The Future of Higher Education: Identifying Current Educational Problems and Proposed Solutions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the paper is actual. This paper analyses the existing problems in the higher education system and presents several cases in which universities solve some of these problems. 

There are some recommendations that can improve the scientific soundness of the paper:

1) the aim of the paper should be precisely identified in the section Introduction as well as the research questions;

2) the comparisons with previous studies should be made in the Discussion section to confirm the significance of the current paper; now it is not clear enough how you contributed

3) theoretical and practical implications should be added in the Discussion section.

 

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

1) the aim of the paper should be precisely identified in the section Introduction as well as the research questions;

We value this suggestion, and accordingly, we have added precise and clarifying text in the abstract (lines 6–10) and introduction (lines 209–215).

 

2) the comparisons with previous studies should be made in the Discussion section to confirm the significance of the current paper; now it is not clear enough how you contributed 

Thank you for this. New text has been added to clearly state comparisons to previous studies and significance of our contribution in the Discussion section starting 721.

3) theoretical and practical implications should be added in the Discussion section. 

We've added a subsection, §4.1, of the discussion section to address this.

Reviewer 2 Report

It was my pleasure to review your manuscript entitled “the future of higher education: identification of educational limitations and proposed solutions" and advise you to prosper your current research project. In my view, your topic has touched on a critical issue in a fascinating context. However, there are many spaces to be improved in terms of argumentation, theoretical background, research method, and findings. I hope my below comments would help you develop your work into groundbreaking research in your domain.

1. The abstract should indicate the innovation of the work. Also, at the beginning of the abstract, an explanation should be given about the title and then talk about the research method.

2. The introduction should clearly illustrate (1) what we know (the key theoretical perspectives and empirical findings) and what we do not know (major, unaddressed puzzle, controversy, or paradox does the study address, or why it needs to be addressed and why this matters) and (2) what we will learn from the study, and how the study fundamentally changes, challenges, or advances scholars' understanding. Much sharper problematization is required so that the introduction draws the reader into the paper. At the end of the introduction, we should have a clear idea of what the paper is about (i.e., its motivation, the gap in understanding that the paper is trying to address, and a summary of theoretical contributions).

Paragraph 3 explains what we need to find out.

Paragraph 4 explains briefly what this paper will do to find out, the method, etc.

Paragraph 5, with no references, explains the structure of this paper.

3. This is one of the most critical parts of the paper that found lacking detail.

The method should be adequately described to show how the research was conducted to improve clarity and transparency.

What were the reasons for using the method?

Please explain more about analyse.

4. In the discussion section, for each case study that you have identified separately, the results should be written, what effects it has on the main result?

5. The conclusion shows the final results of your research (you need a conclusion for your research). Also, the conclusion should be revised to highlight the aims of the study, summarize the finding, and the significance and usefulness of the study.

Please clarify what are the theoretical and practical contributions of your research.

6. Using the following references could be beneficial as these add more evidence to the literature review section:

Exploring the relationship between internationalization and entrepreneurial university: the mediating effect of education (University of Tehran, Sharif University of Technology, and Tarbiat Modares University). Iranian Journal of Management Studies. doi: 10.22059/ijms.2022.334673.674845

Towards the third generation of universities with an entrepreneurial approach. International Journal of Technoentrepreneurship, 4(2), 122-133.

 

 

Summary

The study presented an important topic. However, the research does not match what is wanted in its current form. It is missing a level of detail needed to understand the study result, the impact of the results, and the research contribution. Perhaps the authors are likely close to the topic they are skipping over details that they know, but the reader would not.

Overall, the paper requires more information and focus.

*The paper is suffering from a fluent language. Some parts of the paper are not understandable due to bad English.

 Best of luck with the further development of the paper.

Author Response

1) The abstract should indicate the innovation of the work. Also, at the beginning of the abstract, an explanation should be given about the title and then talk about the research method. 

We thank Reviewer 2 for this which will substantially improve the paper; we have added precise and clarifying text in the abstract.

2) The introduction should clearly illustrate (1) what we know (the key theoretical perspectives and empirical findings) and what we do not know (major, unaddressed puzzle, controversy, or paradoxdoes the study address, or why it needs to be addressed and why this matters) and (2) what we will learn from the study, and how the study fundamentally changes, challenges, or advances scholars' understanding. Much sharper problematization is required so that the introduction draws the reader into the paper. At the end of the introduction, we should have a clear idea of what the paper isabout (i.e., its motivation, the gap in understanding that the paper is trying to address, and a summary of theoretical contributions). 
Paragraph 3 explains what we need to find out.

Paragraph 4 explains briefly what this paper will do to find out, the method, etc.
Paragraph 5, with no references, explains the structure of this paper.

 

This organizational scheme is much better, and we have implemented it with section headings and specifically addressed these points throughout the introduction.

 
3) This is one of the most critical parts of the paper that found lacking detail.
The method should be adequately described to show how the research was conducted to improve clarity and transparency.

This has been addressed within the supplementary materials.

What were the reasons for using the method?  Please explain more about analyse. - 

This is explained in additions to §2, Materials and Methods, as well as in the SM.

4) In the discussion section, for each case study that you have identified separately, the results should be written, what effects it has on the main result? 

This has been addressed within the supplementary materials.

 

5) The conclusion shows the final results of your research (you need a conclusion for your research). Also, the conclusion should be revised to highlight the aims of the study, summarize the finding, and the significance and usefulness of the study.
Please clarify what are the theoretical and practical contributions of your research. 

We have revised the Conclusions to include this.

6. Using the following references could be beneficial as these add more  

 

Exploring the relationship between internationalization and entrepreneurial university: the mediating effect of education (University of Tehran, Sharif University of Technology, and Tarbiat Modares University). Iranian Journal of Management Studies. doi:10.22059/ijms.2022.334673.674845

Towards the third generation of universities with an entrepreneurial approach. International Journal of Technoentrepreneurship, 4(2),122-133. 

 

We regret our inability to incorporate these. We attempted to access these articles through three different university library systems in the US and Canada and they were not in any of those collections, nor available through interlibrary loan. We emailed the corresponding authors of these papers requesting copies and did not receive a response.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author(s)

Hope you are doing well. According to the review of this article, the corrections have been made.

Good luck