You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Hassan Abuhassna1,* and
  • Samer Alnawajha2

Reviewer 1: Noor Dayana Abd Halim Reviewer 2: Žolt Namestovski Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper was good. Very extensive systematic literature review was done. suggested to add scope and limitation for this study.

Author Response

thanks for the comments, I have extended the limitations. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of the study itself is interesting and current. The literature used is appropriate. 

Author Response

thank you very much for the comments 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, this paper provides a review of research on transactional distance theory papers where the theory has been combined with other theories.  As such it provides an original contribution to knowledge about the field of distance learning.

However, there are a large number of minor issues with the writing that need to be corrected.  

  1. In some places quantitative is used instead of ‘qualitative’ and this can make an important difference to the reader’s understanding, so please read through the paper and check that you are using the terms as you intend.  See, section 3.4 and section 
  2. The purpose of section 2 is not clear enough.
  3. In section 2, sentences 2 to 4 should be combined into a list.
  4. in section 3.1 it is not clear whether the review includes year 2000 as period stated as from 2001 to 2021 but excluded 1999 and 2022.
  5. The exclusion criteria seem incomplete.  While book chapters are excluded, did you also exclude theses, blogs and other types of materials?  Why only book chapters?
  6. the sentence “It led to the pursuit of knowledge” seems to be out of place on page 4.
  7. change “we’ll look” to “we looked”, p4.
  8. Clarify what happened to the 138 papers as it is not clear what were downloaded and examined in detail and what could not be downloaded?  What papers were extracted and what were downloaded, on page 4.  Would it be better to say the “we could not extract 47 out of 138 items”?
  9. Also clarify whether all authors reviewed all papers and if they agreed with the exclusion of papers.
  10. Figure 2 should have numbers that match those described in the text - update this figure.
  11. Don’t use acronyms before expanding them - see MLE on page 5.
  12. Is it “The Shaping, dwellings” or as later stated “shaping dwellings”?
  13. Figure 3 should be deleted as it does not add any further information to the statement of 69:31%
  14. When including percentages for the number of papers you are discussing round the figures, e.g. 69.048 could be rounded to 69%, or 83.333 to 83%.
  15. There is repeated use of the phrase “this study” when referring to papers in the review, p11.  Change this so that “this study” refers to your systematic literature review and not to a paper.  
  16. On page 7 there is an example, just before the table 2, but it is not clear what the example is of?
  17. Provide references to: Content Analysis p9; technology acceptance models p11 and p14.
  18. Figure 6 uses a line to show the number of papers from each country.  This is not an appropriate way to represent this data - a bar chart would be better.
  19. Section 3.6. is entitled “Future Agenda” but it appears to contain recommendations for distance learning from prior studies, and is not about future agenda. 
  20. Section 4.4 is entitled “type of samples” just like section 4.3.  Rename it.
  21. Section 4.4 uses some language that is not convincing or credible - “This groundbreaking discovery proves that future studies will focus on…”  This is too strong an expression.  Nothing is ever “proven” convincingly from a literature review and you cannot predict the future conclusively.  Future studies may focus on … but you cannot guarantee it.
  22. In several places “theme analysis” should be “thematic analysis”, see section 4.4, section 6 and table A1.
  23. Change “Mix” to “Mixed methods” in table A1.
  24. In section 5 “statistical component” should be renamed data analysis or something like that as it includes qualitative and quantitative analysis.
  25. The section 6 Limitations includes repeated sentences from section 4.4.  The same comments as above apply.  This section should reflect on the limitations of the study and include comments, e.g. about limiting the search to “English” only papers or the limited aspects of the paper compared.
  26. In section 7 “sample size” should be “sample” as the section discusses the type of sample not the size of the sample.  Also statistical analysis should be data analysis as includes statistical and qualitative analysis.
  27. There are a number of edits that need to be made to correct English spelling and grammar, as well as referencing.  As well as a grammar and spell check, also note that:
  • ‘distant’ should be ‘distance’ throughout the paper
  • ‘theoretical’ should be ‘theoretical’
  • do not use future tense
  • Many full stops in the wrong place.

Author Response

  1. In some places quantitative is used instead of ‘qualitative’ and this can make an important difference to the reader’s understanding, so please read through the paper and check that you are using the terms as you intend.  See, section 3.4 and section 

Thank you for the comment, we have done explain that.

  1. The purpose of section 2 is not clear enough.
  2. In section 2, sentences 2 to 4 should be combined into a list.

Thank you for the comment, we have added the table and added them as a list as suggested

  1. in section 3.1 it is not clear whether the review includes year 2000 as period stated as from 2001 to 2021 but excluded 1999 and 2022.

Thank you for the comment more exclusion criteria added to explain about 2000

  1. The exclusion criteria seem incomplete.  While book chapters are excluded, did you also exclude theses, blogs and other types of materials?  Why only book chapters?

Thank you for the comment more exclusion criteria added to explain about other material

 

  1. the sentence “It led to the pursuit of knowledge” seems to be out of place on page 4.

Thank for the comment, we removed It led to the pursuit of knowledge

  1. change “we’ll look” to “we looked”, p4.

Thank for the comment we corrected that

  1. Clarify what happened to the 138 papers as it is not clear what were downloaded and examined in detail and what could not be downloaded?  What papers were extracted and what were downloaded, on page 4.  Would it be better to say the “we could not extract 47 out of 138 items”?

Thank for the comment we have done that,

  1. Also clarify whether all authors reviewed all papers and if they agreed with the exclusion of papers.

Thank you for the comment we have added that.

  1. Figure 2 should have numbers that match those described in the text - update this figure.

Thank you for the comment, we have showed those numbers

  1. Don’t use acronyms before expanding them - see MLE on page 5.

Thank you for the comment we have added the full name of MLE

  1. Is it “The Shaping, dwellings” or as later stated “shaping dwellings”?

Thank you for the comment, we have corrected it

  1. Figure 3 should be deleted as it does not add any further information to the statement of 69:31%

Thank you for the comment, Figure 3 was deleted

  1. When including percentages for the number of papers you are discussing round the figures, e.g. 69.048 could be rounded to 69%, or 83.333 to 83%.

Thank you for the comment, done that

  1. There is repeated use of the phrase “this study” when referring to papers in the review, p11.  Change this so that “this study” refers to your systematic literature review and not to a paper.  

Thank you for the comment, done that

 

  1. On page 7 there is an example, just before the table 2, but it is not clear what the example is of?

The example is the study that studied TDT factors

  1. Provide references to: Content Analysis p9; technology acceptance models p11 and p14.

Thank you for the comment, done that

 

  1. Figure 6 uses a line to show the number of papers from each country.  This is not an appropriate way to represent this data - a bar chart would be better.
  1. Thank you for the comment, done that

 

  1. Section 3.6. is entitled “Future Agenda” but it appears to contain recommendations for distance learning from prior studies, and is not about future agenda. 

 

Thank you for the comment, done that

 

  1. Section 4.4 is entitled “type of samples” just like section 4.3.  Rename it.

 

Thank you for the comment, done that

 

  1. Section 4.4 uses some language that is not convincing or credible - “This groundbreaking discovery proves that future studies will focus on…”  This is too strong an expression.  Nothing is ever “proven” convincingly from a literature review and you cannot predict the future conclusively.  Future studies may focus on … but you cannot guarantee it.

Thank you for the comment, we have rephrased that

  1. In several places “theme analysis” should be “thematic analysis”, see section 4.4, section 6 and table A1.

Thank you for the comment, we have rephrased that

 

  1. Change “Mix” to “Mixed methods” in table A1.

Thank you for the comment, done that

 

 

  1. In section 5 “statistical component” should be renamed data analysis or something like that as it includes qualitative and quantitative analysis.

Thank you for the comment, done that

  1. The section 6 Limitations includes repeated sentences from section 4.4.  The same comments as above apply.  This section should reflect on the limitations of the study and include comments, e.g. about limiting the search to “English” only papers or the limited aspects of the paper compared.
  1. Thank you for the comment, done that

 

  1. In section 7 “sample size” should be “sample” as the section discusses the type of sample not the size of the sample.  Also statistical analysis should be data analysis as includes statistical and qualitative analysis.

 

Thank you for the comment, done that

 

  1. There are a number of edits that need to be made to correct English spelling and grammar, as well as referencing.  As well as a grammar and spell check, also note that:
  1. Thank you for the comment, done that

 

  • ‘distant’ should be ‘distance’ throughout the paper
  • Thank you for the comment, done that

 

  • ‘theoretical’ should be ‘theoretical’