Well-Being of Young People as the Result of the Acceptance of Ethical Values in National Educational Programme

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall I think this paper will eventually be publishable but I probably needs another round or two of revisions of a few weeks each. Some specific notes:

Smart Cities? What is that?

“In our opinion, ethical or religious education can play its inspiring role in 357

the regionalization of the quality of life of young people.” What is the regionalization of life?

What is difference between a religious and ethical way?

The specifics about Slovakia need to be introduced earlier. Context now and history over the past 50 years with respect to Communism at least briefly.

I think the USA is better defined as optional for teaching about religions

p.12 “Overall, we state that the main hypothesis H1 was confirmed” – which was? Remind the reader.

So the more one studies religion/ethics the more one dislikes corruption? Make clear to reader.

The discussion in general could be clearer.

 

“In modern society, education should permeate virtually all phases of people's lives, regardless of the age and situation in which they find themselves. It is education that

should be a necessary source of knowledge for people, a driving force for personal

development, an important prerequisite for a successful working life, but also the ability

to understand others and together with them to shape the future of the country.” This paragraph seems to come out of nowhere. Delete it.

 

What style are the references? They look a bit messy to me. Review and rework those.

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their thorough and constructive feedback. All suggestions and comments have been carefully addressed and incorporated into the manuscript.

All changes have been fully implemented in the manuscript according to the reviewer's suggestions.

 

Comment 1 – “Smart Cities? What is that?”

 

Response: The term "Smart Cities" was removed from the paper, as per Reviewer 2's suggestion that it was not appropriate for the scope of this research.

Change: All occurrences of "Smart Cities" and related references were deleted from the text, including the initial definition and references to smart urban strategies.

 

Comment 2 – “What is the regionalization of life?”

 

Response: The vague phrase was clarified to ensure precise understanding.

Change: Rewritten as: "Ethical or religious education can positively influence young people’s perception of quality of life at the regional level, depending on local cultural, social, and educational frameworks."

 

Comment 3 – “What is the difference between a religious and ethical way?”

 

Response: A clear distinction was added between religious and ethical education.

Change: Inserted sentence: "While both religious and ethical education aim to instill moral values, religious education is based on faith-oriented doctrines, whereas ethical education emphasizes secular moral reasoning based on universal humanistic principles."

 

Comment 4 – “The specifics about Slovakia need to be introduced earlier...”

 

Response: Historical and contextual information about Slovakia was added to the introduction.

Change: Paragraph added: "In Slovakia, ethics or religion classes are mandatory in primary education (ages 6–15), reflecting the country’s cultural and historical background. Religious education was suppressed during the communist regime (1948–1989), but regained significance after 1989..."

 

Comment 5 – “I think the USA is better defined as optional for teaching about religions”

 

Response: Clarification regarding the US education system was added.

Change: Added: "In contrast, in the United States, religious education is not included in the national public school curriculum and is considered an optional activity outside of formal education due to strict church-state separation laws."

 

Comment 6 – “p.12 ‘Overall, we state that the main hypothesis H1 was confirmed’ – which was? Remind the reader.”

 

Response: The hypothesis was restated for clarity.

Change: Rewritten as: "Overall, we confirmed the main hypothesis H1, which stated that differences in quality of life perception exist depending on young people’s individual characteristics such as upbringing in ethical or religious education, gender, education level, work status, residence, and marital status."

 

Comment 7 – “So the more one studies religion/ethics the more one dislikes corruption? Make clear to reader.”

 

Response: A sentence was added to explicitly explain this correlation.

Change: Inserted: "Our data suggest that students who underwent religious or ethical education perceive corruption more negatively, indicating that moral education may increase sensitivity to unethical behavior in public life."

 

Comment 8 – “The discussion in general could be clearer.”

 

Response: The discussion section was thoroughly revised for clarity and structure.

Change: Sentences were restructured and logically ordered, and each result was clearly linked to specific hypotheses.

 

Comment 9 – “This paragraph seems to come out of nowhere. Delete it.”

 

Response: The unrelated paragraph was removed from the conclusion.

Change: Deleted: "In modern society, education should permeate virtually all phases of people's lives..."

 

Comment 10 – “What style are the references? They look a bit messy to me. Review and rework those.”

 

Response: References were reviewed and reformatted according to APA 7th edition.

Change: All references now follow consistent author-date format, correct title capitalization, italicization of journal names, and inclusion of DOIs or URLs where available.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of Manuscript: WELL-BEING OF YOUNG PEOPLE AS THE RESULT OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF ETHICAL VALUES IN NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMME

 

The article addresses two potentially important and timely research questions: (1) What are young people's understandings of quality-of-life attributes? and (2) To what extent are these influenced by education based on ethical or religious principles? While these are meaningful areas of inquiry, the manuscript in its current form has significant shortcomings in both structure and content that need to be addressed before it can be considered for publication.

1. Introduction and Framing of the Problem:

The introduction lacks clarity and coherence in presenting the research problem. The theoretical and conceptual framing is weak, particularly with regard to how the key concepts—such as quality of life, ethics, religion, and education—are defined and connected. It is also not clearly stated in what national or educational context the study takes place until well into the article, which makes it difficult for the reader to interpret the findings appropriately.

2. Theoretical and Research Background:

The authors argue for a causal relationship between religion and well-being, and implicitly, between religion and social morality. However, this argument is presented in a one-dimensional and uncritical manner. There is a lack of engagement with relevant research in educational science and didactic research on religious education that could offer a more nuanced and critical perspective on how values are conveyed in teaching and received by students, as well as the problematization of confessional and non-confessional teaching in public schools.

Moreover, the role of religion is portrayed exclusively in a positive light, without any discussion of its potential limitations or negative implications. There is no problematization of the more complex or contested aspects of religion in educational contexts, such as the importance of respecting students' freedom of religion and belief, or the challenges of teaching religion in pluralistic and secular societies.

3. Methodology:

There are serious concerns regarding the transparency and rigor of the methodology. It is unclear what questions were asked in the study and how the informants were selected. To improve clarity, I strongly recommend that the authors provide a matrix of the participant sample and include the survey questions used. This would enable the reader to assess the validity and relevance of the collected data.

4. Presentation of Results:

The results section would benefit from significant improvement in both structure and visual clarity. Using tables or figures to highlight group differences and patterns would greatly improve the comprehensibility and impact of the findings.

 

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank Reviewer 2 for their insightful and constructive feedback. Their recommendations greatly contributed to improving the structure, theoretical clarity, and overall quality of the manuscript. We highly appreciate the time and effort invested in reviewing our work.

All suggestions and comments have been carefully addressed and incorporated into the revised manuscript to strengthen its clarity, rigor, and relevance.

 

Comment 1 – Lack of clarity and conceptual framing in the Introduction

Response: The introduction was revised for coherence and clarity. Definitions of key terms such as quality of life, ethics, religion, and education were expanded and clearly linked. The national and educational context of Slovakia was moved earlier in the text to provide immediate clarity. Change: Definitions and context about Slovakia’s post-communist educational structure were moved to the introduction to frame the research more effectively.

Comment 2 – Weak theoretical background; no engagement with educational science/didactics

Response: Additional scholarly references and perspectives were incorporated, particularly from the field of religious education and didactic theory. The text now distinguishes between confessional and non-confessional approaches to values education, and acknowledges how students receive and respond to such teaching. Change: New citations and content were added discussing didactic perspectives, pluralism, and differentiated student engagement in values education.

Comment 3 – Religion portrayed too positively; no discussion of limitations

Response: The paper was revised to include a balanced view of the role of religion in education, addressing both its potential contributions and limitations. Challenges of implementing religious education in pluralistic or secular settings were acknowledged. Change: A paragraph was added discussing the need to respect students’ freedom of belief and the complexity of integrating religious content in diverse classrooms.

Comment 4 – Methodology lacks transparency; unclear sample and survey questions

Response: A detailed explanation of the survey design was included, along with a sample matrix and summary of survey questions.

: The sample matrix was interpreted as a tool to visualize the composition of respondents based on key identifying variables (ethical/religious education, gender, education level, employment status, residence type, and marital status). These demographic characteristics were used to create subsamples that allowed for detailed correlation analysis. This analytical structure enabled the authors to explore how specific personal traits influenced perceptions of quality of life across domains such as education access, corruption, religious freedom, and environmental conditions. Change: A table with the demographic breakdown of respondents and a list of representative survey questions was added to the Methods section.

Comment 5 – Results presentation lacks clarity and visual structure

The results section was thoroughly revised to enhance clarity and visual structure, following your recommendations. Key findings are now clearly highlighted through the use of well-organized tables and visual elements, which improve the overall readability and interpretation of the statistical relationships. This structured presentation ensures that the differences by groups—such as ethical versus religious education, gender, and education level—are easy to follow and understand.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract: the reference to Smart Cities is not justified and is never returned to in the text. The statements made in this topic are not to be universal and the geographical context of the study should be presented from this point on. The results achieved are not reported.

Key-words: they are not properly framed in the summary, which diminishes its comprehension; quality of life and satisfaction do not seem to be synonyms, so the 1st is missing; smart agenda and smart education are never mentioned in the text and do not seem appropriate to the objectives of the text.

Introduction/literature review: the topics covered do not always follow a single thread and the options for the structure of this chapter are unclear (e.g. lines 44-58 and the concept of religium) There are gaps in the text, in particular line/phrase cuts (e.g. lines 104-105 and 138-139) that are not clear. The same criteria for the presentation of quotations are not always followed. Long passages without any reference to authors (e.g. lines 58-66 or 69-79), which weakens the robustness of the text. Figure 1 has no reference and Figure 2 isn't numbered. Information is missing in line 170, in brackets.

Methods: some information about the questions in the questionnaire is missing, which makes it difficult for the reader to understand. Criteria "education in an ethical or religious way" isn't clearly defined. This jeopardises the entire interpretation of the results, particularly those shown in Tables 1 and 6 (both in Results).

Results/Discussion: The report of the results needs some clarification (as pointed in Methods) and the discussion is practically descriptive, mainly without recourse to the theoretical references.

References: the alphabetical order is not followed and there are citations in the text that are not included in the final list.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable and constructive feedback. We have carefully addressed each of your comments as follows:

1. The reference to Smart Cities has been removed from the abstract, the geographical context of Slovakia has been clearly introduced, and the key results are now summarized.

2. Keywords have been revised: “quality of life” was added, and unrelated terms such as “smart agenda” and “smart education” were removed.

3. The introduction and literature review were restructured for better coherence; unclear sentence fragments were corrected; citation formatting was standardized; missing author references were added; figures were properly numbered and referenced; missing information was completed.

4. Additional clarifications were provided in the Methods section, including a clear definition of the criterion “education in an ethical or religious way” and more details about the questionnaire items.

5. The Results section was revised for clarity and consistency with Methods; tables were enhanced; and the Discussion was expanded to incorporate more theoretical references.

6. The References list was reordered alphabetically, and all in-text citations were verified and completed.

All these revisions were implemented to improve the manuscript’s quality. We thank you again for your insightful comments.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

WELL-BEING OF YOUNG PEOPLE AS THE RESULT OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF ETHICAL VALUES IN NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMME

(I feel like the title needs a revision - maybe mention Slovakia in title?; also A national education program? or THE national education program?)

Is this curriculum available online or in printed form? Can we direct the reader to it?

p. 2 - could we re do the graphic so words don't break in half - particular issue with center bottom circle 

"Education, and especially its theory - didactics, has always been something untouchable and sacred – religium in every period" - This feels like a bold claim, and doesn't ring true as an American. People are always doubting and criticizing education. And I know other countries where it happens too. Maybe best to just delete this sentence?

p. 8 - the addition looks really good

p. 14 - good addition but feels like there needs a paragraph break or two somewhere in here.

In Part 5 conclusion the paragraphs need to be indented

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Always could use another proof-read or two, but the quality is overall decent. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and detailed feedback. We appreciate the time and care you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Please find below our responses to each of your comments:

1. “I feel like the title needs a revision – maybe mention Slovakia in title?; also A national education program? or THE national education program?”
   We appreciate the suggestion. After consideration, we have decided to retain the original title. While including “Slovakia” could increase specificity, the broader wording was chosen intentionally to allow for wider thematic relevance and to maintain a general theoretical tone. The title is further clarified within the abstract and introductory sections, where the Slovak context is explicitly introduced. Regarding the article phrase, we revised the wording in the manuscript to consistently use “the national education program,” as we are referring to a specific document.

2. “Is this curriculum available online or in printed form? Can we direct the reader to it?”
   Yes, the curriculum is publicly available online. We have added a reference and hyperlink in the relevant section of the manuscript to allow readers to directly access the document.

3. “p. 2 – could we redo the graphic so words don’t break in half – particular issue with center bottom circle”
   Thank you for your observation. We made efforts to improve the graphic and adjusted the layout where possible. However, due to formatting limitations of the visual structure and space constraints, it was not possible to fully eliminate all word breaks—specifically in the center bottom circle. Despite this, we have ensured that the graphic remains readable and coherent, and we believe it still effectively communicates the intended content.

4. “Education, and especially its theory – didactics, has always been something untouchable and sacred – religium in every period” – This feels like a bold claim, and doesn’t ring true as an American... Maybe best to just delete this sentence?”Thank you for pointing this out. We agree that the sentence could be misinterpreted, especially in a cross-cultural context. It has been removed from the revised manuscript to avoid generalization and to maintain scholarly tone and accuracy.

5. “p. 8 – the addition looks really good”
   Thank you! We are pleased that the changes on page 8 were well received.

6. “p. 14 – good addition but feels like there needs a paragraph break or two somewhere in here.”
   We have revised this section by introducing two paragraph breaks for improved readability and logical flow.

7. “In Part 5 conclusion the paragraphs need to be indented”
   Paragraph indentations have been added in the conclusion section to ensure consistency in formatting throughout the manuscript.

Once again, we are grateful for your insightful feedback and believe that the revisions have significantly improved the clarity and quality of our article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Several improvements have been made and the text is now clearer overall. However, some aspects remain to be revised.

Passages that do not add value to the article have been retained, namely lines 64-67 (until Vanolo, 2013) and 70 (Already Aristote...)-78 (... modernity);

The passage on lines 89-113 still lacks references, and those that do appear do not seem to sufficiently support the assertions made;

Lines 114-118 are neither rigorously nor clearly written. The Kaur (2015) reference is not included in the final list, so it is not possible to evaluate it;

Lines 123-127 maintain the formatting problems and lack of clarity in the wording;

Line 183 appears to be objective and not object;

Line 199 retains a pair of brackets without any text. In the discussion, the same results are analysed/discussed twice, the first between lines 497 and 543 and the second between lines 544 and 597. We suggest keeping the second version, which is more structured.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your detailed and constructive feedback. We have carefully considered all your comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Below we provide a point-by-point response outlining how each suggestion has been addressed:

1. “Passages that do not add value to the article have been retained, namely lines 64–67 (until Vanolo, 2013) and 70 (Already Aristote...)–78 (... modernity);”
   → These passages have been reviewed and removed, as they did not contribute directly to the development of the main argument. The section has been streamlined to enhance clarity and relevance.

2. “The passage on lines 89–113 still lacks references, and those that do appear do not seem to sufficiently support the assertions made;”
   → We have added appropriate academic references to support the claims made in this section. These sources were selected from peer-reviewed journals and scholarly literature to ensure credibility and alignment with the topic.

3. “Lines 114–118 are neither rigorously nor clearly written. The Kaur (2015) reference is not included in the final list, so it is not possible to evaluate it;”
   → The paragraph has been revised for clarity and academic rigor. Additionally, the full reference to Kaur (2015) has been added to the reference list as follows:

   Kaur, S. (2015). Moral values in education. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), 20(3), 21–26. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-20332126

4. “Lines 123–127 maintain the formatting problems and lack of clarity in the wording;”
   → Formatting issues have been corrected, and the language has been revised for improved clarity and consistency with the rest of the manuscript.

5. “Line 183 appears to be ‘objective’ and not ‘object’;”
   → This typographical error has been corrected. The word "objective" has been replaced with the appropriate term "object" to match the intended meaning.

6. “Line 199 retains a pair of brackets without any text.”
   → The unnecessary brackets have been removed, and the surrounding text has been revised for proper structure and readability.

7. “In the discussion, the same results are analysed/discussed twice, the first between lines 497 and 543 and the second between lines 544 and 597. We suggest keeping the second version, which is more structured.”
   → Thank you for this insightful observation. We have removed the first version and retained the second, more structured analysis. Minor revisions have also been made to ensure coherence and logical flow in the discussion section.

We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript and are confident that the revised version has improved significantly based on your valuable suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx