Digital Technology in Managing Erasmus+ Mobilities: Efficiency Gains and Impact Analysis from Spanish, Italian, and Turkish Universities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to review this work.

The topic is interesting and current. However, I believe that this journal is not the best option for such communications.  However, I leave it to the editor to decide about the topic suitability, since the "applied sciences" field is wide and inclusive.

The introduction needs reconsideration and restructuring. It is important to present a summary of the key literature about the use of technology (digital skills, digital transformation, etc.) and how it is handled by higher education institutions. It is not suitable to mention those concepts at the beginning of your abstract and then`, in the introduction, "forget" it and start with the information that appears in the Erasmus+ program.

I propose the presentation of key resources from different parts of the world (Africa, Asia-Pacific, North America, etc.). How is digital transformation handled?

Example from Africa:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JEC-08-2020-0151/full/html

Example from Asia-Pacific:

https://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv:92405

Example from global Higher Education:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-021-10739-1

Some information on COVID-19 pandemic is needed, since it has determined the use of technology in higher education over the last 2,5 years.

Once you present a couple of paragraphs on these topics (already mentioned in your abstract), then it will be easier to follow the European Approach on mobilities.

When you present information from the Erasmus+ program, please make sure you cite it properly in your text. It is poorly paraphrased without citations.

Please avoid using the word article and use "communication" throughout your work. 

The paragraph before the background needs bibliographical support.

I would avoid using bold fonts in the body of the text and I would use bold fonts (black) instead of the red fonts.

Since your communication focuses on mobilities, please ensure that your conclusions are focused on mobilities, too. This communication doesn't allow us reflect on digital transformation at a higher level.

Some implications for the future of Erasmus+ mobilities and proposals for the next Erasmus+ program are needed.

Author Response

Following the reviewer's advice, we have restructured and enhanced the introduction to provide a summary of the key literature about the digital transformation of higher education institutions worldwide. In doing so, we have added the recommended references and a few others. We have rewritten the presentation of the Erasmus+ as advised, too.

The conclusions section has been revised to reflect on digital transformation at a higher level and elaborate on the needs of further research.

Minor corrections:

• We have substituted the work "article" by "study" or "communication".
• We have substituted red fonts for bold ones where we needed to highlight some words or sentences.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents information about digitalization of Erasmus activities. The Erasmus activities are of big interest because of it's important role in educational ecosystem of Europe. At the same time the methodology of research looks weak. Digitalization of working activities is difficult and serious process that has many different psychological, social, economical and law consequences. But authors research only time and paper-saving that is not enough for serious scientific consideration.
Although saving time and paper is an important aspect of the sustainable activity, ignoring all other aspects devalues the work of the authors. At a minimum, it is necessary to reveal theoretically all aspects of digitalization (at the moment, the literature review is extremely scarce) and point out the limitations of the work. It is also desirable to chart all the consequences and show what further research needs to be done.

Author Response

Following the reviewer's advice, we have rewritten the introduction and the conclusions in order to reveal theoretically all aspects of the digital transformation of higher education institutions, and also to frame our contributions in a context that still calls for further research in many areas. We have also enhanced the methodology section, to provide more details of the data gathering and processing stages, and to further justify the approach based on the scientific literature about common biases in the perception of workload.

We are thankful to the reviewer for acknowledging the interest of our research and for the constructive suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

The main objective and outline of the paper:

The paper deals with how digitalization in the administrative work of Erasmus+ programmes can support sustainability. The research reveals that the creation of paperless offices related to Erasmus+ programmes result in a significant drop in paper usage, work- and time- load. The conducted research is based on estimation while it uses quantitative analysis to estimate the beneficial effect of digitalization in case of Erasmus+ programmes.

The topic is interesting and mostly relevant; however, it needs some improvement. Some recommendations are below.

General comments:

The research paper aims to reveal how much digitalization helps to reduce paper wastage, time- and work- load in case of Erasmus+ programmes at three universities implying more sustainable operation of Erasmus offices. The paper is relatively short, structured well, the Methodology section needs to be detailed more.

The abstract summarizes the essence of the paper, it well presents the research and its results.

The paper has 4 keywords, they fit the topic, please put them in alphabetical order. Erasmus+ would be a good keyword to add and authors might use ICT instead of the full term.

The introduction is detailed and gives a general idea of the research. The last paragraph of the Introduction misses a description of the structure of the paper. Please correct. The Background section gives details of previous work, it would be beneficial either to add some more references or highlight that the research gives novelty and added value to the field, as not much research has been conducted so far.

The Methodology section needs revising. The research is strongly based on estimation which questions the reliability and validity of the research. With the estimation as input implies that the research is merely hypothesis and not backed scientifically, which gives the highest doubt in the results. The estimated time saving is based on respondents’ estimation, some primary research on would be necessary. On the Methodology section the methods of calculations should be given in the body text. Please check carefully throughout the paper, such equations are needed at several places – e.g. page 4, page 5. The method of calculation must be clarified because it needs to be clear and consistent throughout the paper. It refers to the results as well. More detailed calculations need to be reported. The authors leave the calculations to the readers.

The Conclusions section gives a summary of the research and gives recommendations for future research. It highlights that digitalization would lead to a significant drop in paper usage, time- and work- load and support sustainability. The limitations of the research need to appear in the conclusions. Would the researchers intend to conduct some experimental research? It would give additional value to the research since the research conducted is based on estimations.

The paper is well written in English. In the abstract the full term for EWP needs to be capitalized. Instead of the active voice in for example “we conducted”, “we could calculate” use the passive voice. Please check throughout the paper (unfortunately the document does not have line numbering, so it is difficult to say which line is referred to).

The paper has 1 figure and 5 tables, which are placed well in the paper. The first table caption needs revising (page 4), it is Table 1. In order to make table 1 more informative, extra columns are recommended that would show the average time for each document. The table 3 needs to display the unit of measurement - per capita or total numbers are presented? Table 4 also needs measurement – is it in percentage, per capita or total? It would be more practical to display the average time savings in percentage. The second sentence in the table caption should go to the footnote of the table. Table 5 misses the method of calculation; authors are asked to include the method of calculation either in the body text or as footnote.

The paper lists 14 references, most of them are from the last five years, the majority being internet sources. The authors list some journal papers and some research conducted; however the list is relatively short. If no further research conducted earlier could be found, it would be beneficial to mention the niche in the introduction or the background sections. The references are formatted well, and they are well cited, in case journal articles the year needs to be bold and in some references the year is not placed well. Authors are asked to correct.

The paper is relevant, interesting and highly important. It gives a useful tool into the hands of university decision makers on digitalization. The paper however has some flaws in the input side, more precise figures would be needed for the calculation. The results are valuable and they can contribute to making Erasmus+ programmes more popular, paperless offices could help sustainability efforts and improve performance efficiency.

Author Response

Following the reviewer's advice, we have revised the paper thoroughly to frame our research more extensively in the process of digital transformation that higher education institutions are going through worldwide, and to improve the Methodology section. In the latter, we have added new details to facilitate the readers' understanding, counting and naming the many variables involved and providing more substantial explanations and justifications for our approach, grounded on the scientific literature about common biases in workload perception. We believe this section is much clearer and more informative now.

Other changes are as follows:

• We have revised the keywords and put them in alphabetical order, as suggested.
• We have added a last paragraph to the introduction to present the structure of the paper.
• We have extended the introduction and background section with more references to highlight that the research gives novelty and added value to the field.
• We have revised the conclusions to acknowledge the limitations of the research and highlight the many areas of the digital transformation process that need further research.
• We have changed many uses of active voice for passive.
• We have changed the table captions as suggested.
• We have added explanations about the methods of calculation.

We are very thankful to the reviewer for the constructive suggestions, which we believe have made the paper much better.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you very much for sending me this revised version. The authors addressed my comments and recommendations and the format now is more suitable for the "communications" section of the journal. Good luck with its publication.

Author Response

We are thankful to the reviewer, for the invaluable help to improve the paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

The research paper has been revised according to the requirements and following the recommendations of the reviewer. It has been significantly improved. Thank you for correcting the paper. The authors added the relevant parts, the paper was restructured, rewritten, the abstract, the introduction, the results and discussion sections were improved and rewritten. The figures and tables were mostly corrected and added. The methodology part was also improved.

The second paragraph of the Introductions section could be split into more smaller paragraphs.

An introductory sentence would be practical for the results section.

In the Discussion section 13.5 million, 3.6 million - use dot instead of comma.

Table 4 and 5, Section 5 and 6 headings are not formatted well - unindent plesae.

Table 4 - use dot instead of comma for the decimals.

Author Response

We are thankful for the reviewer's positive feedback about the first revision of the paper. We have made the following changes in response to the new round of (minor) comments:

• "The second paragraph of the Introductions section could be split into more smaller paragraphs." --> Done. We have split the paragraph into two: the one containing a global overview of digital transformation in higher education, and the other providing specific samples picked from the different continents.
• "An introductory sentence would be practical for the results section." --> We've added a sentence at the beginning of section 4 to indicate the time period when the data gathering was done.
• "In the Discussion section 13.5 million, 3.6 million - use dot instead of comma." --> Done; the same notation was applied to the whole text.
• "Table 4 and 5, Section 5 and 6 headings are not formatted well - unindent please." --> Fixed; thanks.
• "Table 4 - use dot instead of comma for the decimals." --> Done.