Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have the following comments and suggestions:

1. Abstract - here the Authors gave the purpose of the empirical research, while at the beginning of the Introduction they write about the purpose of the project and the purpose of the article. It would be worth sorting it out.

2. Introduction - Authors start with the purpose of the project and the purpose of the article. The introduction should begin with a brief introduction to the subject of the article, then present the justification for the research carried out, and finally indicate the purpose of the article and the empirical study.

3. Structure - The authors try to follow the guidelines of the journal. And use the recommended sections sections. However, in points 1, 2 and 3, they included only one sub-point (1.1, 2.1, respectively). This is incorrect.

4. Structure - Despite the publisher's recommendations as to the sections that should be included in the article, I believe that it would be worth separating a section with a literature review, in which the authors would discuss the most important theoretical issues and describe the state of research in the research area they dealt with. In my opinion, this would be to the benefit of the reader. Let me mention that not all articles in the journal contain the recommended sections, and some have sections such as "Literature review", "Theoretical background" or "State of the art."

5. There is no clearly identified research gap. It should be noted that there are no studies on the subject addressed by the authors, or that they were conducted in other countries, or that different results were obtained.

6. What level of education is represented by the surveyed schools. Are they primary, secondary or tertiary schools? If schools from different levels were surveyed, the analysis of the results should take this into account. One of the quoted answers mentions a University professor. So in the case of universities, who was the principal interviewed? Rector?

7. It should be indicated how the schools for the study were selected. What were their selection criteria? How many teachers and principals were surveyed in each school? How were the experts selected? Who is considered an expert? What criteria were used?

8. Scheme 1 requires explanation. It is not clear what these numbers mean and what they refer to. What are the 8 topics/categories about? Are these 8 categories independent? Do the lines indicate connections? If so, these connections need to be justified.

9. Point 3, in which the authors discuss the most important results, lacks a precise reference to the 8 previously identified categories. The authors analyze the results in three areas, and there are 8 categories. There is no consistency here. In the context of the analysis of the results, it is not clear what the purpose of identifying the categories was.

10. I believe that the most important results of the interview analysis obtained should be summarized in a table comparing countries. It would be worth doing it according to the defined 8 categories, then it would be clear why they were defined).

11. After reading sections 2 and 3, I believe that it would be easier to understand and assess the correctness of the conclusions if the authors presented the structure of the interview questionnaire. Are the seven areas mentioned in line 211 also 7 open-ended questions? Were there more questions? What were the questions?

12. Another doubt that arises when reading the text concerns the lack of a clear connection between the areas surveyed in the interviews and the 8 identified categories?

13. In the discussion, more emphasis should be placed on discussing the results of your own research against the background of previous research.

14. In the Discussion section, the Authors refer to countries such as Canada, USA and Finland, but do not mention them in the Introduction section. The discussion of the results of your own research should be conducted against the background of the results described earlier (usually in the section "State of the article, Literature review or Theoretical background, which I mentioned at the beginning of the review).

15. In the conclusions, it would be worth summarizing the article, mentioning the project under which the research described in the article was carried out. It would also be necessary to indicate the limitations of the described study and outline the directions for further research.

Author Response

We would like to express our gratitude for the time you dedicated to reviewing our paper, as well as for the valuable comments you provided on our work, which have greatly enriched it. Attached herewith, you can find a document that allows you to review the changes made based on your contributions. Thank you very much. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is appealing and presents advanced information on the topic. However, in Results I quite missed more specific examples of the findings from particular countries or the graph or table presenting the comparison of findings among the participating countries in the selected areas. It would help the reader enhance more understanding of the discussed results either in the form of the table or graph. Please, try to also consider prolonging the Conclusion part as for the balanced proportion of the written parts in the text.

Author Response

We would like to express our gratitude for the time you dedicated to reviewing our paper, as well as for the valuable comments you provided on our work, which have greatly enriched it. Attached herewith, you can find a document that allows you to review the changes made based on your contributions. Thank you very much. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The historical context of the article related to leadership could be enhanced with 2 - 3 more references. Also, I recommend another round of careful editing.

The text and content both read effectively. As with all manuscripts, there should be another round of careful editing and review. I did not find any incorrect grammar presentations in the manuscript.

Author Response

We would like to express our gratitude for the time you dedicated to reviewing our paper, as well as for the valuable comments you provided on our work, which have greatly enriched it. Attached herewith, you can find a document that allows you to review the changes made based on your contributions. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The aim of this empirical research is to analyze how educational institutions are configured as learning organizations through a systems perspective. Some comments follow. 

1- The interview protocol should be included, for example in the appendix or the data collecting section.

2- The data analysis section needs elaboration, for example it should include a table regarding the themes and codes of each category. In addition, it should include reference to saturation of the analysis process. 

3- More sayings from the participants need to be integrated in the results section. This would add to the authenticity of the results. 

4- The nationality of the participant/sayer should be given, so we can compare between the countries. 

5- We need to know whether the participant who says something, in the results section, is a teacher or school directors or educational expert. 

6- The discussin should rotate around the themes/categories in the results section, where you need to disscuss each of these themes/categories.

Seems O.K.

Author Response

We would like to express our gratitude for the time you dedicated to reviewing our paper, as well as for the valuable comments you provided on our work, which have greatly enriched it. Attached herewith, you can find a document that allows you to review the changes made based on your contributions. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have read the authors' responses and the revised version of the article.

Many changes and additions have been made (including according to my suggestions).

In my opinion, in the current version the article deserves to be published.

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you for your efforts.

Seems O.K.