Planning for Future Jobs in Light of the Unified Saudi Classification of Educational Levels and Specializations—A Case Study of Graduate Students at Imam Abdul Rahman bin Faisal University
, Anas Satti Satti Mohammed 1, Osman Saad Shidwan 1, Mohamednour Eltathir Ahmed Abdelgadir 1, Manal Mohamed EL Mekebbaty 1 and Awad Mohamed Osman 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
This is an interesting paper about how higher education students in Saudi Arabia plan for their future careers, with special reference to the national government’s classification of job specialisations and levels. Additionally, the paper has been much improved by comparison with the previous version of the manuscript. I think the underlying work is worthwhile, and the paper has a chance to be very interesting to readers of the journal.
I do think that a few issues have crept in during the re-drafting process, however. I think the authors should be asked to address the following issues:
· There are many typographical issues, where the wrong fonts are used for both paragraph text and headings. These will need to be corrected so that the manuscript is more readable.
· The Introduction section should say more about what is known about student career choices in the worldwide academic literature. This could take 1-2 paragraphs with 6-8 citations. At the moment, the paper is too narrowly focussed on the national context only. The issue of how this issue varies in different countries could be discussed at the start of the paper.
· In my view, it would make more sense to reverse the order of sections 2 and 3 so that the literature review comes before the research design.
· In the first two pages of the literature review, the authors describe government policy. I think the authors should indicate which government policy documents and websites they rely on here, probably by using citations.
· The second half of the literature review provides an overview of previous studies. I think the document would be more readable if sub-headings were introduced here.
· At the end of the literature review, the authors state that there is a gap in the existing scholarship. I think it would be useful to say more about that gap (an extra 3-4 sentences) and then set out what this study aims to add that is new.
· Section 4 seems really to be part of the research design. I suggest that it becomes a subsection of the research design, rather than a separate section in its own right.
· Section 6 states recommendations, but I think we need some introductory sentences that sets out who is the audience for these recommendations. Are they recommendations for government, university management, students, or someone else?
· The Conclusion section would benefit from summarising what this study has added to the literature, in around 1 paragraph.
· The conclusion should also (briefly) consider the limitations of the future and consider whether any future work is needed.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments that have enriched the research.
Here are the parts that have been modified based on your feedback and suggestions: (All modifications made are marked in red)
point 1: There are many typographical issues, where the wrong fonts are used for both paragraph text and headings. These will need to be corrected so that the manuscript is more readable.
Response 1: Fonts have been revised
point 2: The Introduction section should say more about what is known about student career choices in the worldwide academic literature. This could take 1-2 paragraphs with 6-8 citations. At the moment, the paper is too narrowly focussed on the national context only. The issue of how this issue varies in different countries could be discussed at the start of the paper.
Response 2: More studies and career options have been added, and reference citations have been updated and added.
point 3: In my view, it would make more sense to reverse the order of sections 2 and 3 so that the literature review comes before the research design.
Response 3: The order of Sections 2 and 3 was reversed in that the literature review section was presented before the research design section.
point 4: In the first two pages of the literature review, the authors describe government policy. I think the authors should indicate which government policy documents and websites they rely on here, probably by using citations.
Response 4: Citations have been used in the suggested placement.
point 5: The second half of the literature review provides an overview of previous studies. I think the document would be more readable if sub-headings were introduced here.
Response 5: Subtitles of previous studies were presented at the beginning of each study
point 6: At the end of the literature review, the authors state that there is a gap in the existing scholarship. I think it would be useful to say more about that gap (an extra 3-4 sentences) and then set out what this study aims to add that is new.
Response 6: A further explanation of the research gap is provided and what this study aims to provide.
point 7: Section 6 states recommendations, but I think we need some introductory sentences that sets out who is the audience for these recommendations. Are they recommendations for government, university management, students, or someone else?
Response 6: The parties to whom the recommendations will be submitted have been identified
point 8: The Conclusion section would benefit from summarising what this study has added to the literature, in around 1 paragraph.
Response 8: A paragraph has been added in the conclusion indicating the contribution of this study to the literature.
point 9: The conclusion should also (briefly) consider the limitations of the future and consider whether any future work is needed.
Response 9: It is indicated in the conclusion that further studies are needed and suggested future studies are mentioned.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
In this manuscript, the authors evaluate the knowledge of the unified Saudi classification of educational levels and specializations, and its influence on the future job prospects of 129 students of both genders.
I had the opportunity to revise the previous version of the article and, although some improvements have been made, I would like to insist on some of the previous suggestions:
The English (grammar, including punctuation and phrasing of sentences) should be revised thoroughly. Please make attention to the use of parentheses to quote ( ), relative clauses (page 1), misuse of capitalization (Reaching, page 2), and punctuation (has helped a lot. In reducing; Page 2).
The article is lacking a proper revision of the state-of-the-art. The literature review refers to a few publications, which are listed and summarized individually, but without any connecting thread. I appreciate the inclusion of background information on the Saudi qualifications system, but I'm still missing some background data on the educational and labour market that allow the reader to understand better the context of the research. Likewise, there is no discussion of the relevant findings in light of previous works; please try to provide an explicit answer to your research questions/ hypotheses based on the evidence gathered from your questionnaires.
Please clarify the objectives, questions and hypotheses, try to reduce their number and, most important, try to improve the coherence. On page 2 three objectives are mentioned, on page 3 (section 2.1.2), 4 objectives but only one research question with 2 hypotheses.
Also, I would encourage the authors to be more specific about their hypotheses (which kind of "discrepancies" are they expecting?), and try to substantiate them from the introduction & literature review. I.e., I would suggest advancing the reasons why the knowledge of the classification system should lead to different choices, or what differences could we expect among genders, considering the social/ academic/ labour market.
As for the results and the statistical treatment, the ANOVA is indicated when there are more than two groups, or at least two factors to compare. However, gender is binary (unless otherwise stated; in this case, please explain how have you treated your variables; i.e., what levels are considered). Also, I recommend removing the paragraphs describing the null and alternative hypotheses.
Moreover, it is highly recommended that the results are contextualized into a coherent explanation, and not just shown in tables. Otherwise, it is hard to make any conclusion. For example, the numbers in the text (pages 13,14) do not correlate with the numbers in table 7, and there is no explicit connection between tables 7, 8 or 9.
Likewise, the citations and references do not adjust to the journal's rules
I encourage resubmission, but only after the manuscript has been carefully edited. Good luck!
Author Response
Thank you for your comments that have enriched the research.
Here are the parts that have been modified based on your feedback and suggestions: (All modifications made are marked in red)
point 1: The English (grammar, including punctuation and phrasing of sentences) should be revised thoroughly. Please make attention to the use of parentheses to quote ( ), relative clauses (page 1), misuse of capitalization (Reaching, page 2), and punctuation (has helped a lot. In reducing; Page 2).
Response 1: About the linguistic and grammatical review, the research team suggested that it be assigned to the department responsible for the linguistic review in the journal, in order to ensure that it conforms to the journal's standards. Adjustments have been made to your notes on pages 1 and 2 regarding punctuation.
Point 2: The article is lacking a proper revision of the state-of-the-art. The literature review refers to a few publications, which are listed and summarized individually, but without any connecting thread. I appreciate the inclusion of background information on the Saudi qualifications system, but I'm still missing some background data on the educational and labour market that allow the reader to understand better the context of the research. Likewise, there is no discussion of the relevant findings in light of previous works; please try to provide an explicit answer to your research questions/ hypotheses based on the evidence gathered from your questionnaires.
Response 2: Some previous studies have been added that refer to the role of states in putting forward policies related to education and training.
There are axes related to the labor market that have been referred to in future studies, because the scope of the labor market in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has many axes that need further studies.
Point 3: Also, I would encourage the authors to be more specific about their hypotheses (which kind of "discrepancies" are they expecting?), and try to substantiate them from the introduction & literature review. I.e., I would suggest advancing the reasons why the knowledge of the classification system should lead to different choices, or what differences could we expect among genders, considering the social/ academic/ labour market.
Response 3: Some of the reasons why knowledge of the unified guide for levels and specializations lead to different results were mentioned in the study literature.
Point 4: Moreover, it is highly recommended that the results are contextualized into a coherent explanation, and not just shown in tables. Otherwise, it is hard to make any conclusion. For example, the numbers in the text (pages 13,14) do not correlate with the numbers in table 7, and there is no explicit connection between tables 7, 8 or 9.
Response 4: Based on the reviewers' observations, phrases were deleted and numbers were satisfied, and the full table was placed in the appendices.
A further explanation was provided for the results and statements in Table (4).
Point 5: As for the results and the statistical treatment, the ANOVA is indicated when there are more than two groups, or at least two factors to compare. However, gender is binary (unless otherwise stated; in this case, please explain how have you treated your variables; i.e., what levels are considered). Also, I recommend removing the paragraphs describing the null and alternative hypotheses.
Response 5: ANOVA analysis was used considering that I have two groups (male and female students).
As for the part related to the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis, they were added based on the recommendation of a reviewer.
Point 6: Likewise, the citations and references do not adjust to the journal's rules
Response 6: References and citations have been updated to be consistent with the journal's requirements.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Dear respected authors,
The quality of the manuscript has been improved in comparison with its previous version. However, still, the cohesion among the sentences and paragraphs, and the soundness of the words should be improved. A list of comments and recommendations has been prepared to improve the study before being published by the respected journal of Sustainability.
1. The title of the manuscript should be revised. The “(case 0study…)” should be corrected as “(a case study ...)”.
2. The study's main aim and content have been reflected well in the Abstract section. The scientific results of the study are recommended to be reflected in this section.
3. The Introduction section suffers from a lack of using references.
4. Literature review section should be mentioned before the Materials and Methods section.
5. The mentioned future studies should be moved to the last paragraph of the Conclusion section.
6. More studies in the literature should be mentioned. The list of references needs to be revised.
7. The text needs a minor grammatical check and the cohesion among the sentences and paragraphs, and the soundness of the words need to be improved.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments that have enriched the research.
Here are the parts that have been modified based on your feedback and suggestions: (All modifications made are marked in red)
Point1: The title of the manuscript should be revised. The “(case 0study…)” should be corrected as “(a case study ...)”.
Response1: Title revised.
Point 2: The study's main aim and content have been reflected well in the Abstract section. The scientific results of the study are recommended to be reflected in this section.
Response 2: Part of the results are mentioned in the study abstract.
Point 3: The Introduction section suffers from a lack of using references.
Response 3: References and citations have been added in the introduction.
Point 4: Literature review section should be mentioned before the Materials and Methods section.
Response 4: The literature review section was presented on the materials and methods section.
Point 5: The mentioned future studies should be moved to the last paragraph of the Conclusion section.
Response 5: Future studies are indicated in the last paragraph of the conclusion.
Point 6: More studies in the literature should be mentioned. The list of references needs to be revised.
Response 6: More previous studies have been added to the literature section. References have been reviewed and updated.
Point 7: The text needs a minor grammatical check and the cohesion among the sentences and paragraphs, and the soundness of the words need to be improved.
Response 7: With regard to the linguistic and grammatical review, the research team suggested that it be assigned to the department responsible for the linguistic review in the journal, in order to ensure that it conforms to the journal's standards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
1. The bibliography is/refers, to a large refers, to a large extent, only to the reality only in Saudit Arabia, it refers, in the vast majority, only to studies carried out there, a much more thorough scientific substantiation is required, based on internationally validated scientific literature on the topic, on similar studies carried out in other educational systems (such as references 9, 11 - should be more numerous);
2. Some of the links do NOT open, they cannot be checked;
3. More care is suggested in the use of the bibliography in the text - reference 6 in the text does not exist in the footnote, we have 5 and next 7; reference 10 does not exist, we have 9 and then 11; the last reference used in the text is no. 11, from up to 22, is not highlighted in the text;
4. The study problem is formulated very broadly, vaguely, convoluted - a clear and a short reformulation would be useful;
5. In subsection 3.1.5. Study population and sample - the number of batch members is not indicated (136 members after applying the questionnaire to 150 respondents, in the data analysis we have 129 respondents....);
6. The research tool - must be fully presented in research methodology - total number of items, categories of items, categories of collected data;
7. The research period, the stages, time allocation for each stage (these stages are very vaguely presented in Results, they do not belong there, but in the design of the research;
8. The batch size is small - the study should be replicated on a larger batch of respondents from the same university and on graduates from another universities;
9. Hyphotesis no. 2 is not clear - in subsection 3.1.4. H2 is formulated as: there is a discrepancy in this preferences between students wo are about to graduate from the Faculty of Applied Studies...; In Results H2 - there is a discrepancy between graduates in terms of gender when choosing future jobs (this statement appears as objective no.2 in section 3.1.2. To establish clearly wat the second hypothesis is and to correct the text in accordance with this decision.
10. Tt is necessary to improve the technical editing of the bibliography in accordance with the rules of the journal;
11. 3 categories of recommendations are announced, only 2 are presented;
12. To improve the presentation of the results by referring to the proposed purposes - has the research problem been solved?
Author Response
Thank you for your comments that have enriched the research.
Here are the parts that have been modified based on your feedback and suggestions: (All modifications made are marked in red)
point 1: The bibliography is/refers, to a large refers, to a large extent, only to the reality only in Saudit Arabia, it refers, in the vast majority, only to studies carried out there, a much more thorough scientific substantiation is required, based on internationally validated scientific literature on the topic, on similar studies carried out in other educational systems (such as references 9, 11 - should be more numerous);
Response 1: Based on your suggestion, some literature referring to government practices in other countries has been added.
POINT 2: Some of the links do NOT open, they cannot be checked;
Response 2: Really. I noticed that the link is not opening. The link is for an article from a news channel and may be subject to their publishing rules.
POINT 3: More care is suggested in the use of the bibliography in the text - reference 6 in the text does not exist in the footnote, we have 5 and next 7; reference 10 does not exist, we have 9 and then 11; the last reference used in the text is no. 11, from up to 22, is not highlighted in the text;
Response 3: There are some references not found in the footnote. But it was used to get some ideas on which the research was based. It has been referred to in the list of references as a matter of scientific integrity.
POINT 4: The study problem is formulated very broadly, vaguely, convoluted - a clear and a short reformulation would be useful;
Response 4: The study problem has been reformulated according to your suggestion.
POINT 5: In subsection 3.1.5. Study population and sample - the number of batch members is not indicated (136 members after applying the questionnaire to 150 respondents, in the data analysis we have 129 respondents....);
Response 5: I appreciate your accuracy in noting.
To clarify this point, the online survey was automatically closed after the specified time, we found that the response was from 150 students. After reviewing the questionnaires, we subjected 136 questionnaires to analysis after excluding incomplete forms. At a decent stage, we noticed that there is a group of students (7 students) in early academic stages, meaning that they are not graduates, and therefore they were excluded because they did not respond to the research criteria. As a result, the number became 129.
POINT 6: The research tool - must be fully presented in research methodology - total number of items, categories of items, categories of collected data;
Response 6: I agree with you regarding the research tool, and the first version of the research was presented, but based on the suggestion of one of the reviewers, this part was modified, and a form of the questionnaire was placed in the appendices.
POINT 7: The research period, the stages, time allocation for each stage (these stages are very vaguely presented in Results, they do not belong there, but in the design of the research;
Response 7: Based on your suggestion, a paragraph about the research period was added to the research design.
POINT 8: The batch size is small - the study should be replicated on a larger batch of respondents from the same university and on graduates from another universities;
Response 8: The study for us was more like an exploratory study, and the research topic will be addressed on a larger level after the research team noticed our college's interest in the research topic.
POINT 9: Hyphotesis no. 2 is not clear - in subsection 3.1.4. H2 is formulated as: there is a discrepancy in this preferences between students wo are about to graduate from the Faculty of Applied Studies...; In Results H2 - there is a discrepancy between graduates in terms of gender when choosing future jobs (this statement appears as objective no.2 in section 3.1.2. To establish clearly wat the second hypothesis is and to correct the text in accordance with this decision.
Response 9: This hypothesis indicates that there are statistically significant differences between male and female students when they choose future jobs, and we have indicated in the hypothesis, objectives and results of this part the word (DISCRPANCY), which refers to (Variance), but translation may have played a role in appearing in this sense.
POINT 10: Tt is necessary to improve the technical editing of the bibliography in accordance with the rules of the journal;
Response 10: Edited according to the journal rules.
POINT 11: 3 categories of recommendations are announced, only 2 are presented;
Response 11: Based on your observation, the third part of the recommendations has been added to this part.
POINT 12: To improve the presentation of the results by referring to the proposed purposes - has the research problem been solved?
Response 12: Based on the recommendations that were presented, the research problem can be solved, but the research team indicated the need to conduct future research that covers other aspects that have not been addressed and may be useful in general to be better practices in relation to the research topic.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Dear authors,
I appreciate your effort to incorporate our suggestions to improve your paper's quality.
With the change of order of sections 2 and 3, the manuscript is now much more readable. However, the English and the formatting still require substantial reworking (on top of the few examples I mentioned in my previous review).
A couple of references have been added to the introduction, but not connected to the rest of the studies therein, in a cohesive discourse that provides a context for the study and a justification of the hypotheses posed.
Likewise, although it is positive that the authors make some practical suggestions to the universities, governments and general recommendations, they are not well linked to the results of the study. They should be preceded by a discussion of the results in light of extant literature.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments that have enriched the research.
Here are the parts that have been modified based on your feedback and suggestions: (All modifications made are marked in red)
point 1: With the change of order of sections 2 and 3, the manuscript is now much more readable. However, the English and the formatting still require substantial reworking (on top of the few examples I mentioned in my previous review).
Response 1: Substantial modifications were made to the language after the research was presented to the linguistic reviewer of the journal sustainability.
point 2: A couple of references have been added to the introduction, but not connected to the rest of the studies therein, in a cohesive discourse that provides a context for the study and a justification of the hypotheses posed.
Response 2 : Two studies were added to the introduction, where the first study dealt with the future of work and what education can do, and this study dealt with the role of governments in drawing education policies, and I indicated in our study that this is what the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has done in its endeavor to develop the educational system. This particular part we referred to when we talked about the importance of the study.
In the same context, the second study was dealt with.
point 3: Likewise, although it is positive that the authors make some practical suggestions to the universities, governments and general recommendations, they are not well linked to the results of the study. They should be preceded by a discussion of the results in light of extant literature.
Response 3: The required part has been added in the results of the study
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Dear respected authors,
The methodology, procedures, and steps of the research have been done logically. All the raised comments and suggestions have been corrected patiently. However, there are serious issues related to the formatting, punctuation, spacing of the text, and formatting of the tables' contents in the revised version of the manuscript. In addition, many sentences were copied and pasted without considering the format of the text. Also, the numbering of the headlines and sub-sections needs to be rechecked.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments that have enriched the research.
Here are the parts that have been modified based on your feedback and suggestions: (All modifications made are marked in red)
Point1: The methodology, procedures, and steps of the research have been done logically. All the raised comments and suggestions have been corrected patiently. However, there are serious issues related to the formatting, punctuation, spacing of the text, and formatting of the tables' contents in the revised version of the manuscript. In addition, many sentences were copied and pasted without considering the format of the text. Also, the numbering of the headlines and sub-sections needs to be rechecked.
Response1: A complete linguistic review of the text was carried out by the sustainability journal's proofreader.
Response2: Formatting, punctuation, and text spacing have been revised.
Response2: The numbering of the main headings and subsections has been revised.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Dear authors,
Thanks for the effort in reviewing the English in the document.
However, the paper is still lacking a cohesive literature review and a well-supported discussion to substantiate the recommendations made.
Author Response
I appreciate your concern
However, I would like to confirm that the research team has made every effort to respond to your suggestions and recommendations, and this resulted in the acceptance of the rest of the arbitrators for the research.
I regret your opinion, but in the end it is an effort and its aim is to enrich the topic of research so that we can build on it a greater perception of how to pay attention to such issues.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear respected authors,
1. The study's main aim and content have been briefly reflected in the Abstract section, but the considered parameters, sample size, utilized method for sampling, hypothesis test, etc. should be also mentioned briefly in this section. Additionally, mentioning there is a lack of knowledge among the student and having good knowledge of the jobs are not considered scientific findings of a research.
2. The keywords should be selected based on the focus of the study and phrases that have been used frequently in the text. “Planning” is a very general word and “Saudi unified classification of levels” has been mentioned only once in the text. It is highly recommended to revise the Keywords list.
3. The aim of the study and the necessity of having (publishing) this study should be highlighted in the Introduction section but section. Additionally, every single paragraph, even each sentence in this section needs to be supported by references.
4. Defining Acronyms/Abbreviations and using them is appropriate for those phrases that have been mentioned frequently in the text. According to this issue, defining the “cap” for the “National Qualifications Framework” is unnecessary.
5. Sectioning of the manuscript should be revised. The “Literature review” should be one of the main sections of the study and separate from the “Materials and Methods” section. The “Materials and Methods” section should not be sectioned in that much detail. The objectives of the study should be reflected in the “Introduction” section in a single paragraph. Similarly, the importance of the study should be reflected in the “Introduction” section.
6. The null and alternative hypotheses should be defined separately, by mentioning the related test statistics formula.
7. Sample size number should be clearly mentioned in the text. It is recommended to mention them based on the years of their graduation, gender, etc. if possible to present more information about the students in this study.
8. More studies should be revisited and scrutinized in the “Literature Review” section.
9. The contents of the presented tables need to be explained in detail. Table 7 should be presented in a better way. For instance, the questions can be numbered and just the question number presented in the table. Additionally, the survey or questionnaire can be mentioned at the end of the manuscript in the Appendix section.
10. It is suggested to add a section entitled “Conclusion” for concluding the study, and having a separate paragraph for the limitations of the research and the potential future studies.
11. The text needs a major grammatical check.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions
Adjustments and corrections made based on your recommendations:
- Keywords have been modified
- The sample size and the method used to take it and test hypotheses are mentioned in the summary
- he conclusion that there is (a lack of knowledge of the unified Saudi classification of educational levels and specializations) has been omitted.
- The objectives of the study were presented in the introduction.
- Shortcut has been deleted.
- The research team has revised the research division and the research literature has been separated from the introduction. Further details were reviewed in the Materials and Methods section.
- The null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis were identified, and the statistical equations that explain this were mentioned in the section on proving hypotheses in the study results.
- The sample size was mentioned and there are tables showing the number of students based on gender, age, scientific section and academic level.
- More explanations were provided for Tables 7, 8, 9 and the amendment to Table No. 7 and the implementation of your suggestion by just placing the question number and transferring the detailed table to the appendices.
- A separate paragraph for possible future studies has been added in the recommendations section. A conclusion has also been added to the search.
- More explanation was provided about the standard classification of educational levels and specializations.
Author Response File: Author Response.DOC
Reviewer 2 Report
In this manuscript, the authors evaluate the knowledge of the unified Saudi classification of educational levels and specializations, and its influence on future job prospects.
The article does not meet the minimum requirements for being published in this journal and, hence, it is recommended for rejection. Anyway, I would like to make some suggestions that can help improve the quality of the paper for future submissions:
- The English (grammar, including punctuation and phrasing of sentences) should be revised thoroughly. Likewise, the citations and references do not adjust to the journal's rules.
- The article is lacking a proper revision of the state-of-the-art. The literature review refers to a few publications, which are summarized, but not interrelated. I recommend the authors explain the Saudi qualifications system and give some background data on the educational and labour market that allow the reader to understand better the context of the research.
- Please clarify the objectives, questions and hypotheses, try to reduce their number and, most important, try to improve the coherence. In the current version, some hypotheses are not well justified (why there should be differences across students?), and questions that lack an associated hypothesis (e.g. gender differences).
- As for the results and the statistical treatment, the ANOVA is indicated when there are more than two groups, or at least two factors to compare. However, gender is binary (unless otherwise stated; in this case, please explain how have you treated your variables).
Moreover, it is highly recommended that the results are contextualized into a coherent explanation, and not just shown in tables. Otherwise, it is hard to make any conclusion.
- Last but not least, the findings should be discussed in light of relevant literature.
I encourage resubmission, but only after the manuscript has been carefully edited. Good luck!
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions
Adjustments and corrections made based on your recommendations:
- The sample size and the method used to take it and test hypotheses are mentioned in the summary
- he conclusion that there is (a lack of knowledge of the unified Saudi classification of educational levels and specializations) has been omitted.
- The objectives of the study were presented in the introduction.
- The research team has revised the research division and the research literature has been separated from the introduction. Further details were reviewed in the Materials and Methods section.
- The null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis were identified, and the statistical equations that explain this were mentioned in the section on proving hypotheses in the study results.
- The sample size was mentioned and there are tables showing the number of students based on gender, age, scientific section and academic level.
- More explanations were provided for Tables 7, 8, 9 and the amendment to Table No. 7 and the implementation of your suggestion by just placing the question number and transferring the detailed table to the appendices.
- More studies have been added on how students plan for their future.
- A detailed explanation of the Saudi Standard Classification of Educational Levels and Specializations has been provided in the research literature.
- The motives for the study are explained in the introduction.
- The literature was revised and structured and more studies were added that reflect the idea and problem of the study. As I explained previously, the literature included a summary of the Saudi Standard Classification of educational levels and specializations.
- A brief was presented indicating the contribution of the paper and its presentation of some new ideas in the research topic.
- The results section has been modified and an explanation of the section's structure and how the results section will help answer the research question.
- Grammatical errors have been checked
Author Response File: Author Response.DOC
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper presents a project in which students in Saudi Arabia are surveyed about their knowledge of educational classifications and specialisations. The paper is potentially interesting, but at present the structure and several threads of the argument are fairly confusing. I therefore think the authors should be asked to respond to the following issues:
· There are many structural issues with the paper. The Literature Review is presented within the Materials and Methods section, rather than as a separate section; the “importance of the study” is argued in the Methods section, rather than the Introduction; the Data Analysis procedure section presents many of the actual Findings; and the Findings section actually seems to be the Conclusion. I think we urgently need the paper to be restructured. I would suggest a structure like this: Abstract, Introduction, Literature Review, Materials and Methods, Findings/Results, Discussion, Conclusion. At present the paper is quite difficult for the reader to follow and so I consider this issue to be very important.
· It will be important to be clear about the central mission of the paper and to consider how each section and argument relates to that mission. At present, the research question (lines 69-70) seems fairly clear: it is about student/graduate knowledge about an educational classification scheme. I think that works quite well. But much of the paper does not seem to be addressing that question but instead queries a wider range of issues, which makes the argument very difficult to follow. I think it would be useful for the authors to present their argument and findings in a way that keeps more strictly to the topic they have stated for themselves.
· Both the Abstract and Introduction need to better consider the *research* context for this project. There is an established literature on “how university students plan for future jobs”. What does that literature say? This paper surveys student awareness of a national governmental scheme of educational classifications. Why is that important? Therefore, how does this paper say something new that will be of interest to scholars writing about how students university plan for future jobs? That needs to be addressed in the Introduction, and briefly signposted in the Abstract. It can then be addressed in more detail in the later Discussion section.
· The Introduction makes a number of assertions (e.g., on lines 35-39) that seem to relate to the literature but where there are no citations. Citations need to be added in all such cases in the early sections of the paper.
· In the Introduction we need to separate out the research context from the national policy context—perhaps in different paragraphs. When describing the national policy context, it will be important to explicitly convey what is important about that context that the reader should understand when they see the findings of the study.
· The Introduction needs to state some sort of motivation for carrying out the study. Why did the authors believe it was necessary?
· The Introduction should end by signposting the structure of the paper so that the reader knows what to expect.
· The literature review needs to begin by defining the scope of the literature being reviewed. I believe that scope should be something like “the literature on how university students plan for future jobs”.
· The literature review should be structured into paragraphs that address different issues raised in the literature. The authors already seem to know what those issues are, since they are mentioned in the Introduction. This is a better alternative than to have each paragraph review one paper in turn.
· The literature review should end by briefly justifying why a paper like the one they are presenting here could contribute something new to the literature they have reviewed.
· The Materials and Methods section should be restructured to contain subsections on the research site or population; the recruitment of study participants; the design of data collection instruments; and the analysis of data. The very many other issues discussed in this section should be moved elsewhere as appropriate.
· When discussing the design of the research instrument (the survey), we need some elaboration of why the instrument was designed in this way. Don’t just state some questions, explain how you wrote them and how they were supposed to help you get data that could be analysed to address your research question. Are there any translation issues (English/Arabic) that readers should be aware of?
· Much of the material on pages 5-10 (and part of 11) is really the Findings or Results, and should be moved to a section with that kind of title. “Data Analysis” is about explaining the procedures you followed to produce the Findings/Results.
· The Findings/Results section should commence with some short explanation of the structure of the section. What will you present, in what order, and why? How will this section help you to address your research question?
· Table 7 requires more narrative about how the range of data presented is relevant to the research. Some of the findings in the table appear to be very important. But the table runs for 2.5 pages, and there are many things presented there whose relevance is not clear.
· Table 8 requires much more explanation. The authors state that the purpose is about knowledge of the standardized classification, but that classification is not mentioned in the table. How should the reader interpret the table in relation to the argument you are making?
· The discussion section needs to be introduced, and should be a discussion of how your findings say something new in relation to the literature you reviewed in the literature review section.
· I would advise renaming the Recommendations section to be Conclusion, and broaden the discussion to include a consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of your work and how it could be built on in future.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions
Adjustments and corrections made based on your recommendations:
- Your proposal for structuring the paper has been implemented.
- The focus of the research question and its follow-up in the study.
- More studies have been added on how students plan for their future.
- Citations added in the first sections of the paper.
- A detailed explanation of the Saudi Standard Classification of Educational Levels and Specializations has been provided in the research literature.
- The motives for the study are explained in the introduction.
- The literature was revised and structured and more studies were added that reflect the idea and problem of the study. As I explained previously, the literature included a summary of the Saudi Standard Classification of educational levels and specializations.
- A brief was presented indicating the contribution of the paper and its presentation of some new ideas in the research topic.
- The research was restructured in the Materials and Methods section and the study literature section was moved to a separate section.
- The research team added a paragraph explaining the research tool and explaining why this tool was specifically used in the introduction to the study.
- The results section has been modified and an explanation of the section's structure and how the results section will help answer the research question.
- Table 7 has been redesigned, and the elements of the table are further explained.
Author Response File: Author Response.DOC
