Career Competencies, Preparing Students for the Future

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the opportunity to review this manuscript. The manuscript effectively uses two theories to guide the review of the author's own published studies. The themes, categorization, dimensions, and aims are well-connected and closely guided by the two theories. 

While the manuscript has a strong theoretical base and clear writing, addressing the following will enhance its quality and credibility:

The manuscript relies heavily on the author's own studies, with limited citations from other sources. Please add a few more citations as this would add objective standpoints and enhance the credibility of the content. 

Pg. 2: The key term (e.g., career competencies) need clear definitions to help readers differentiate between similar concepts (e.g., career skills). This is important for readers who may not be from the author's specific field but have an interest in similar topic(s). 

Pg. 2: The author claims that most of the studies reviewed have not been conducted among students. This raises questions about the selection of the two meta-studies and whether they are thorough and cross-disciplinary or focused solely on employees. Please explain the rationale behind selecting the two meta-studies and discuss their relevance and thoroughness.

Pg. 3: The author mentions that this research can be used as tools and resources for adapting to the changing labor workforce. However, it lacks specific recommendations on how the research can be applied in practice. Providing a few concrete recommendations on how the research can be used as tools and resources, rather than referring readers to the author’s previous published studies, will help increase the practical contributions of this review paper.

Pg. 7: The manuscript does not discuss the limitations or restrictions of this type of review paper. It would be beneficial to include different perspectives, both positive and negative, on the review, themes, categorization, and dimensions. Please add a section discussing the limitations and restrictions of this type of review paper.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached document。

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article undoubtedly explores an important and relevant topic. However, it presents several weaknesses that should be addressed before publication.

First, the initial part of the introductory paragraph lacks bibliographic references that should support the theoretical framework. The article's purpose should also be clarified from the outset. In the method section, it states: “This article describes the literature regarding career competencies based on the results of two meta-studies and research that I have conducted in this area. It is more of an overview of different perspectives on the theme rather than a systematic literature review”. This section is extremely concise.

The objectives, research phases, and criteria guiding the selection of the cited research perspectives should be better clarified. Most importantly, the two meta-studies and research conducted are mentioned without providing essential details. Furthermore, while the article does not aim to produce a systematic literature review, the methodology should not be any less rigorous. If the objective is to present an overview of different perspectives on the topic, the bibliographic references appear insufficient and, in some cases, partial.

Additionally, the article lacks analytical discussion, making it unclear what its original contribution to the field is. Finally, a linguistic revision is necessary to improve fluency and avoid repetitions (which appear as early as the title).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This article would also benefit from a linguistic revision. While the English is generally understandable, some sentences lack fluency, and there are occasional repetitions (even in the title). Refining the language would improve readability and ensure a more polished and professional presentation.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors' efforts in addressing the comments and implementing the suggested revisions. The manuscript is now clearer and better structured. Below is my assessment of the changes made and additional points that still require attention.  
Introduction: additional bibliographic references have been included to support the theoretical framework; the purpose of the study has been clarified in both the abstract and introduction.  

Methodology: the section has been expanded, providing more details on the research phases and selection criteria for cited studies; the description of the two meta-studies and conducted research has been improved, adding relevant details. 

Bibliographic references: further references have been incorporated, especially those related to the meta-studies.  

Analytical discussion: a discussion section has been added, addressing the study’s original contribution and its limitations; the implications for educational practice and policy are now more explicitly stated.  

Further Revisions Needed: 
The in-text citations should be uniform. Currently, there is inconsistency in citing multiple authors (e.g., in some cases, "et al." is used, while in others, all authors are listed). This should be standardized (e.g., "Evans et al., 2023").    
The final section should be labeled "7. Discussion and Conclusions", as the discussion generally precedes the conclusions in academic writing.  

Overall, the manuscript has significantly improved, but the above refinements are necessary to enhance clarity, coherence, and consistency. Once these final adjustments are made, the paper will be suitable for publication.