Study to Live or Live to Study: The Link between Social Role Investment and Academic Success in First-Year Higher Education Students
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article made good research about an interesting topic. However, there are some problems that need to be noticed.
Abstract: The abstract is a little too long. The author is suggested to simplify the content of this part and just leave the main ideas and information about the research.
Introduction: Is para 5 about your research result? If yes, you may need to learn more information about what you should write in each part of the article.
2.1 para 3: I can not figure out what this paragraph is talking about. What is your basis for those expressions in para 3? Besides, many other expressions in the article do not have references. The para 3 of 2.1 is just an example.
I noticed that the titles of 2.1 and 2.2 were the same. Did the two parts discuss the same topic? If yes, you may need to integrate the two parts appropriately; if not, you may need to use more clear and appropriate words and phrases to be the title. Besides, what is the role of these two parts? It is a little unclear. Maybe you need to reorganize the construction of these parts to make the logic more clear.
2.3: I am sorry that I can not see Figure 1. Is it lost due to some technical problems?
4 Analysis and discussion: This part is too long without any subtitles. Adding some subtitles according to appropriate standards is suggested to enhance the readability.
5 final mark: I can not see the part about the limitations of this article and implications for future research.
References: The format of the reference has some problems. You are suggested to recheck them carefully.
The article made good research about an interesting topic. However, there are some problems that need to be noticed.
Abstract: The abstract is a little too long. The author is suggested to simplify the content of this part and just leave the main ideas and information about the research.
Introduction: Is para 5 about your research result? If yes, you may need to learn more information about what you should write in each part of the article.
2.1 para 3: I can not figure out what this paragraph is talking about. What is your basis for those expressions in para 3? Besides, many other expressions in the article do not have references. The para 3 of 2.1 is just an example.
I noticed that the titles of 2.1 and 2.2 were the same. Did the two parts discuss the same topic? If yes, you may need to integrate the two parts appropriately; if not, you may need to use more clear and appropriate words and phrases to be the title. Besides, what is the role of these two parts? It is a little unclear. Maybe you need to reorganize the construction of these parts to make the logic more clear.
2.3: I am sorry that I can not see Figure 1. Is it lost due to some technical problems?
4 Analysis and discussion: This part is too long without any subtitles. Adding some subtitles according to appropriate standards is suggested to enhance the readability.
5 final mark: I can not see the part about the limitations of this article and implications for future research.
References: The format of the reference has some problems. You are suggested to recheck them carefully.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your useful and relevant suggestions. The revision of the manuscript has made it more scientifically robust and more easily readable. Thank you very much.
Following your suggestions major revisions were made to the manuscript. We think it is now shorter, but also clearer and more concise. We also feel that the overall quality of the article has been considerably improved.
The abstract has been shortened, simplifying the content of this part. The main ideas and information about the research have been retained.
Paragraph 5 of the Introduction on the results of the research has been removed.
Paragraph 3 of point 2.1 has been rewritten to make it clearer and references from the literature have been added.
The title of point 2.2 has been changed to: The imbalance between youth and student life. This made the difference between the two parts clearer. The texts have also been revised accordingly.
Following your suggestions major revisions were made to the manuscript. We think it is now shorter, but also clearer and more concise. We also feel that the overall quality of the article has been considerably improved.
In the revision process, figure 1 no longer makes sense, as well as table 1.
The analysis and discussion has been revised and also shortened, but prioritising conciseness and scientific rigour.
References to the limitations of this paper and the implications for future research have been included in the endnote.
The format of the references has also been carefully revised.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper had scientific quality, but it should be improved in, at least, two specific topics.
1. Clarify, from the beginning, that this study was conducted pre-Bologna (as stated for the first time only in lines 405-406). Several years have gone by, therefore, it is necessary to justify why authors believe the data is still up to date.
2. Results clearly show how the four quadrants are based on the students' study methods, time management and strategies to cope with the evaluation process, but not how they are also based on their backgrounds. Please enhance the evidence for this conclusion.
The text is difficult to read as it seems to have been directly translated from the authors' mother language to English. An English revision by a translator is advised.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your useful and relevant suggestions. The revision of the manuscript has made it more scientifically robust and more easily readable. Thank you very much.
Following your suggestions major revisions were made to the manuscript. We think it is now shorter, but also clearer and more concise. We also feel that the overall quality of the article has been considerably improved.
We must clarify that the study was carried out post-Bologna, although by mistake it was not what had been mentioned.
The reference has been corrected.
The reference to the exploration of the students' background has also been added.
Reviewer 3 Report
O artigo explana sobre a vida do aluno do ensino superior e como esse aluno concilia sua vida acadêmica e profissional. A pesquisa cria quatro dimensões: viver para estudar, estudar para viver, estudar sem viver e viver sem estudar. A pesquisa é inédita e original. No entanto, a figura proposta na página 5 não aparece. A pesquisa explicita o nome dos entrevistados conforme consta nas páginas 10 e 11. Sugiro uma revisão, pois não está claro se a pesquisa foi aprovada pelo comitê de ética. Assim, é necessário revisar os dados da pesquisa. As figuras inseridas na obra estavam desfiguradas, sugiro revisá-las e refazê-las. Nas observações finais, sugiro inserir pesquisas futuras com base nesta e também nas limitações do trabalho.
Author Response
Agradecemos a sua revisão. As suas contribuições foram extremamente úteis para tornar o artigo mais interessante e com maior qualidade.
O artigo foi revisto e excluímos figuras e as tabelas, nomeadamente a figura proposta na página 5. As figuras que se mantiveram foram revistas.
De referir que todos os nomes dos estudantes usados neste manuscrito são fictícios e que o seu anonimato foi preservado. O procedimento metodológico foi aprovado pela comissão institucional de ética para a investigação. Este tema foi clarificado no manuscrito.
Nas observações finais, foram inseridas referências às pesquisas futuras com base nesta e também nas limitações do trabalho
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
It has been improved based on suggestions.
It has been improved based on suggestions.
Reviewer 3 Report
The work responded to the objectives proposed by the research and the requested adjustments were also made.
