and empirical data, the paper does read somewhat as an opinion piece. There is no clear research question stated, but it does what it sets out to achieve. It is well argued, and as such, I feel there is a contribution to be made from its publication with minimal modification. I do however question whether this might be better published in a journal related to HE management, but I will leave that to the editor to determine.
There are a couple of areas where this might be strengthened. Firstly, its good that international comparisons are made as part of the argument, but coming from the UK - I can see that our policy around a national Teaching Excellence and outcomes Framework (TEF) is based on a series of metrics including a National Student Survey (NSS) and data on employment might be a useful reference point. These data sources inform the UK-specific rankings. Similar surveys are undertaken in Australia. Given the recent and extensive systematic review of the subject level TEF - now abandoned, there may be some valuable comparator information available.
Secondly, it may be beneficial as part of the conclusion to consider the implications of this article more broadly than just on the DI survey of architecture. What can we learn from this about the general collection or ranking of data determined to inform choice in higher education? This would bring the paper full circle so that it addresses the concerns raised in the introduction (which is not about DI).
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thanks!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript addressed an interesting topic. The discussion is sufficient, and the suggestions for improving the rankings are also reasonable.
I suggest improving the logic of the introduction (paragraphs 70-96). The author described the negative effects of rankings, but does it have something to do with the lack of rankings of professional architecture? Instead, it should be made clear why the authors study the rankings of professional architecture, not just because of the lack of such rankings.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thanks!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
