Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This work is highly appreciated since the writers provided valuable information regarding " Investigating The Locus of Control and Epistemological Beliefs of Social Studies Teacher Candidates in Turkey." Still, some minor observations enlisted may be incorporated to enhance the quality.

1. The abstract portion is worded quite effectively.

2. Although the introduction section is written properly, the researcher must firmly establish the theories in the subject of study in the introduction section. The justification is also sound, but it does little to pique readers' interest.

3. The methodology section is well written, however, the use of specific instruments, such as t-tests, has to be supported by a very reliable source of information. Furthermore, discussing additional survey models that are unrelated to the current study is unnecessary.  

4. The data analysis is excellent and adequately explained, however, it is quite confusing for readers and many concepts seem to overlap. It is advised to keep it straightforward. 

 

5. To sum up, the study examined a crucial subject and made excellent efforts; following minor revisions, it may be considered for publishing.  

Revist the whole article for language and spelling mistakes. 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for reviewing our article. Thanks to your positive reviews, our article will become of higher quality.

The article was also reviewed by 3 other reviewer. Since some comments are mutual, we have prepared the revisions of our article in a single document so that all reviewers can see it. We've gathered all of your suggestions and prepared an itemized explanation of how we addressed your concerns.

Attached is a word document of the responses and the revised document where we highlight the changes.

 

• We established the theories in the subject of study in the introduction section.
• We deleted additional survey models that are unrelated to the current study is unnecessary. We stated only the method used in this study.
• We have simplified data analyses.
• We examined in terms of language and spelling.

Thanks again.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The introduction of the article did not precisely describe the phenomena or the background of the problem that led to the need for the study. It continues to explain the definitions of relevant terms, while the introduction has to explain the shortcomings in past studies that require new studies. 

 

lines 34-124 

 

This article has explained at length past studies related to the epistemological beliefs and locus of control of teacher candidates. But this study does not explain the further need for research on gender, education and grade level.  That is number 2-4 in the research questions. 

 

Therefore, there is no clear direction for the discussion of the results of the findings. 

 

 

The discussion 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for reviewing our article. Thanks to your positive reviews, our article will become of higher quality.

The article was also reviewed by 3 other reviewer. Since some comments are mutual, we have prepared the revisions of our article in a single document so that all reviewers can see it. We've gathered all of your suggestions and prepared an itemized explanation of how we addressed your concerns.

Attached is a word document of the responses and the revised document where we highlight the changes.

• We reviewed the introduction section of the study. We have included the reasons why the variables we examined were preferred. We tried to describe the phenomena or the background of the problem that led to the need for the study.
• We stated the reason for our work.
• We reviewed the discussion section

Thanks again.

Best regards.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

First of all, thank you for the opportunity to review this very interesting article.

 

Here are a few recommendations for the authors.

 

Abstract

-They should include some introduction to the subject (1 or 2 lines) before mentioning the objective of the manuscript.

-They include all the results of the study, which significantly increases the length of the abstract. Please include only the most relevant findings.

-Some conclusions of the study are missing.

Keywords

-I suggest you include some more.

Introduction

-The first three lines need a reference at the end.

-Have considered using abbreviations for terms such as "epistemological beliefs" or "locus of control" This would make it much easier to read.

-On line 57 the author Schommer is cited, but there is no reference. Please add it.

-Similarly, line 80 should include a citation. Please correct this issue throughout the manuscript. You cannot assert things without resorting to scientific literature.

-The paragraph from line 111 to line 120 does not provide any additional information, everything is understandable in the previous paragraph.

-Please also correct the format of the references. For example, lines 87, 129 or 132.

-The paragraph that goes from line 134 to 147 is only a list of research variables, it could be reduced by mentioning the most studied ones and conveniently written.

-From line 148 to 202, there are paragraphs that only mention studies without providing further information, I recommend you to rewrite it and structure a "Literature Review" section.

Material and Methods

-Subsection 2.1. sets out the different study methodologies, please define how yours is classified along with a citation from a reference manual and delete everything else.

-In the "Participants" subsection, inclusion criteria are missing.

-In Table 1, "f" should be replaced by "N".

-I don't understand why they write 3 paragraphs explaining the sample characterization table, if all this information is clear in Table 1.

-Intrument citations are not properly formatted.

-When describing the scales, stick to their composition (number of items, dimensions, measurement domain) and validity-reliability properties, but do not describe all the previous papers that validate the questionnaire.

-The "Statistical Analysis" subsection can be summarized much further.

Results

-Tables 5 through 8 should be reformatted to reduce their length.

-The information provided in the Results section is adequate.

Conclusions and Discussion

-The results are described again, I understand that there is a need to introduce that the candidate has a higher external locus of control, to then be compared with previous literature findings, but the 7 lines above are not necessary. Correct this in the whole discussion.

-Also correct the wording and use connectors between sentences, not all discussion can be "The study conducted by .... concluded that there were no significant differences. In the study by .... the results did not differ on the gender variable". Difficult to follow the reading.

-Similarly, there is a lack of sub-sections on both Limitations and Future Lines of Research.

-Likewise, there are no conclusions to be drawn

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for reviewing our article. Thanks to your positive reviews, our article will become of higher quality.

The article was also reviewed by 3 other reviewer. Since some comments are mutual, we have prepared the revisions of our article in a single document so that all reviewers can see it. We've gathered all of your suggestions and prepared an itemized explanation of how we addressed your concerns.

Attached is a word document of the responses and the revised document where we highlight the changes.

• The theoretical information in the introduction was associated with the purpose sentence in a way that is appropriate to the context.
• A few more sentences were written before the purpose sentence.
• We reviewed the results.
• We added new keywords.
• We added a reference the first three lines at the end.
• We used “EB” for the concept  “epistemological beliefs” and we used  LOC for the concepts “locus of control”
• We added reference Shommer on line 57, (new line 56). Reference number 10 belongs there.
• We checkec and corrected all referencesin the manuscript.
• We deleted the paragraph from line 134 to line 147 and 148-202. We only talked about the essentials. We rewrited it.
• We deleted additional survey models that are unrelated to the current study is unnecessary. We stated only the method used in this study.
• We wrote the inclusion criteria of the participants.
• In Table 1, we replaced "f" by "N".
• We deleted 3 paragraphs under Table 1.
• We simplified the information on scales
• We summarized much further "Statistical Analysis" subsection.
• We reformatted to reduce their length Tables 5 through 8.
• We correctted that the results are not describe in the whole discussion.
• We correct the wording and use connectors between sentences, "The study conducted by .... concluded that there were no significant differences. In the study by .... the results did not differ on the gender variable".
• We wrote “Limitations and Future Lines of Research.”
• We drawn a shortly conclusions.

 

 

Thanks again.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

It is a very interesting and quite comprehensive study about important issue as locus of control and epistemological beliefs of teacher candidates is, with larger and gender-imbalanced sample (typical for education studies/ faculties).  Research design and the most of the obtained results are presented in a quality and clear manner, but results related to the third sub-problem are not well presented in table format.  Namely, tables 5, 6, 7 and 8 are shaped like all the others, but due to their size (4-5 pages), they should be reorganized so that they are smaller and compressed, and therefore easier to follow. Redundant repetition of some data was observed. The conclusions respond to the proposed objectives and they are well supported by results of earlier research.  

line 32

It would be useful add another keyword -teacher candidate.

line 82

It seems that there are too many words here "and and since then, it has since become”.

 

line 127-129 and 134-135

Two very similar sentences:

”As a result of the literature review, the studies that aim to determine the epistemological beliefs of teacher candidates based on various variables have been encountered. ” 

”In the literature, the epistemological beliefs of teacher candidates have been studied by associating them with various variables. ”

I suggest the authors delete the first sentence, replace it with the second, and merge the two paragraphs (from line 125 to 147). 

line 139, 141, 142

Redundant references.

line 288-306

It is not necessary to repeat data from the table 1 in the text below. I suggest the authors to delete all sentences except first one. A general comment about the data in the table is welcome after it .

line 324

Missing space between " be" and numeric value .91.

line 417-421, 427-428

Redundant repetition of data from table 2. Remove redundant data. The first sentence below table 2 would then read: ”Upon examining Table 2 it cam be stated…”

 

 line 434

 

Repeated word ”learning ”.

line 481-502

Tables 5, 6, 7 and 8  should be reorganized, reduced and compressed, which will facilitate data insight.

line 522

It looks like the asterisk is missing before the "p".

line 555, 557 

Redundant space

line 562

Based on the data from table 11 it is  not "Belief in Chance" but rather "Belief in Fate".

 line 828

 

There are 91 references in the literature, and reference number 92 is listed here?

 line 833

 

Redundant space

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for reviewing our article. Thanks to your positive reviews, our article will become of higher quality.

The article was also reviewed by 3 other reviewer. Since some comments are mutual, we have prepared the revisions of our article in a single document so that all reviewers can see it. We've gathered all of your suggestions and prepared an itemized explanation of how we addressed your concerns.

Attached is a word document of the responses and the revised document where we highlight the changes.

• We reformatted to reduce their length Tables 5,6,7, 8.
• We added new keywords.
• We corrected line 82 (and and since then, it has become an aspect of personality studies).
• We deleted the paragraph from line 134 to line 147 and 148-202. We only talked about the essentials. We rewrited it.
• We deleted the unnecessary information on the scales
• We deleted The comments under Table1.
• We corrected the expressions under the tables. We removed unnecessary data.
• We put the asterisk before the “p”.
• We corrected Based on the data (table 11 it is not "Belief in Chance" but rather "Belief in Fate".)
• We checked references and
• We deleted redundant space
• We tried to reduce The word “learning” in some places. But this word is subscale (dimension)of our scale. Fort hat reason we could not reduce it completely.

 

 

Thanks again.

Best regards.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Asbtract

-A couple of introductory lines in the summary are still missing.

-Likewise, half of the summary are results. Please state some conclusions in it.

Introduction

-The year of publication is still included in the text in parentheses after mentioning the author; this aspect is not correct. Include the citation only or the year of publication in the text itself. 

-Authors are mentioned without a reference. References are formatted in the text without a name, if the first time this reference is included there is no previous information in the text about the author and the author is mentioned later, please include the reference a second time so that the reader understands which bibliography you are referring to. Examples: Schommer, line 71, Rotter, line 144, or Brateb and Stromso, line 170.

Material and Methods

-Correct. Congratulations!!

Results

-They have been substantially improved.

Discussion and Conclusions

-Again, the aspect of including the years of publication after the author's name is repeated. Please correct this throughout the text. Add the reference after author's name.

-Again, the connectors leave much to be desired. There are several paragraphs that start as "In this research".

Conclusion

-It is not a section, it is a subsection of 5.1. However, they are also mentioned in section 4. Please clarify this aspect and place it correctly. There cannot be conclusions in 2 different sections

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much again for reviewing our article. Thanks to your positive reviews, our article will become of higher quality.

 

We've made the changes you suggested and listed them below.

Abstract

• We added a couple of introductory lines to summary.
• We stated some conclusions in summary.

 

Introduction

• We tried to correct reference format (Examples: Schommer, line 71, Rotter, line 144, or Braten and Stromso, line 170 and so on.

 

Discussion

• We added the reference after author's name. We corrected this throughout the text.
• We deleted the sentences in paragraphs that start as "In this research".

 

Conclusions

• We clarified conclusions and placed it again.

 

 

 

Thanks again.

Best regards.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx