Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The methodology is the most incomplete section of the article. It is a small sample. Why is it so small?

Clarify dimensions of the questionnaire and add the items of the questionnaire. It would be nice to be able to visualize the instrument.

The results are not very significant. General conclusions are drawn for a case with a small sample. This section should be reviewed and results should not be generalized.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

The methodology is the most incomplete section of the article. It is a small sample. Why is it so small?

Response 1:  Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, the line 198 - 241 you will find the description of the method; the method has the reason for the case study, also includes context, describes data collection and data analysis.

Clarify dimensions of the questionnaire and add the items of the questionnaire. It would be nice to be able to visualize the instrument.

Response 2: Agree. I have, accordingly, revised to emphasize this point. the dimensions of knowledge management were used, such as 1. information research, 2. information sources, 3. information managers, and 4. information storage, and secondly, the characteristics ease of use and perceived usefulness of mobile devices.

You can visualize the instrument: Microsoft Forms 

The results are not very significant. General conclusions are drawn for a case with a small sample. This section should be reviewed, and results should not be generalized.

Response 3: Agree. I have, accordingly, modified to emphasize the results and conclusions. The results describe the research findings are presented for each dimensions of information management (these dimensions involve mobile devices that can support the development of investigative skills among students of master's degrees in virtual environments). The conclusions were broadened.

 

In addition to the above comments, all spelling and grammatical errors pointed out by the

reviewers have been corrected.

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The research problem not' clear; thus, the authors' should to add new section about research problems and problem statement, and adapted the aim.

2. What is the difference between this study and previous studies; thus, the authors' should to explain more.

 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. The research problem not' clear; thus, the authors' should add new section about research problems and problem statement, and adapted the aim.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Although the format of the journal education science does not ask for a problem section, this was discussed in the introduction (line 68-75) and in the methodology (line 204-208) the research question was incorporate.

2. What is the difference between this study and previous studies; thus, the authors' should to explain more.

Response 2: agree with this and have incorporated your suggestion throughout the manuscript, and was emphasize in conclusions section, because the article is a perception about incorporating mobile devices in graduate students to strengthen their research skills.

In addition to the above comments, all spelling,  grammatical  and redaction errors pointed out by the reviewers have been corrected

 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks to the Authors and Editors of Education Sciences for the opportunity to read and review the manuscript of Research Skills For Information Management: Uses Of Mobile Devices In Research
I suggest a few changes. I provide more details below, which can hopefully of guidance to the Authors.
I wish them good luck with their work.

Suggestions:
1. The title of the article informs the reader of the subject matter. The reader will be informed about the skills needed to manage information and the opportunities for using mobile devices in research.
I suggest to change the second part of the topic to a more detailed one.
There are a lot of aspects in the manuscript related to learning with the use of technology in education, m-learning also the research is about students. I suggest (for example): Uses Of Mobile Devices In Research Training (academic research training ).

2. In my opinion Introduction and Theoretical Framework needs reformatting. The introduction contains information about the education system in Colombia – That is ok Then it is about knowledge society and problems of mobile learning in higher education. These two aspects should be related to research skills for information management. The Authors should mention why this aspect is important. These will increase the value of the manuscript.

Line 49 -52 Does the paragraph apply to researchers or students? Use terms with consistency.
Line 60-63 Device for learning or device for research?
Line 71 – 74 - The most important part of the introduction based on which the Authors should write an introduction to the topic

Theoretical Framework
The Theoretical Framework should start with the most important part: The Technology Acceptance Model. It should be developed using the most actual literature related to the use of technological innovations in student research education.

Then refer to m-learning and other topics covered, keeping the content consistent Emphasize what skills are needed in information management

Line 147

Online games - what kind of online games? what did the Authors have in mind?
It was about online virtual environment to simulate real word experiences. This study investigated how students perceived the usefulness of Second Life (SL) as a tool for teaching research methods to a doctoral-level qualitative research class.
It is not the same as online games.

3. Methodology
The study is about students not researchers.
Please use terminology consistently.

4. Discussion
Line 302-304 - is researchers or students?
Select the best of Your research and compare it to research skills for information management

Area 2010, Minciencias 2020 – missing in references

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the Authors and Editors of Education Sciences for the opportunity to read and review the manuscript of Research Skills For Information Management: Uses Of Mobile Devices In Research
I suggest a few changes. I provide more details below, which can hopefully of guidance to the Authors.
I wish them good luck with their work.

Suggestions:
1. The title of the article informs the reader of the subject matter. The reader will be informed about the skills needed to manage information and the opportunities for using mobile devices in research.
I suggest to change the second part of the topic to a more detailed one.
There are a lot of aspects in the manuscript related to learning with the use of technology in education, m-learning also the research is about students. I suggest (for example): Uses Of Mobile Devices In Research Training (academic research training ).

Response: Thank you for the message and the pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, the new title is “Research Skills For Information Management: Uses Of Mobile Devices In Research Training”

2. 
   In my opinion Introduction and Theoretical Framework needs reformatting. The introduction contains information about the education system in Colombia – That is ok Then it is about knowledge society and problems of mobile learning in higher education. These two aspects should be related to research skills for information management. The Authors should mention why this aspect is important. These will increase the value of the manuscript.

Line 49 -52 Does the paragraph apply to researchers or students? Use terms with consistency.

Response: Agree. I have, accordingly, changed from the line 49- 52 the word research for students

Line 60-63 Device for learning or device for research?

Response:   I agree with this and have incorporated your suggestion throughout the manuscript, because is the device for learning.

Line 71 – 74 - The most important part of the introduction based on which the Authors should write an introduction to the topic

Response: Agree. I have, accordingly, modified to emphasize the objective of the article (Line 71-74)

Theoretical Framework
The Theoretical Framework should start with the most important part: The Technology Acceptance Model. It should be developed using the most actual literature related to the use of technological innovations in student research education. Then refer to m-learning and other topics covered, keeping the content consistent Emphasize what skills are needed in information management

 

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. It would have been interesting to explore this aspect. However, in the case of our study the most important topic is the m-learning, this is the reason it appears first in theoretical framework.  Adjustments were also made to the wording for better understanding.

Line 147

Online games - what kind of online games? what did the Authors have in mind?
It was about online virtual environment to simulate real word experiences. This study investigated how students perceived the usefulness of Second Life (SL) as a tool for teaching research methods to a doctoral-level qualitative research class.
It is not the same as online games.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have a mistake, I have done changes in the paragraph:

3. 
   Methodology
   The study is about students not researchers.
   Please use terminology consistently.

 

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment.  I have a mistake, therefore, I have done changes in the article because the study is about students not about researchers

 

4. Discussion
   Line 302-304 - is researchers or students?
   Select the best of Your research and compare it to research skills for information management

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment.  I have a mistake, therefore, I have done changes in the article because the study is about students not about researchers

 

Area 2010, Minciencias 2020 – missing in references

Response: I agree with this and have incorporated your suggestion throughout the manuscript, because Marin et al. they are citing Area:

The reference Minciencias was included

In addition to the above comments, all spelling, grammatical and redaction errors pointed out by the reviewers have been corrected

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have not been able to view the instrument because the link does not appear.
It should be linked in the manuscript.
The other changes are correct.

Author Response

Response 1:  Sorry for the link was not appear. Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion.  I linked in the manuscript the instrument.

Hopefully you will find it good. Excuse me, please.