Planning Time Management in School Activities and Relation to Procrastination: A Study for Educational Sustainability
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI think this was well written and had a strong methodology. However, in the limitation section, the factor that a sample of convenience was used was not listed as a limitation and it needs to be. It is likely that if volunteers were used, they likely have more positive perceptions to time management and are likely better students. A random sample was not feasible, but this would be the best sampling technique to ensure students across the spectrum are evaluated. That is why this needs to be stated as a limitation.
1. What is the main question addressed by the research? -The influence of time management on student procrastination 2. What parts do you consider original or relevant for the field? The number of students who do not complete assignments and/or courses is rising. This is an important problem. This had a large study population so it will add to the body of literature 3. What specific gap in the field does the paper address? It can be assumed that poor time management includes procrastination. However, this research study looks at the impact of time management and procrastination categorized by gender and hours studying. Ths was a study of 506 students to it makes a good case for the relationship between these factors and takes this premise beyond assumptions. 4. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? It looks at specific relationships in a larger study population even though it was a sample of convenience. It took place in Portugal which may be similar or different to similar populations in other countries so it adds to the body of literature. 5. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered? Ideally the population would be randomly selected to increase generalizability; however, that is not feasible for most researchers. So the methods is as good as it likely can be. The researchers assessed validity of the instruments used which was important. 6. Please describe how the conclusions are or are not consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. Please also indicate if all main questions posed were addressed and by which specific experiments. Everything was consistent. The researchers clearly outlines their hypotheses: H1. Female students show a stronger tendency to plan their study time management in the short term compared to male students; H2. Girls demonstrate a greater predisposition to plan their study time management in the long term than boys; H3. Students who dedicate more hours to study exhibit a greater tendency to plan their study time management in the short term; H4. Students who invest more time in studying are also more likely to plan their study time management in the long term; H5. Students who engage in short-term planning of study time management also tend to do so in the long term; H6. Students who pay attention to short-term planning of study time management tend to procrastinate more in daily study; H7. Students who focus on short-term planning of study time management show a greater tendency to procrastinate in test preparation; H8. Students who are more diligent in long-term planning of study time management tend to procrastinate less in daily study; H9. Students who plan their study time management in the long term are less likely to procrastinate in test preparation; and H10. Students who procrastinate in daily study also tend to procrastinate in test preparation. These were discussed and appropriate limitations were addressed, No missing limitations were notes. 7 Are the references appropriate? Yes they are current and of a wide depth and breadth, particularly in relation to the population (European student) 8. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures and quality of the data. Tables and figures were clear. The study had a robust methodology.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
With our warm regards, we would like to inform you that the team has carefully addressed all the comments provided by the reviewers, for which we express our sincere gratitude. The present document details how each comment has been addressed. In the manuscript, modifications related to Reviewer 1 are highlighted in blue, and some minor corrections/adjustments added by the authors are marked in green.
Comment 1: I Think this was well written and had a strong methodology. However, in the limitation section, the factor that a sample of convenience was used was not listed as a limitation and it needs to be. It is likely that if volunteers were used, they likely have more positive perceptions to time management and are likely better students. A random sample was not feasible, but this would be the best sampling technique to ensure students across the spectrum are evaluated. That is why this needs to be stated as a limitation.
Response 1: Between lines 657 and 666, we explained the limitation of using a convenience sample and suggested a more rigorous type of sample.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is focused on examining students time management in school activities and its influence on study procrastination. The topic is very important and interesting to understand students study skills and their impact on students procrastination. The findings suggest sufficient knowledge to different stakeholders on how to improve teaching and learning. Few minor changes will further improve this article.
1. Study background (introduction) is mainly focused on the students study skills, but less focus on procrastination. It would have been helpful if both, study skills and procrastination are discussed, to create a good starting point for research background.
2. Adding a figure to hypothesis development will make it easier to readers understand the research.
3. Adding tables for research participants, reliability and validity, CFA and other SEM parameters are helpful to understand the important information. And, another table on hypotheses test (supported, unsupported, partially supported) will further make it easier for readers to understand the basic information.
4. Discussion and conclusion are written fine. However, research implications will further improve the article. It’s important for any research to provide research implications, both theoretically and practically.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
With our warm regards, we would like to inform you that the team has carefully addressed all the comments provided by the reviewers, for which we express our sincere gratitude. The present document details how each comment has been addressed. In the manuscript, modifications related to Reviewer 2 are highlighted in yellow, and some minor corrections/adjustments added by the authors are marked in green.
Comment 1: Study background (introduction) is mainly focused on the student’s study skills, but less focus on procrastination. It would have been helpful if both, study skills and procrastination are discussed, to create a good starting point for research background.
Response 1: A clarifying text was included between lines 69 and 97 that addresses study skills and procrastination together, providing a solid starting point for the research context.
Comment 2: Adding a figure to hypothesis development will make it easier to readers understand the research.
Response 2: Between lines 271 and 287, an illustrative figure of the hypotheses in the model under study was added.
Comment 3: Adding tables for research participants, reliability and validity, CFA and other SEM parameters are helpful to understand the important information. And, another table on hypotheses test (supported, unsupported, partially supported) will further make it easier for readers to understand the basic information.
Response 3: Between lines 390 and 397, a new Table 2 was added, and the associated explanatory text was adjusted. About these changes, the numbering of Figures 2 and 3 (line 402), Figure 4 (line 423), and Table 3 (lines 405 and 415) was corrected. Additionally, text related to the interpretation of Figure 4 was inserted between lines 426 and 427. In line 453, Table 4 related to the supported hypothesis test was added.
Comment 4: Discussion and conclusion are written fine. However, research implications will further improve the article. It’s important for any research to provide research implications, both theoretically and practically.
Response 4; In line 590, a new subsection titled "5.1. Theoretical and Practical Implications of the Study" was added. In line 631, the subsection "Limitations and Future Research" was renumbered to 5.2.
