You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
by
  • Magdalena Mądra-Sawicka1,*,
  • Jeretta Horn Nord2 and
  • Joanna Paliszkiewicz3
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think the paper should be considered for publication, after a minor revision.

The literature review should be linked more to the research questions and introduction.

Methods should be better described.

Also, I suggest revising the discussion of the implications, highlighting result importance and the stream of studies you are contributing.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions in detail, which provide us with clear directions in our revision of this paper. We have made changes based on your comments and believe that the revised paper meets your expectations. Our responses to your comments are given below.

 

Reviewer

The literature review should be linked more to the research questions and introduction.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment. We improved the introduction in that field.

 

 

Reviewer

Methods should be better described.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment. We've added justification of usage in the study the Brown-Forsythe and Levene's tests in the methodology part (now line 157-163).

 

 

Reviewer

Also, I suggest revising the discussion of the implications, highlighting result importance and the stream of studies you are contributing

Thank you very much for your comment. We've added the implications in the conclusion part (line 344-346), and we highlighted the importance of the article in a separate paragraph (line 347-351).

 

We thank you once again for your useful advice and suggestions.

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, this paper is a good read. One minor recommendation is to clearly include the used sample size i.e. how many women and men were surveyed.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions in detail, which provide us with clear directions in our revision of this paper. We have made changes based on your comments and believe that the revised paper meets your expectations. Our responses to your comments are given below.

 

Reviewer

Overall, this paper is a good read. One minor recommendation is to clearly include the used sample size i.e. how many women and men were surveyed

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment. We have this information in the 3.1. Instrument and materials part.

Thank you very much for Your suggestion in reviewing process

Authors