Future Potentials for International Virtual Exchange in Higher Education Post COVID-19: A Scoping Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI think that the subject of the paper and the research methodology are appropriate. However, I do not think that the authors provide sufficient analysis of the resources to be useful, and unfortunately, this means that the article as written reads mostly like an annotated bibliography. The thematic analysis does not critically engage with the literature, and just summarizes the authors' conclusions. It would make for a stronger manuscript if the authors of this paper addressed the strengths/limitations of the reviewed articles and perhaps look for some emerging themes across the literature. It seems a little surprising that the authors identified 304 initial articles, and yielded only 21 for the final study, which suggests that the literature related to COIL and virtual exchange is still not very robust.
Given that most of the research included in this manuscript focused on COIL/virtual exchange during the pandemic, it would be useful for the authors to address how this is relevant for a period of resumed mobility. Specifically, do these findings give insights as to the direction of virtual exchange/COIL post-pandemic?
Finally, as a minor suggestion, the Findings section is a little confusing to read. I suggest that the authors use a chart to illustrate all of the characteristics of the articles, such as Table 2 and Table 3.
Author Response
|
Comment |
Response |
|
|
Reviewer 1 |
I think that the subject of the paper and the research methodology are appropriate. However, I do not think that the authors provide sufficient analysis of the resources to be useful, and unfortunately, this means that the article as written reads mostly like an annotated bibliography. |
We have added additional information on the purpose of a scoping review in the article to address this critique. |
|
The thematic analysis does not critically engage with the literature, and just summarizes the authors' conclusions. It would make for a stronger manuscript if the authors of this paper addressed the strengths/limitations of the reviewed articles and perhaps look for some emerging themes across the literature. |
We have made significant changes and edits in this section of the paper to add additional details relating to emerging themes and how they influence application of international virtual exchange going forward. This was also carried over into the discussion. |
|
|
It seems a little surprising that the authors identified 304 initial articles, and yielded only 21 for the final study, which suggests that the literature related to COIL and virtual exchange is still not very robust. |
It is not unlikely that this occurs for scoping reviews. Development of formal search strings at times involves terms that can be used in different contexts or across different fields that might not be applicable to the specific study. This is mitigated through the abstract and title review. Even still, the inclusion and exclusion criteria can indicate further delimitation in the full text review. We inserted a sentence in section 2.2 highlighting this note from the reviewer to clarify. |
|
|
Given that most of the research included in this manuscript focused on COIL/virtual exchange during the pandemic, it would be useful for the authors to address how this is relevant for a period of resumed mobility. Specifically, do these findings give insights as to the direction of virtual exchange/COIL post-pandemic? |
We have tried to address this in our rewrite of the themes and discussion sections of the paper. |
|
|
Finally, as a minor suggestion, the Findings section is a little confusing to read. I suggest that the authors use a chart to illustrate all of the characteristics of the articles, such as Table 2 and Table 3. |
Additional visual illustrations were created to illustrate beyond the text in the findings section. |
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The proposed topic is topical and important.
2. The research methodology is described and adequately capitalized during the research.
3.To increase the quality of the comparative analysis of the data, it would be useful if in Table 2 and Table 3 a last line with the sum of the obtained results was inserted.
4. It would be useful for the conclusions to be additionally supported with data from the specialized literature that confirm/deny them (if they have been identified) or that open new opportunities for the development of research on the topic.
2.
Author Response
| Comment | Response | |
|
To increase the quality of the comparative analysis of the data, it would be useful if in Table 2 and Table 3 a last line with the sum of the obtained results was inserted. |
While this is not a quantitative study, which would have sums in the tables, we added this line in all of the tables of the paper to honor the reviewers request. |
|
|
It would be useful for the conclusions to be additionally supported with data from the specialized literature that confirm/deny them (if they have been identified) or that open new opportunities for the development of research on the topic. |
Please see additional details added to the thematic analysis and discussion sections. |
