Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is well presented with good abstract, introduction, literature review, findings/results and conclusions. However, the article seems to miss the discussions of a research paradigm used in producing the language of the study and justifications of the novelty of the findings/results since there is a tsunami of studies published on this phenomenon. The language of writing this article seems to suggest a Pragmatic paradigm which may allow the use of Respondents (quantitative) and Participants (qualitative) interchangeable in one study. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

In response to the paper with ID sustainability-1746288, we would like to express our gratitude for your review and feedback since the comments have truly helped to correct and improve the paper. Please, the response and the consequent changes can be found in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

First of all, I would like to thank you for considering the contributions that I can make to your article with the intention of improving it and that I hope will be of interest to you.

Regarding the theoretical framework, I consider that it is correctly configured and provides sufficient literature and scientific evidence on the state of the matter under study.

In the method, it would be of interest where the instrument used is described, specifying what type of questions in which thematic blocks are inferred in order to understand exactly how the questions were grouped into variables in order to analyze them later.

The sample is not very significant in proportion to the number of teachers that these provinces may have, in that sense the sampling is very poor to extract significant data since it does not reach 50% of the sample


When talking about results, it presents more scientific rigor if it uses the term variables and makes a group, for example: population profile instead of data related to the sample.

It is not interesting to write the results in the first part and place the table with percentages again, eliminate it and in any case change it to graphs that facilitate the visualization by the reader of the results of the study

It is essential in the discussion to provide the reader with new information that the one reviewed in the theoretical framework provides evidence of new authors on the subject matter that has not been previously presented in the theoretical framework, since the discussion of the article is poor.

It is necessary to address two sections that do not appear in the study.

1. The limitations of the study explaining why the data cannot be extrapolated or what issues show weaknesses when transferring the results.
2. What lines of action should the work follow to cause an improvement in the deficiencies detected.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
In response to the paper with ID sustainability-1746288, we would like to express our gratitude for your review and feedback since the comments have truly helped to correct and improve the paper. Please, the response and the consequent changes can be found in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf