Developing and Comparing Indices to Evaluate Community Knowledge Building in an Educational Research Course
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Based on socioeconomic and scientometric metrics, this research implements a novel approach to assessing collective responsibility for knowledge in a knowledge-building community. The evaluations provided significant data regarding the levels of collective responsibility in the community. Most important, the results of this study highlighted the need for cultivating collective responsibility, supporting knowledge-building communities, and empowering students to be the creators of knowledge.
Indeed, this study addresses an interesting topic. It also poses valid research questions and the purpose is clearly stated. The applied methodology is correct and adequately described. The study is well designed. The language is clear. The style is academic, but at the same time reader-oriented. The abstract gives the reader a good idea of what to expect from the paper. The headings enable the reader to understand the main points of the paper and follow its structure. The results answer the research questions. The tables illustrate important points.
I would like to suggest some minor revisions that the paper needs. In several places, you mention the phrase (Author) instead of a reference (i.e. « Thus, education, …societies, Many KB studies…communities» ). References should be numbered in order of appearance in the text and be placed in square brackets. Furthermore, in the Discussion, it would be an added value to engage the concepts of metacognition and motivations as important assets in training reflective learners and cultivating knowledge-building communities (i.e. Maslow, 1943; Drigas & Mitsea, 2021; Lee et al., 2019).
Drigas, A., & Mitsea, E. (2021). 8 Pillars X 8 Layers Model of Metacognition: Educational Strategies, Exercises &Trainings. International Journal of Online & Biomedical Engineering, 17(8).
Lee, J. Y., & Jin, C. H. (2019). How collective intelligence fosters incremental innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 5(3), 53.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewer,
The authors sincerely appreciate your dedication for this research. Every suggestion has been very important to improve the quality of this paper.
Please, find in the version revised the most of modifications suggested, as well as those conisidered by others reviewers. Modifications can be identififed with track-changes (Word).
We have corrected citations and references and have included the follow reference-recommended : Lee, J. Y., & Jin, C. H. (2019). How collective intelligence fosters incremental innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 5(3), 53. We think this reference is very interesting for this article.
Also, typos and acronyms were modified following suggestions of revierwers.
Please allow me to point out that the year on the document may be a typo. We read Sustainability 2020, 18, instead of 2022...whatever. (is it beacuse this paper is under revisión?)
The article is extensive almost reaching 10,000 words. We hope in other studies to address other associated purposes to further deepen the understanding of the CCR (e.g. to know the perception of the students about the experience; for that this article should be cited).
We appreciate the comment about the sample size, these studies assume an intervention with class groups. The investigations of the KB do not usually occupy large samples, they are interventions with a class group. Although it is true that some studies (very few) have made comparisons between KB implementations in different contexts. We think taht this study is interesting because other studies can compare their results with the present one.
The authors hope to see the reviewers' suggestions properly applied in the text.. Authors appreciate the help and recommended reading from the reviewers.
Reviewer 2 Report
Please revise in the abstract, a typo: in the 11th line, remove capital letter to the word "On".
It would be better to avoid acronyms in the abstract (CCR).
In Table 2 and Table 3, please include the value "0" before the point (e.g. in First topic - CV 0.997 and so on).
The subject of study is current and interesting for a new paradigm shift in education.
It would be interesting to learn more about the issues raised (ideas, issues raised throughout the experience, etc.) in order to delve into the results provided in the statistics.
It is true that it is mentioned at the end of the article, but to what extent is the study carried out with 36 students significant?
Despite being an interesting article, the descriptions could be deepened and not remain at a high level of abstraction.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewer,
The authors sincerely appreciate your dedication for this research. Every suggestion has been very important to improve the quality of this paper.
Please, find in the version revised the most of modifications suggested, as well as those conisidered by others reviewers. Modifications can be identififed with track-changes (Word).
We have corrected citations and references and have included the follow reference-recommended : Lee, J. Y., & Jin, C. H. (2019). How collective intelligence fosters incremental innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 5(3), 53. We think this reference is very interesting for this article.
Also, typos and acronyms were modified following suggestions of revierwers.
Please allow me to point out that the year on the document may be a typo. We read Sustainability 2020, 18, instead of 2022...whatever. (is it beacuse this paper is under revisión?)
We included 0 before point in Table 2, but not in table 3, because we think that value-gini (Table 3) can not be greater than "1", so the value "0" is not included before the point (APA).
The authors hope to see the reviewers' suggestions properly applied in the text. Authors appreciate the help and recommended reading from the reviewers.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is relevant and provides an interesting focus on importance of collaborating and interacting groups to generate knowledge, highlighting Collective Cognitive Responsibility. A good foundation is made in the first section, combining older classical studies, with others of recent years. The research methodology is very varied and complete, it is ideal for this study. The results are presented adequately and very broadly from different points of view as various assessment instruments have been used.
Finally, the discussion and conclusions are adequate, clear and very complete.
Therefore, the manuscript is accepted due to its high quality and contribution to research.
Only minor modifications are required.
A thorough review should be done to correct minor drafting errors. The following have been found on the first four pages:
· today we can understand
· There some authors who have
· others authors have contributed
· Author take advantage from promising
· Author bring these ideas together
· one individual accounts
The entire document must be reviewed.
Perhaps the findings could be generalized to women, as there are only two men out of a total sample of 36 people.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3, we very much appreciate that you have analyzed our manuscript in detail, as well as all corrections, sorry for minor errors. They were all corrected. Kings regards, Calixto
