The Role of Second Language Reading Proficiency in Moderating Second Language Word Recognition

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thanks for the interesting paper.

The literature review is quite complete. However, the review provides few fresh sources of literature. You should add the latest work of the last 5 years of release.

Research questions are formulated.

The study sample is 165 people. Why do the authors consider this amount sufficient for the research and conclusions?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for your comments. Please see the attachment for our response letter.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Overall Impression:

   •  
   • The manuscript contributes valuable insights into the word recognition strategies of Chinese EFL learners with varying reading proficiencies. With some revisions for clarity and more detailed explanations of results, the study has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to the field of second language acquisition.

2. General Comments:

   1. Clarity and Structure:

      • The manuscript is generally well-structured with a clear introduction, methodology, results, and discussion sections.
      • However, some sections could benefit from improved clarity in the presentation of findings.

   2. Introduction:

      • The introduction effectively outlines the research questions and the significance of the study.
      • It would be helpful to provide more context on the existing literature related to L2 word recognition and processing strategies.

   3. Methodology:

      • The methodology is adequately described, and the use of mixed-factorial ANOVA is appropriate for the research questions.
      • Consider providing more details on participant characteristics, such as language background and proficiency levels.

   4. Results:

      • Descriptive statistics are well-presented in Table 1, providing a clear overview of the measures for different proficiency groups.
      • The results of the ANOVA analyses are reported, but some interpretations are brief. Consider providing more detailed explanations for key findings.

   5. Figures and Tables:

      • Figure 1 is informative, but the labels could be more readable. Ensure that axes labels and legends are clear.
      • Tables 2, 3, and 4 are informative but might benefit from additional explanations or captions to guide the reader.

   6. Discussion:

      • The discussion provides a thorough interpretation of the results, linking them to existing literature.
      • Consider discussing potential implications for language instruction or further research in the field.

3. Specific Comments:

   1. Phrasing and Grammar:

      • Some sentences are lengthy and complex. Consider breaking them down for easier comprehension.
      • Carefully proofread the manuscript for minor grammatical errors and typos.

   2. Consistency:

      • Ensure consistency in terminology, especially in the presentation of results and discussion of findings.

   3. Future Directions:

      • Include a brief section on potential future research directions to encourage further exploration of the topic.

   4. Conclusion:

      • The conclusion could be strengthened by summarizing key findings and reiterating their significance.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for your comments. Please see the attachment for our response letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors edited the text in accordance with the comments of reviewers