Employment Training at the University: Employment Expectations in Times of Pandemic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper may be a good report, but not a good study, with the following comments:

1.2.1. The study design is too simplistic, and additional content or citations must be added in lines 129-131.

2.Lines 188-190 I can't see what it means?

3.Regarding research methods: A research paper without inferential statistics is just a good report, not an academic paper.

4.Table 4-7 does not have any academic value. It is recommended to put an appendix.

5.The conclusion of this paper does not provide insight into the sustainability of this topic.

Unfortunately, I suggest to major revisions. I hope my suggestions above can provide the ideas for the authors to revise.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article well describes the study carried out and its results.
The article is of moderate interest, presenting very particular results from students from one institution and region, however it is suitable for publication.
Aspects to review:
- It should include, at the end of the introduction, a description of the content of the paper.
- Subsection 2.1 Too small to consider a subsection.
- Table 4, table 5, table 7 put on a page.
- Table 5 numbers with decimal point and decimal point, should standardize by placing decimal point.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It looks like the authors have answered my questions and replied point by point, which is a good job.

Finally, it is recommended that the wording of paper should be consistent, for example: this paper/ this article is mixed in paper.

 

good luck

Author Response

The wording has been revised. We have found a term "paper" and it has been replaced by "article", as it appears in the rest of the text.

Thanks a lot. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf