The Development of Skills as a Key Factor of the Cooperative System: Analysis of the Cooperative of Artisan Women Tejemujeres-Gualaceo-Ecuador from the WWP Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

State the justification of the current research topic

Specific the research objectives

Follow the Chronological linkage between research objectives and findings

State the clear opinion or recommend for further study or policy recommendation to concern authority

Follow the standard reference style and it must unique

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1, I have attached responses to your observations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

review the minor editing mistypes ex. Conclusions, 3rd paragraph;

avoid "personal" references in text such as "us" found 4-5 times and "we" found 2 times; simply eliminate them and leave formulation without "your" presence 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2, I have attached responses to your observations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I congratulate the authors for carrying out the study and for the opportunity to contribute to its qualification. I emphasize that the research topic is important and the authors made an important effort in carrying out the research and writing the article.

To bring improvements to the article, I highlight the following observations.

The summary is unclear. It does not address how many people participated in the sample or how they were selected. It talks about competency analysis but does not specify which aspects were analyzed. It defines cooperativism as what seems out of context in the abstract and, at the same time, does not contextualize the research.

The wording of the article needs to be revised because, at some points, such as the introduction, it is difficult to understand what the authors tried to say.

The introduction addresses the importance of cooperatives but does not contextualize the study carried out. What research problem drove the study? What scientific limitations support the study? This was not clear, making it difficult to understand the importance and relevance of the research carried out.

The last paragraph of the introduction is very confusing, with too much information presented too superficially.

Item 2.1 needs to be qualified, improving the wording and, above all, making the text more coherent.

Item 2.3.1 does not place the reader on the particularities of the studied place. The map presented could locate the study site in the country and continent.

The article needs to be rearranged. The description of the case study is in the theoretical framework and seems to me to be more appropriate in the methodology. The hypotheses are within an item of the case studied and I suggest inserting them in the methods or at the end of the theoretical framework. Still, the hypotheses presented have no theoretical basis or support and do not dialogue with the theory used.

How was the questionnaire composed? What theoretical bases were used?

There is no discussion of the results and they are only presented. This makes it difficult to understand the data's relevance in a broader social and academic context.

Still, the study is relatively localized and the authors did not make an effort to relate the results with similar research in the academic community, as well as the potential for generalization of the results. With this, it is concluded that the authors do not point out the importance of research for the advancement of science.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3, I have attached responses to your observations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I believe that now the article has the minimum conditions to be published.