Promoting Sustainable Research Competence Through a Problem-Solving Method and a STEM Educational Kit: A Case Study with Nursing Students at a Newly Established Public University in Peru
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, thank you for the opportunity to review your article. Below are my comments.
Line 11 - there is always an impact (positive, neutral, negative). The purpose of the article was achieved at line 11 without any further procedure.
Ad. 3 How was the representativeness of the sample ensured
Line 240 - how can we be sure that the relationships between the different factors under study are linear?
What do the authors mean by competence?
I would suggest reading up on the history of this concept - it can easily be found in the literature. I can point them out, however, only at the express request of the authors.
Table 1.
‘Understanding the Problem’ section.
Points 1, 2, reading literally, could suggest mental or cognitive defects in the research participant and expose the researcher to a lawsuit. I would recommend a high degree of caution.
Line 245 - how do you know they are experts? (No source?) Cronbach's alpha scores incredibly high....
Figure 4.
Why do the authors show martyred animals and on top of that descriptions in Spanish? Unfortunately, I am not familiar with this beautiful language and I am not in favour of tormenting animals either. Please translate into English.
The number of figures is definitely excessive and adds little to the quality of the article.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThis paper is Spanish partially.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We attach the letter detailing the comments made on the manuscript.
Regards
The Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt would be important for the research to clarify in which curricular units this STEM approach has been implemented and how it is articulated with the pedagogical objectives of the cycle of studies. It would also be important to understand whether there are Peruvian state standards/guidelines regarding these aspects or whether this is a totally innovative approach at national level. I think it would also be necessary to strengthen the theoretical approach to STEM education: what is its purpose? What does it seek? On the other hand, it seems very important to us to understand whether this methodological approach - Pólya's proposal - has already been applied in other countries (or within the country itself) in order to gauge its effective innovation and cross-reference it with any international benchmarks of good practice that may exist. All these aspects will help to strengthen the article conceptually and arm it with a theoretical and methodological rigour that will add merit to the whole process.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We attach the letter detailing the comments made on the manuscript.
Regards
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have no hesitation about this proposal. The topic is interesting, well-presented, clear, and easy to read. The authors have described the research methodology in great detail. The proposal contains all the elements of a scientific article, and I give it a positive assessment.
One issue that may affect the interpretation of the results should be refined slightly. In lines 229-234, the authors present a group of respondents, stating their number and gender distribution. It would also be beneficial to provide an overview of the total number of first-year nursing students at this university, including a breakdown by gender. This would enable us to determine whether the number of respondents is representative. It is also worth noting how the respondents were selected.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We attach the letter detailing the comments made on the manuscript.
Regards
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsYou have revised the research tool post factum (Table 1), which undermines the credibility of your approach to your scientific work. Ergo, I cannot recommend your article for publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We attach the letter detailing the comments made on the manuscript.
Regards
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNone.
