Marketing Mix Instruments as Factors of Improvement of Students’ Satisfaction in Higher Education Institutions in Republic of Serbia and Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article seems very interesting to me, it provides a novel and relevant study at a scientific and social level in its content and development.
However, I have detected that it has 71% plagiarism. Actually it is self-plagiarism, since that 71% corresponds to the first author's doctoral thesis.
Regarding the methodological aspects, I find three gaps:
1. It is not clear how the sample was selected. There are no criteria or sampling strategies.
2. It says that the questionnaire is built for this research. But it is not clear how the process of construction and validation of both content and structure has been done. Only the reliability data is provided.
3. Since different variables are established in the participating sample (Country, gender and study center), the study could have been enriched with comparisons based on these variables.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report 
( ) I would like to sign my review report 

English language and style

( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required 
( ) Moderate English changes required 
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required 
(x) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article seems very interesting to me, it provides a novel and relevant study at a scientific and social level in its content and development.
However, I have detected that it has 71% plagiarism. Actually it is self-plagiarism, since that 71% corresponds to the first author's doctoral thesis.
Regarding the methodological aspects, I find three gaps:
1. It is not clear how the sample was selected. There are no criteria or sampling strategies.
2. It says that the questionnaire is built for this research. But it is not clear how the process of construction and validation of both content and structure has been done. Only the reliability data is provided.
3. Since different variables are established in the participating sample (Country, gender and study center), the study could have been enriched with comparisons based on these variables.

Authors response:                           

Dear respected reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking tame to review our manuscript. We appreciate very much and accepted all your suggestions which have significantly improved quality of our manuscript.

We have highlighted all changes in red color in track changes version, to make it easier to find all changes that we have made. Changes are made by native English speaker, and we didn’t know that my own results (from authors PhD) can be plagiarism.

We give the following answers to the three gaps listed:

1.About the sample - The sample is suitable and the volunteer sampling method was used in the Republic of Serbia and in Spain, the survey was conducted using the online questionnaire in Spain, while students in the Republic of Serbia responded to questions via a printed questionnaire in paper form. The sample includes students of all years of studies at the above faculties. The research was conducted during one semester. The questionnaire was online and anonymous.

2.About the questionnaire - Internal consistency (reliability) of seven dimensions of the questionnaire marketing mix instruments and the questionnaire of student satisfaction is estimated based on the Cronbach α coefficient. α coefficient is used to estimate the internal consistency, i.e. reliability of the test/scale. It ranges from 0.00 to 1.00 and represents an estimate of the extent to which the dimensions of a single dimension measure the same construct. The α coefficient values for the applied questionnaires and their dimensions are  range from .854 to .915. With regards to the criteria proposed by Cho & Kim (2015) the reliability of all dimensions is very high.

3. About the variables - Thank you for this suggestion, that suggestion can be very constructive and motivate for future research.

We are hoping that you will be satisfy with corrections made and that our manuscript will be accepted for publication in the journal.

Thank you once again for your valuable comments and suggestions.

Very best regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Please there are mistakes in the affiliation of Authors, revise accordingly: Faculty of Law and Econimic Sciences, University Jaume I, 12071 Castellon de la Plana, Spain; [email protected] 10 Faculty of Helth Sciences, University Jaume I, 12071 Castellon de la Plana, Spain ; [email protected]

The Authors explore the impact of marketing mix tools on student satisfaction in universities in the Republic of Serbia and Spain, with the aim of determining how significant are the effects of each marketing mix tool and their combinations in relation to satisfaction of students in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). See abstract lines 16-18.

The methods used to highlight any gaps in this marketing mix practice and the relative customer-student satisfaction in HEIs are descriptive statistical tests applied to sample analyses. See lines 19-29. The introductory part lists descriptive aspects of the current university landscape in Serbia, and some notes on the marketing approach used in education services in order to enhance control and quality aspects in education, especially following the Bologna Process, namely the largest reformulation of research and university training institutes in Europe and in the world according to criteria, including corporate criteria. See lines 33-68.

2. Please the following link https://www.4icu.org/rs/public/ tells us registered and accredited universities in Serbia are 22 (13 public and 9 private). Let’s update your text accordingly.

This path includes the contribution of the Authors in trying to determine which marketing mix tools are most correlated to student satisfaction and which marketing mix tools most influence student satisfaction, with the aim above all of identifying any inefficiencies in these tools and propose an upcoming approach in university business satisfaction of the main customer-user, that is, the student. See lines 68-80.
In line 81 and forwards, hints are given to the use of descriptive statistical techniques such as correlation analysis, multiple regression, and the t-test regarding the sample survey by the authors on a sample of 896 respondents who are students at the faculties in the Republic of Serbia and Spain. This would allow, among other things, to explore the topic in two areas that are not usually the subject of alike research (lines 91-93).

The collected data are processed through the SPSS program for 291 Windows, v21 (SPSS inc., 2012), with frequency sampling method, descriptive statistics (arithmetic mean, standard deviation, asymmetry and kurtosis), correlation analysis (the coefficient of Pearson's correlation), multiple regression analysis and independent sample tests t. See lines 292-294.

In the literature review at line 105 and following, the Authors provide general information on the procedures, mechanisms and flow of activities that characterize the service market applied to university structures. A doctoral thesis on the topic probably by the same authors is available at the following link: https://www.tdx.cat/bitstream/handle/10803/667028/2019_Tesis_Brkanlic_Sandra.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

The hypotheses most examined by the authors—as can be understood in particular in the doctoral thesis—indicate that the marketing mix tools of the HEIs affect above all the image of the institutions through:
a. quality of services;
b. tuition fees;
c. service distribution;
d. promotion;
is. human factor;
f. physical evidence;
g. activity flow and service process.

On lines 120 and forwards the Authors underline marketing strategies aimed in particular at obtaining a better positioning of the product or service.
In lines 149 and following, the Authors highlight the importance of the human factor as a marketing mix tool. It seems that the human factor is an independent and also dependent variable in the expansion of customer-user satisfaction of the services.
Lines 201-238 provide clarifications on the socio-demographic characteristics of the sample. Lines 249-250 reaffirm that the sample survey method is intended to highlight the use of marketing mix tools as a factor in improving customer-user satisfaction, that is, students. Cronbach's coefficient α is estimated on lines 269 and forwards with a coefficient greater than 0.7 and therefore considered reliable. Correlation analysis is provided in lines 297 and following with Table 2. in line 306 relating to the main parameters of mean and standard deviation.
Multiple regression analysis is conducted on lines 321 and forwards in order to identify which marketing mix tools predict student satisfaction in the most efficient way.

Your findings should help universities and other decision makers in HEI to better understand what creates added value of the education in students’ mind and therefore make an offer that is in line with their expectations and preferences, which is recognized as one of the main prerequisites for the enrolment and subsequent tuition payment of educational courses.

3. My first observation is I think the paper needs a different beginning — you need to say clearly what you hope to achieve here and what the paper actually does in terms of specifics. What is the contribution it makes — in one sentence. That any person can understand.
   

I was left unsure what the purpose of the paper was up until lines 194 forwards.

Try to shoot an arrow through the paper and focalize better what you are interested to. 

Marketing mix and image of HE institutions?

Marketing mix and choice by the students?

Marketing mix and loyalty by the students?

Marketing mix and the relationships in the higher education milieu?

Marketing mix and the information processing choice models?

Line 450 and forwards are comments on the results of the correlation analysis and explanations also with the use of deductions from studies of others who have conducted research on the various aspects highlighted by the Authors to identify which marketing mix tools predict student satisfaction in the more efficient way. Some authors have distinguished between external, internal, and independent factors.
On lines 546-636 the Authors draw their conclusions and list a couple of points about the limitations of their study.

The correlation analysis appears relevant to the study is then conducted.

The Authors at lines 614 highlight the limitation of their study due to the size of the sample.

A sample of around 800 is enough, as I believe.
If anything I would ask myself why 78% of the sample is from the Republic of Serbia and 21.5% of the same is in Spain. See lines 201-237, especially lines 201-203.

4. Are there any similarities between these two countries? Are there any marketing mix methods that can be said to be alike or of the same derivation? Are there any quality control areas and services in HEIs in these two countries that use the same methods?

The text appears rather superficial and seems a condensed content of the thesis of one of the Authors about a year ago.

5. I would propose to the leading Author, or at least to a couple of them, to start from that analysis consistent with the level of obtained study, but to detach if not in the methodologies at least in the general conception of the paper.
   

6. Personally, I would place before discussions about authors did researches alike yours—such as lines 461-521—as you already did in lines 105-184, trying to synthetize immediately the discourse on how widen levels of satisfactions in students and which way.

7. I would also shorten or either omit lines 571-621 because it is sincerely too long.

As you already did with “Marketing within higher education institutions-A case study of two private Thai universities,” by Kristian Starck and S. Hossein Zadeh, 2013, some suggestion can come to you from the following papers:

• The influence of marketing mix, on the student’s choice of University–Two State Universities in Sweden, by Martin Sone Kwang, 2019. Available at: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1312963/FULLTEXT01.pdf.
• Applying Marketing Mix constructs in Higher Education: the case of an MBA programme in the UAE, by Mohammad A. Meraj et al. Pre-proof version available at: https://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/26824/1/Pre-Proof-MBA-Marketing-Mix-2019.pdf.

Prof. Jelena Gajić, who seems to be one of your first leading reference posited Education as a product in her paper you quoted in the Serbian language (English ed. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bf69/5f29d67f42e1b26ed38bbb995b74ee5ff028.pdf).

8. Is that the same also for you? Explain why.

9. Please reduce some redundant part such as lines 185-199, or else as lines 312-331 on aspects of descriptive statistics, and instead explain why you have chosen Republic of Serbia and Spain as your favorite polls for doxa.

You can synthetize all lessons about statistics at lines 328-366 when you nicely make a summary of your regression predictor’s paths. To speak again of test T at line 369 forwards is a little sleeping in my opinion.

Discourse about dimensions and predictors at lines 426-459 is fine. 

Kind Regards,

Author Response

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report 
( ) I would like to sign my review report 

English language and style

( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required 
( ) Moderate English changes required 
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required 
(x) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Please there are mistakes in the affiliation of Authors, revise accordingly: Faculty of Law and Econimic Sciences, University Jaume I, 12071 Castellon de la Plana, Spain; [email protected] 10 Faculty of Helth Sciences, University Jaume I, 12071 Castellon de la Plana, Spain ; [email protected]

The Authors explore the impact of marketing mix tools on student satisfaction in universities in the Republic of Serbia and Spain, with the aim of determining how significant are the effects of each marketing mix tool and their combinations in relation to satisfaction of students in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). See abstract lines 16-18.

The methods used to highlight any gaps in this marketing mix practice and the relative customer-student satisfaction in HEIs are descriptive statistical tests applied to sample analyses. See lines 19-29. The introductory part lists descriptive aspects of the current university landscape in Serbia, and some notes on the marketing approach used in education services in order to enhance control and quality aspects in education, especially following the Bologna Process, namely the largest reformulation of research and university training institutes in Europe and in the world according to criteria, including corporate criteria. See lines 33-68.

1. Please the following link https://www.4icu.org/rs/public/ tells us registered and accredited universities in Serbia are 22 (13 public and 9 private). Let’s update your text accordingly.

This path includes the contribution of the Authors in trying to determine which marketing mix tools are most correlated to student satisfaction and which marketing mix tools most influence student satisfaction, with the aim above all of identifying any inefficiencies in these tools and propose an upcoming approach in university business satisfaction of the main customer-user, that is, the student. See lines 68-80.
In line 81 and forwards, hints are given to the use of descriptive statistical techniques such as correlation analysis, multiple regression, and the t-test regarding the sample survey by the authors on a sample of 896 respondents who are students at the faculties in the Republic of Serbia and Spain. This would allow, among other things, to explore the topic in two areas that are not usually the subject of alike research (lines 91-93).

The collected data are processed through the SPSS program for 291 Windows, v21 (SPSS inc., 2012), with frequency sampling method, descriptive statistics (arithmetic mean, standard deviation, asymmetry and kurtosis), correlation analysis (the coefficient of Pearson's correlation), multiple regression analysis and independent sample tests t. See lines 292-294.

In the literature review at line 105 and following, the Authors provide general information on the procedures, mechanisms and flow of activities that characterize the service market applied to university structures. A doctoral thesis on the topic probably by the same authors is available at the following link: https://www.tdx.cat/bitstream/handle/10803/667028/2019_Tesis_Brkanlic_Sandra.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

The hypotheses most examined by the authors—as can be understood in particular in the doctoral thesis—indicate that the marketing mix tools of the HEIs affect above all the image of the institutions through:
a. quality of services;
b. tuition fees;
c. service distribution;
d. promotion;
is. human factor;
f. physical evidence;
g. activity flow and service process.

On lines 120 and forwards the Authors underline marketing strategies aimed in particular at obtaining a better positioning of the product or service.
In lines 149 and following, the Authors highlight the importance of the human factor as a marketing mix tool. It seems that the human factor is an independent and also dependent variable in the expansion of customer-user satisfaction of the services.
Lines 201-238 provide clarifications on the socio-demographic characteristics of the sample. Lines 249-250 reaffirm that the sample survey method is intended to highlight the use of marketing mix tools as a factor in improving customer-user satisfaction, that is, students. Cronbach's coefficient α is estimated on lines 269 and forwards with a coefficient greater than 0.7 and therefore considered reliable. Correlation analysis is provided in lines 297 and following with Table 2. in line 306 relating to the main parameters of mean and standard deviation.
Multiple regression analysis is conducted on lines 321 and forwards in order to identify which marketing mix tools predict student satisfaction in the most efficient way.

Your findings should help universities and other decision makers in HEI to better understand what creates added value of the education in students’ mind and therefore make an offer that is in line with their expectations and preferences, which is recognized as one of the main prerequisites for the enrolment and subsequent tuition payment of educational courses.

1. My first observation is I think the paper needs a different beginning — you need to say clearly what you hope to achieve here and what the paper actually does in terms of specifics. What is the contribution it makes — in one sentence. That any person can understand. 

I was left unsure what the purpose of the paper was up until lines 194 forwards.

Try to shoot an arrow through the paper and focalize better what you are interested to. 

Marketing mix and image of HE institutions?

Marketing mix and choice by the students?

Marketing mix and loyalty by the students?

Marketing mix and the relationships in the higher education milieu?

Marketing mix and the information processing choice models?

Line 450 and forwards are comments on the results of the correlation analysis and explanations also with the use of deductions from studies of others who have conducted research on the various aspects highlighted by the Authors to identify which marketing mix tools predict student satisfaction in the more efficient way. Some authors have distinguished between external, internal, and independent factors.
On lines 546-636 the Authors draw their conclusions and list a couple of points about the limitations of their study.

The correlation analysis appears relevant to the study is then conducted.

The Authors at lines 614 highlight the limitation of their study due to the size of the sample.

A sample of around 800 is enough, as I believe.
If anything I would ask myself why 78% of the sample is from the Republic of Serbia and 21.5% of the same is in Spain. See lines 201-237, especially lines 201-203.

1. Are there any similarities between these two countries? Are there any marketing mix methods that can be said to be alike or of the same derivation? Are there any quality control areas and services in HEIs in these two countries that use the same methods?

The text appears rather superficial and seems a condensed content of the thesis of one of the Authors about a year ago.

1. I would propose to the leading Author, or at least to a couple of them, to start from that analysis consistent with the level of obtained study, but to detach if not in the methodologies at least in the general conception of the paper. 

1. Personally, I would place before discussions about authors did researches alike yours—such as lines 461-521—as you already did in lines 105-184, trying to synthetize immediately the discourse on how widen levels of satisfactions in students and which way.

1. I would also shorten or either omit lines 571-621 because it is sincerely too long.

As you already did with “Marketing within higher education institutions-A case study of two private Thai universities,” by Kristian Starck and S. Hossein Zadeh, 2013, some suggestion can come to you from the following papers:

• The influence of marketing mix, on the student’s choice of University–Two State Universities in Sweden, by Martin Sone Kwang, 2019. Available at: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1312963/FULLTEXT01.pdf.
• Applying Marketing Mix constructs in Higher Education: the case of an MBA programme in the UAE, by Mohammad A. Meraj et al. Pre-proof version available at: https://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/26824/1/Pre-Proof-MBA-Marketing-Mix-2019.pdf.

Prof. Jelena Gajić, who seems to be one of your first leading reference posited Education as a product in her paper you quoted in the Serbian language (English ed. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bf69/5f29d67f42e1b26ed38bbb995b74ee5ff028.pdf).

1. Is that the same also for you? Explain why.

1. Please reduce some redundant part such as lines 185-199, or else as lines 312-331 on aspects of descriptive statistics, and instead explain why you have chosen Republic of Serbia and Spain as your favorite polls for doxa.

You can synthetize all lessons about statistics at lines 328-366 when you nicely make a summary of your regression predictor’s paths. To speak again of test T at line 369 forwards is a little sleeping in my opinion.

Discourse about dimensions and predictors at lines 426-459 is fine. 

Kind Regards,

Submission Date

03 August 2020

Date of this review

18 Aug 2020 17:14:14

Authors response:                           

Dear respected reviewer,

Authors of the manuscript would like to express their gratitude to constructive comments and suggestions that have significantly improved overall quality of the paper.

We have accepted your suggestions and made all necessary changes.  We have highlighted all changes in blue color to make it easier to find all changes that we have made. 

Regarding to:

1. comment – we made changes in affiliation of Authors.
2. comment – we made changes about the number of universities in Serbia.
3. comment - we have adopted your esteemed observation, and in the sentences we can see what is the main goal of the research Therefore, this study attempts to show which of marketing mix instruments, from the students’ perspective, have the strongest influence on student satisfaction, so they could be used as a tool to further improve it., also in the sentences in abstract part General conclusions clearly highlight what needs to be improved in practice in higher education institutions to improve students' satisfaction, and which is the main goal of these institutions. Regarding to this comment we made changes in line 30-35, where we told that the main contribution of the research is to show which marketing mix instruments have the strongest influence on students satisfaction, especially on students loyalty, students choices, students satisfaction with the quality of the marketing mix instruments at the faculty, students satisfaction with expectation which they had upon enrolment and student satisfaction with the public image of the faculty.
4. comment - In order to successfully carry out the research and achieve the stated goals of the research, it was crucial to present the higher education market in Serbia as well as the higher education market in Spain in order to point out the current situation in this area in two countries, one the is not a member of the European Union and one that is. The overview is the starting point, and its understanding is necessary for understanding the research of the effect of marketing mix instruments on student satisfaction in Serbia and Spain. Knowledge of the state of higher education market in Serbia and Spain was also necessary for understanding the comparative research related to marketing mix instruments as factors for improving the student satisfaction in these two countries.

We chose those two countries because of their differences in many parts, but we talked also about the similarities, for example the accreditation process as quality checking process is similar, also the structure of the higher education is similar, both countries have private and public universities, and we are checked and investigate Law in higher education in both countries. That was very interesting to investigate the same topic in two historically and cultural different countries. 

 5.- 6. Comment – We truly believed that this structure is simpler for understanding, because we first talked about the results received by the main statistical analysis and then to talk about other results. Regarding that results we made conclusion which is organized in that way to for better understanding.

7.comment -  About this part, everything is explained in the same order as we do in results presentation, and we afraid if we cut some parts that we will lose explanation of some results and conclusions reached by obtained results.

8.comment     -   For us education is the product of the educational services which consist of 7 marketing mix instruments , and because of that we researched marketing mix instruments in service marketing area.  In service marketing that instrument are service, price, promotion, distribution, human factor, physical evidence, service process. We tried to get conclusion which of those instruments are the most important for students and their satisfaction.

9.Comment -    As we told before, we chose Republic of Serbia and Spain because we want to research the same  topic in the completely different countries, on of them is the member of EU, and one of theme is not, they have different history, and they are culturally completely different. It was challenging for us. But theoretical and empirical research showed that they have many similarities in higher education field.

In line 614 Authors highlight the limitation of their study due to the size of the sample. That means that they had limitations due to the size of the sample in Spain, it was difficult to get enough answers from students by online questioner.

Also, in conclusion we cut some parts about the  t – independent samples test.

Once again, thank you very much for all your effort and for valuable suggestion, where we almost accepted and corrected everything, besides the few comments.

Very best regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

1. About the sample. The adequacy of the sample was not questioned in my report, only that it indicated that it was not explained how it had been done, which criteria for selecting informants. Whether any calculations had been made to get the number of people to respond. It is not enough to describe the sample, it is necessary to specify how it has been selected. I do not note that this indication has been resolved.

2. On the questionnaire. Each questionnaire must meet at least two criteria: Validity and Reliability. The article if you express reliability, both general and sectional. However, no data are provided as to the validity of the instrument, both content (through expert judgments, for example) or construction (factorial analysis, structural equations, for example) This aspect remains unresolved.

Author Response

(x) I would not like to sign my review report 
( ) I would like to sign my review report 

English language and style

( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required 
( ) Moderate English changes required 
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required 
(x) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. About the sample. The adequacy of the sample was not questioned in my report, only that it indicated that it was not explained how it had been done, which criteria for selecting informants.Whether any calculations had been made to get the number of people to respond. It is notenough to describe the sample, it is necessary to specify how it has been selected. I do not notethat this indication has been resolved.
2. On the questionnaire. Each questionnaire must meet at least two criteria: Validity andReliability. The article if you express reliability, both general and sectional. However, no data areprovided as to the validity of the instrument, both content (through expert judgments, forexample) or construction (factorial analysis, structural equations, for example) This aspectremains unresolved.
3. As for plagiarism. It must be the decision of the publisher, I know that there are magazines thataccept when the source is of the author himself (as in this case) but my duty as an evaluator is todetect and communicate the situation for the publisher to make the best decision. However, it isalways advisable, even if it is from a previous work itself (have this case a doctoral thesis) not totake complete textual paragraphs, in order to avoid self-plagiarism 

Submission Date

03 August 2020

Date of this review

11 Sep 2020 10:39:57

Authors response:                           

Dear respected reviewer,

Authors of the manuscript would like to express their gratitude to constructive comments and suggestions that have significantly improved overall quality of the paper.

Regarding to:

1. comment – about the sample. In our research the sample is suitable and a volunteer sampling method is used. The research was conducted during one semester at Universities in both countries, Republic of Serbia and Spain. The survey was anonymous and group. You can also see in the text the sociodemographic structure of the sample. Also for collecting the data we used questionnaire which is tested by measuring internal consistency (reliability) of seven dimensions of the questionnaire marketing mix instruments and the questionnaire, students’ satisfaction is estimated based on the Cronbach α coefficient. α coefficient is utilised  to estimate the internal consistency, i.e. reliability of the test/scale. It ranges from 0.00 to 1.00 and is an estimate of the extent to which the dimensions of a single dimension measure the same construct. The α coefficient values for the applied questionnaires and their dimensions are given in Table 1 (which can be seen in the text), ranging from .854 to .915. According to the criteria proposed by Cho & Kim reliability of all dimensions was very high.
2. comment – about the questionnaire, we explained the structure of the questionnaire which is specially designed for this research. As I told before for collecting the data we used questionnaire which is tested by measuring internal consistency (reliability) of seven dimensions of the questionnaire marketing mix instruments and the questionnaire, students’ satisfaction is estimated based on the Cronbach α coefficient. α coefficient is utilised to estimate the internal consistency, i.e. reliability of the test/scale. It ranges from 0.00 to 1.00 and is an estimate of the extent to which the dimensions of a single dimension measure the same construct. The α coefficient values for the applied questionnaires and their dimensions are given in Table 1 (which can be seen in the text), ranging from .854 to .915. According to the criteria proposed by Cho & Kim reliability of all dimensions was very high.

And also can be seen in the article that: The survey method was used for the purpose of the research and the instrument used in the survey is a non-standardised questionnaire, created particularly for this research. Key sections, factors and features were formulated using detailed analysis of theoretical data resources and consulting relevant authors' works [18,24, 16,25,26,19,27]. On the grounds of those, the questionnaire was created to include questions whose answers would lead to the   possibility of processing the data and obtaining the necessary results.

Also can be seen explanation of every part of the questionnaire:  The first part of the questionnaire contains 5 general questions serving to obtain detailed information on respondents, i.e. the sample. The questions refer to: gender, birth year, the faculty the respondent is attending, year of study, and average grade of the respondents. This information was used only for the purpose of the descriptive analyses. The questionnaire consisted of 64 items with the respondents giving their response to, and relative to the degree of agreement with the statement on the scale from 1 to 7 (1- I totally disagree, 7 – I agree completely). As for the research variables, the questionnaire is divided into 2 topical sections. The first segment addresses the independent research variable – marketing mix instruments. Applying different combinations of marketing mix instruments can lead to improved competitive advantage in the education market, boosting the student satisfaction. For this reason, each instrument is highlighted separately within this segment. This segment includes 56 closed type questions, i.e. statements that can be graded on the scale from 1 to 7. The section is divided into 7 subsections that addresses each marketing mix instrument individually. The second segment addresses the dependent research variable – student satisfaction. This segment includes of 8 closed type questions, i.e. statements which can be graded on the scale from 1 to 7.

By using this instrument we got very useful results, but we will improve our methods, regarding to this comments, in our future research.

3.comment – about the plagiarism. The authors are very grateful for this comment, in the future they will keep in mind the fact that they can’t use complete textual paragraphs from their own sources. Because of that we prepared conformation from the University Jaume I which is published doctoral dissertation for the use of parts of the doctoral dissertation of one of the authors of the paper.

We are hoping that you will be satisfy with answers and reactions to comments, and that our manuscript will be accepted for publication in the journal.

Thank you once again for your valuable comments and suggestions.

Very best regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Minor changes are advised:

line 12 correct "Helth". Example: "Faculty of Health Sciences" at line 233 is fine.

line 17 "This Authors explores", I guess you mean "This paper explores".

line 202 full stop missing at the end of sentence.

line 303 Table 3. indent "Price".

lines 600-615 I personally would provide a bullet points or else numbered list.

line 606 "social media)." change the full stop in semicolon.

------------------------------------------------

The Authors have slightly reformulated short passages in their paper.

I just would have liked to read a slightly stronger wish by the authors to detach themselves from their own original source (that has been anyway compacted from 202 to about 15 pages). I would have liked to read they had furnished to the reader which new insights have opened into Dr. Brkanlić's survey instrument, through a rigorous determination of the changes both in the Republic of Serbia's and Spain's universities in improving service, human factor, and service process, and the exploration of the importance of patterns of management of student satisfaction in higher education.

Best Wishes.

Author Response

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report 
( ) I would like to sign my review report 

English language and style

( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required 
( ) Moderate English changes required 
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required 
(x) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Minor changes are advised:

line 12 correct "Helth". Example: "Faculty of Health Sciences" at line 233 is fine.

line 17 "This Authors explores", I guess you mean "This paper explores".

line 202 full stop missing at the end of sentence.

line 303 Table 3. indent "Price".

lines 600-615 I personally would provide a bullet points or else numbered list.

line 606 "social media)." change the full stop in semicolon.

------------------------------------------------

The Authors have slightly reformulated short passages in their paper.

I just would have liked to read a slightly stronger wish by the authors to detach themselves from their own original source (that has been anyway compacted from 202 to about 15 pages). I would have liked to read they had furnished to the reader which new insights have opened into Dr. Brkanlić's survey instrument, through a rigorous determination of the changes both in the Republic of Serbia's and Spain's universities in improving service, human factor, and service process, and the exploration of the importance of patterns of management of student satisfaction in higher education.

Best Wishes.

Submission Date

03 August 2020

Date of this review

07 Sep 2020 16:21:28

Authors response:                           

Dear respected reviewer,

Authors of the manuscript would like to express their gratitude to constructive comments and suggestions that have significantly improved overall quality of the paper.

We have accepted your suggestions and made all necessary changes.  We have highlighted all changes in green color to make it easier to find all changes that we have made. 

Regarding to last comment we are trying to make changes, and we tried to distance this article from the doctoral dissertation of one of the authors, but we thought that, we should show the results of this dissertation because the research is recent research. But in future articles we will try to make inovation in the methods and improve the research in this field.

Once again, thank you very much for all your effort and for valuable suggestion, where we almost accepted and corrected everything.

Very best regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf