Career Choices, Representation of Work and Future Planning: A Qualitative Investigation with Italian University Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Excellent written and interesting topic. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing our paper. We are glad for your comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The topic of the article is very interesting and topical. The literature review is at an average level. It could have been more insightful. I very much appreciate the qualitative method. I believe that with qualitative research we are able to explain a lot. The research process was well planned. However, I have a criticism about the laconic descriptions. They are obvious. The research results should be better described. The discussion is on a good scientific level. I have to admit that I had a problem evaluating this article. On the one hand, I see the great contribution of the work, on the other hand, I perceive analytical laconicity. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

thank you so much for your comment that allowed us to re-read the results and delete redundant and laconic expressions. We hope the paper will now be clearer and less laconic.

Reviewer 3 Report

Career choices, representation of work and future planning: a  qualitative investigation with Italian university students

Abstract

fine

Introduction  and Literature Review

1.The introduction needs to be more clear and straight to the point by justifying soundly on the main objective; to  examined the career choices, representation of work and future planning among Italian university.

3. State the method at the end of the introduction, as well as the study's novel contributions.

4. The first  paragraphs  need citation.

5. Literature section needs to be improved.  Not enough literature has been provided. The sources cited are not enough. The research gaps in the previous studies related to this topic were not explained clearly. Please address these issues.

6. I suggest that, the Literature section needs to be added as a separate headline. While establishing the hypotheses or the questions, the authors must give an extensive background.

Methodology. 

I need some answers:
 How did the authors contact the respondents (Data were collected from 58 university students)? Explain how Semi-structured interviews were conducted? Does the authors' sample represent the population? Make sure whether the authors' sample can represent the population. The authors need to justify how they tested the validity and reliability clearly in the methodology section.

Results.

Fine 

Discussions

Fine

Others:

The paper some editing issues. It needs proofreading.

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?  

Whether its possible to achieve a long-term, sustainable stream of entrepreneurial children and our ability to produce young innovators who understand the meaning of the economy, establish small enterprises, consolidate knowledge and basic skills for entrepreneurship; this study investigated the effects of a child-centered entrepreneurship program on enhancing kindergarten children’s entrepreneurial skills in Jordan  

2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?  

I consider this study original in its field as, to my knowledge, this is the first research on this topic conducted in Jordan.  

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?  

Application of some programs that lead to creating an entrepreneurial environment for young children, and ensuring they understand the basic concepts and skills used in entrepreneurial enterprises.  

4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?  

Applying this research on a bigger sample which will allow us to ensure that it is made more valid and reliable.  

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?  

Yes, the conclusions align with the evidence and arguments and address the main question posed.  

6. Are the references appropriate?  

Yes.

Good luck

The paper some editing issues. It needs proofreading.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 3,

Thank you for your suggestions. We have made all the requested changes. For the introduction and literature review section, as requested, we have split the section into 3 different parts "Introduction, literature review, and the current study." We have included literature references to support the introduction, strengthened the description of the framework we refer to (career construction theory). In addition, we clarified the aims of the study at the end of the introduction and the methodology.

For the methodology, all required information has been added.

Finally, we proofread the paper to correct editing issues.

All changes are highlighted in yellow in the text. We hope you find our manuscript improved.