Factors Influencing University Teachers’ Technological Integration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors

It is a pleasure for me to review your article. I will gladly give you the relevant indications so that it can be accepted and published, and I hope you will receive them with love and consideration.

Regarding citations, I kindly ask you to review the whole document and delete "cf" or "number of pages of citations". Citations in the body of the text should have only the number that corresponds to the citation.

For example, on line 27, 31, 91, 92, 116, 174, and so on. Check the entire citation to eliminate the mention of pages or "cf".

Regarding your theoretical framework and some of the claims made I would like to suggest that you review some additional studies. I provide you with some DOI: 10.4159/9780674030107 or 10.3389/feduc.2022.916502 consider these studies and the research used in your theoretical framework as they are reviews of the literature pertaining to the field of study, where you also cite many others that might change your mind or better support your research. Consider including some for topicality and international perspective.

Although your methodology is understood, I would like to see a more complete description of the tools and items in the questionnaire. Are you going to add this as additional material and is it posted on a web repository? I invite you to do so and include or mention it in the document.

You also need to relate what the research said prior to your study to the results obtained. Whether it refutes it, rejects it or adds any substantial value.

With these adjustments, your text would be publishable for me and I would be happy to see the final version of it.

Sincerely yours, a reviewer and researcher like you.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Thank you for your kind and constructive suggestions, which have helped us to improve our article. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

Comments 1:

Regarding citations, I kindly ask you to review the whole document and delete "cf" or "number of pages of citations". Citations in the body of the text should have only the number that corresponds to the citation. For example, on line 27, 31, 91, 92, 116, 174, and so on. Check the entire citation to eliminate the mention of pages or "cf".

Response 1:

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have deleted the page numbers and "cf" from line 27, 31, 91, 92, 116, 137, 165, 171, 173, 402, 492, 499, 518.

Comments 2:

Regarding your theoretical framework and some of the claims made I would like to suggest that you review some additional studies. I provide you with some DOI: 10.4159/9780674030107 or 10.3389/feduc.2022.916502 consider these studies and the research used in your theoretical framework as they are reviews of the literature pertaining to the field of study, where you also cite many others that might change your mind or better support your research. Consider including some for topicality and international perspective.

Response 2:

Thank you for the suggestion, the study 10.3389/feduc.2022.916502 has been included in subsection 2.1 of the literature review, as reference item [16].

Comments 3:

Although your methodology is understood, I would like to see a more complete description of the tools and items in the questionnaire. Are you going to add this as additional material and is it posted on a web repository? I invite you to do so and include or mention it in the document.

Response 3:

Agree. We have, accordingly, added the questionnaire items to the manuscript embedded in Appendix B.

Reviewer 2 Report

Good and important research on the topic of the factors that influence university teachers technological integration. Paper is well structured. Literature review is based dominantly on papers before pandemic.  There is no mention when the research was done nor survey taken, so it is not clear if the survey was done after pandemic and teachers  opinion in the survey is the one with experience in use of ICT during pandemic, or it was done before pandemic. This should be certainly clarified as it is related to the research and particularly to the survey analysis.

Paper is targeting university teachers and in literature review were used papers and research related to school teachers or pre-service teachers. So it would be good to state that the presented research papers, where appropriate, are not directed towards university teachers but teachers in general.

Overall very interesting research and presenting results.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

Comments 1:

There is no mention when the research was done nor survey taken, so it is not clear if the survey was done after pandemic and teachers opinion in the survey is the one with experience in use of ICT during pandemic, or it was done before pandemic. This should be certainly clarified as it is related to the research and particularly to the survey analysis.

Response 1:

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have indicated on page 8 that the research was conducted in 2022, 1 year after the pandemic.

Comments 2:

Paper is targeting university teachers and in literature review were used papers and research related to school teachers or pre-service teachers. So it would be good to state that the presented research papers, where appropriate, are not directed towards university teachers but teachers in general.

Response 2:

Agree. We have, accordingly modified Chapter 2 to emphasize this point.