Exploring the Dimensions of Academic Human Capital: Insights into Enhancing Higher Education Environments in Egypt

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper aims to understand the dimensions of AHC and how they influence institutional performance. It is intended to be an exploratory study of specialised literature and an interpretation of qualitative research conducted.

As observations related to the content and approach of the paper, the following aspects can be highlighted:

- The research conducted is quantitative, interpreting the nine dimensions selected by the authors, but it cannot be identified how performance in higher education is affected. The results obtained do not satisfy the title of the paper.

- The paper is intended to be published in an international journal, although it does not present comparisons with other countries.

- It would be better to use a non-formal, non-personal presentation.

- In the abstract, both the present and past tense are used (e.g. lines 9 and 11).

- The content of some sentences/phrases is repeated, such as lines 31-32, 38-39, 51-54, and 102-103.

- Abbreviations such as HEI and ACS are used and not explained in the text. Also, the use and non-use of the abbreviation AHC should be checked.

- Some citations in the text are repeated, for example, lines 30-37 (from the Introduction) with lines 102-110 (from the Literature review).

- In several paragraphs, references are made to previous studies and research, although their sources are not specified. Check the sentences/phrases that start at lines 161, 178, 179, 187, 199, 215, 232, 337.

- It is unclear how representative the responses obtained are compared to the number of employees in higher education in Egypt. Also, 302 respondents and 300 respondents (row 701) are specified; please clarify.

- The research methodology is very detailed, although adding the items for each dimension in Table 1 would have made it more detailed.

- The Data analysis section may be at a higher level of research because the interpretations presented are too simplistic for a WoS-indexed journal. At the same time, from the point of view of the statistical interpretation of the results, some results require additional investigations, such as the analysis of collinearity and redundancy between variables (for example, Alpha Crombach=.960, Alpha Crombach=.693, KMO=.500, correlation=.889).

- The decimal separator in the tables is “,” and should be “.”.

- Some references are not written correctly, namely the authors' names, such as “Manolescu, A.” (row 749) or “Chatterji, N.” (row 13).

- It is unclear how the paper's results could effectively improve the literature or higher education in Egypt and internationally.

- The paper uses only tables; graphical representations are more suitable for increasing the paper's attractiveness to readers and presenting important aspects of the research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English can be improved.

Author Response

The paper aims to understand the dimensions of AHC and how they influence institutional performance. It is intended to be an exploratory study of specialised literature and an interpretation of quantitative research conducted.

Dear Reviewer 1,
Thank you for the time dedicated to reviewing this paper. Your comments and suggestions are quite pertinent and will improve the paper. We prefer to reply to your comments and suggestions line by line (after each of your comments/suggestions).

As observations related to the content and approach of the paper, the following aspects can be highlighted:
- The research conducted is quantitative, interpreting the nine dimensions selected by the authors, but it cannot be identified how performance in higher education is affected. The results obtained do not satisfy the title of the paper.
We have changed the title to “Exploring the Dimensions of Academic Human Capital: Insights into Enhancing Higher Education Environments in Egypt”
- The paper is intended to be published in an international journal, although it does not present comparisons with other countries.
Just like several papers accepted and published in MDPI, our paper was aimed at studying only a single country, i.e. Egypt. The idea was to eventually spread the study to other countries and later on compare higher education institutions in similar market countries. Taking in consideration your comment, we have added the lack of country wise comparison in the limitations of the study.
- It would be better to use a non-formal, non-personal presentation.
The English has been thoroughly reviewed. Other than the abstract, the entire text is now on a non-personal presentation style.
- In the abstract, both the present and past tense are used (e.g. lines 9 and 11).
The English has been thoroughly reviewed and corrections made in lines 9 and 11.
- The content of some sentences/phrases is repeated, such as lines 31-32, 38-39, 51-54, and
102-103.
Corrected.
- Abbreviations such as HEI and ACS are used and not explained in the text. Also, the use and non-use of the abbreviation AHC should be checked.
Initially we used both the abbreviation of AHC and its full form and later on, only the abbreviation, as the reader has already understood its meaning. The meaning of ACS and HEI have been included in the text.
- Some citations in the text are repeated, for example, lines 30-37 (from the Introduction) with lines 102-110 (from the Literature review).
The repetition is intentional, as we wanted to stress on the point of the literature review.
- In several paragraphs, references are made to previous studies and research, although their sources are not specified. Check the sentences/phrases that start at lines 161, 178, 179, 187, 199, 215, 232, 337.
We have cited the author in the middle or end of the paragraph in all these cases.
- It is unclear how representative the responses obtained are compared to the number of employees in higher education in Egypt. Also, 302 respondents and 300 respondents (row 701) are specified; please clarify.
Corrected. It is 302 and not 300.
- The research methodology is very detailed, although adding the items for each dimension in Table 1 would have made it more detailed.
Although the items of the different dimensions are not included in table 1 (due to space constraints), the following tables (with the data analysis) present the items used in each of the dimensions.
- The Data analysis section may be at a higher level of research because the interpretations presented are too simplistic for a WoS-indexed journal. At the same time, from the point of view of the statistical interpretation of the results, some results require additional investigations, such as the analysis of collinearity and redundancy between variables (for example, Alpha Crombach=.960, Alpha Crombach=.693, KMO=.500, correlation=.889).
We acknowledge your concern regarding the simplicity of our interpretations. The study design is primarily descriptive and exploratory, aiming to identify key dimensions of Academic Human Capital (AHC) and insights into improving higher education environments in Egypt. Although recognizing that the current analyses are simplistic, they are sufficient to answer the research questions and objectives. Recognizing this weakness, we include this aspect as a potential direction for future research, including the need for longitudinal studies, qualitative investigations,
and deeper analysis of AHC dimensions.
Although KMO (0.5) is low, and therefore not ideal, it does not compromise the factor analysis. Likewise, one of the dimensions (Critical thinking - CT) has a low score (0.693), but it is acceptable and satisfactory in an exploratory study. This value indicates acceptable internal consistency for the second set of items. While it is above the commonly accepted threshold of 0.70 for acceptable reliability, it is on the lower end. This suggests that while the items are somewhat related, there may be some variability in how they measure the construct.
- The decimal separator in the tables is “,” and should be “.”.
Corrected
- Some references are not written correctly, namely the authors' names, such as “Manolescu, A.” (row 749) or “Chatterji, N.” (row 13).
Corrected. We did not find Manolescu in the entire text.
- It is unclear how the paper's results could effectively improve the literature or higher education in Egypt and internationally.
In this study, we aimed at understanding the AHC of Egyptian HEI and not on improving the higher education of Egypt or any other country. We defend the fact that if the HEI have high AHC, they will be able to attract better academic talent.
- The paper uses only tables; graphical representations are more suitable for increasing the paper's attractiveness to readers and presenting important aspects of the research. Tables allow for precise presentation of numerical data, which is particularly important in our study, where exact values, such as means, standard deviations, percentages, and other statistical data, are critical for understanding the results. While graphical representations can provide a visual summary, they may obscure specific details essential for a thorough interpretation of the data. Tables effectively organize data in a structured and systematic way. Graphical representations, while visually appealing, may not effectively convey the complex relationships and detailed statistics that our research involves.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses the role of Academic Human Capital by focusing on data collected through a questionnaire submitted to academics in Egypt. This issue is particularly relevant as it relates to the recent debate on the trade-off between the increasing need for teaching and student support and research activities. While the paper is clear and well-written, there are a couple of issues that the authors should revise before publication:

• According to Compilatio, 17% of the paper might have been written by AI. While there's nothing inherently wrong with this, either the AI should be acknowledged as a co-author, or these parts should be rephrased to avoid copyright issues.

• Since the sample of academics who responded is relatively small, a more detailed analysis of their representativeness is needed. Are the respondents from humanities or technical disciplines? Which universities do they work at? Is it possible to compare this sample with the overall distribution of academic professors in Egypt?

Additionally, it would be beneficial to expand on the following points:

• Disciplinary Differences: It would be interesting to examine how the trade-off between teaching and research varies across different disciplines. For example, are there significant differences between the humanities and technical sciences?

• Historical Context: Including a brief review of the literature on historical trends in Academic Human Capital in Egypt could provide useful context for readers.

• Impact of Educational Policies: Discussing the impact of educational policies in Egypt on Academic Human Capital could enrich the analysis. What have been the major educational reforms in recent decades, and how have they influenced the role of academics?

Author Response

The paper addresses the role of Academic Human Capital by focusing on data collected through a questionnaire submitted to academics in Egypt. This issue is particularly relevant as it relates to the recent debate on the trade-off between the increasing need for teaching and student
support and research activities. While the paper is clear and well-written, there are a couple of issues that the authors should revise before publication:

Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for the time and dedication shown. Your comments and suggestions will help us improve our article. We opt to reply in-line to each comment.
• According to Compilatio, 17% of the paper might have been written by AI. While there's nothing inherently wrong with this, either the AI should be acknowledged as a co-author, or these parts should be rephrased to avoid copyright issues.
It was with surprise and bewilderment, but also with skepticism, that we received your comment, as we did not use AI to generate text or create content in any part or section of the manuscript.
Your analysis is based on the “Compilatio” application which, like any other software, is quite questionable and fallible, as there are reservations about its credibility, especially in relation to the methodology and the process of detecting “supposedly” content. generated by AI. The claim that "17% of the text was written by AI" can only be the result of inferences with a significant margin of error, based on the statistical model (algorithm) and language patterns, which can confuse text written by authors with text generated by AI. As we know, parts of the text written by the authors may coincide with patterns expected from an AI model, which can generate false positives. On the other hand, it is recognized by those who are responsible for these applications (as well as shared with the academic community) that scores below the 20% threshold are not present (are disregarded) because they have a higher probability of false positives.

Other applications were used to detect text generated by AI, and the following information was obtained:
(1) Turnitin
Although some text in this submission is likely AI generated, scores below the 20% threshold are not surfaced because they have a higher likelihood of false positives.
(2) Grammarly
No AI generated-text detected
• Since the sample of academics who responded is relatively small, a more detailed analysis of their representativeness is needed. Are the respondents from humanities or technical disciplines?
Which universities do they work at? Is it possible to compare this sample with the overall distribution of academic professors in Egypt? As mentioned in the methodology section, the study used a non-probabilistic convenience sample. Although the sample size is not very large, it does not make the study and statistical analysis carried out biased. However, we recognize this limitation of the study and, therefore, we identify this situation in the limitations section.
The questionnaire was administered to university professors and researchers from various disciplines in general, but information was not collected on whether they were from the humanities or technical disciplines. The focus was on gathering insights into their experiences and perceptions regarding Academic Human Capital (AHC), without detailing the specific fields of study represented in the sample.

Additionally, it would be beneficial to expand on the following points:
• Disciplinary Differences: It would be interesting to examine how the trade-off between teaching and research varies across different disciplines. For example, are there significant differences between the humanities and technical sciences?
We recognize the importance of exploring disciplinary differences. However, these issues were not defined in the study objectives and therefore the questionnaire does not include questions to collect this data. Therefore, given the importance of this issue, we consider it as one of the
limitations of the study.
• Historical Context: Including a brief review of the literature on historical trends in Academic Human Capital in Egypt could provide useful context for readers.
Although we understand this observation made by you, it was our intention not to consider it given the need to maintain focus on the current analysis, based on the research methodology adopted.
We remind you that the main objective of the study is to investigate the current interrelationships between the dimensions of AHC and their impact on higher education performance. Including historical context would distract from the main objectives and dilute the focus on contemporary
issues and discoveries. The research questions focus on understanding the current dynamics of AHC and its influence on institutional performance. Historical trends may not directly address these issues and may be seen as tangential to the main analysis, which may confuse readers
about the main focus of the study.
Thus, the study methodology was designed to capture the current perceptions and experiences of university professors and researchers. A historical review is not always aligned with the empirical data collected, which are based on contemporary assessments rather than
retrospective assessments. On the other hand, adding a historical review would make the article too long. However, we present this issue as a recommendation for future work.
• Impact of Educational Policies: Discussing the impact of educational policies in Egypt on Academic Human Capital could enrich the analysis. What have been the major educational reforms in recent decades, and how have they influenced the role of academics?
Although we recognize that the impact of educational policies on AHC is an important topic, the decision not to include it in the article is due to the need to maintain focus on the primary objectives of the research, ensure methodological alignment, and provide a concise analysis of the data
obtained.
As we have already mentioned, identifying and analyzing the impact of educational reforms in Egypt in the last decades and how these influenced the role of academics was not one of the objectives of the study. However, we present this issue as a recommendation for future work.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The quality of the work has been substantially improved compared to the first version, with the authors making changes and additions to all sections. Although the recommendations submitted were not thoroughly followed, the authors have substantially increased the coherence of the work as a whole. Verifying the changes was difficult because the authors did not mark/underline the modified/added/deleted/reformulated text.