Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is well-structured and innovative, providing original quantitative evidence of the impact of MIMI-based projects on the development of soft skills. It is grounded in a solid and comprehensive theoretical framework, supported by a clear and replicable methodology, and strengthened by the use of appropriate statistical analyses. The discussion of the findings is balanced and thoughtful, with a commendable acknowledgment of the study’s limitations.

Neverthless, the manuscript could benefit from some refinements. Certain sections would gain clarity and readability through more concise and fluid phrasing. Furthermore, the paper would be strengthened by the inclusion of more explicit practical implications for educators and institutions, highlighting how the findings can inform teaching practices or program design. Expanding the “future work” section to outline possible longitudinal studies or comparisons with alternative assessment methods would also enhance the scholarly value of the work.

Finally, an important limitation that deserves greater emphasis is the study’s exclusive reliance on self-assessment questionnaires. While self-reported data provide valuable insights, they are also prone to biases, such as overestimation or underestimation of abilities, social desirability effects, and inaccurate self-perceptions. Addressing this limitation more explicitly would contribute to a more critical and robust interpretation of the results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text is understandable, but some sections are overly verbose or repetitive. A light language edit could improve clarity, fluency, and academic style.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The choice to focus on transversal and future skills (communication, collaboration, critical thinking, creativity, etc.) fully responds to current labor market demands and to the need to integrate these skills for all students.

Below is a series of useful suggestions to improve the document:

A) Sources on future skills are constantly evolving, so it would be appropriate to include more references from 2024 and 2025. In addition, an anthropological framework could be added to support the concept of future skills; I am thinking of Edgar Morin, Yuval Noah Harari, Jeffrey Sachs, Luciano Floridi, Jean Luc Petit (and the idea of the Koinocene); of course, you may choose the authors you prefer. This is only to point out that transversal skills emerge from the anthropological need of humans to engage with a new world, a sort of infosphere. However, the international and interdisciplinary dimension of the project remains a clear added value. Therefore, if the authors do not wish to extend this general premise, the article is fine as it is.

B) It is recommended to explain to the reader what a SWOT analysis is, as it is certainly an excellent tool.

C) Attention to this point --> The choice of Table 1. The students’ responses to the basic questionnaire create a certain bias, as people tend to answer “yes.” It would have been better to use a Likert scale with 5 or 7 response options, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree,” with a neutral option in the middle. This would have allowed for more nuanced responses at this stage as well, not only later.

D) Small sample size –> it would be better to call it a pilot group or convenience sample.

E) Was a control group of students following a traditional educational path considered? This point is not entirely clear.

F) The exclusive use of self-assessment represents a methodological weakness; it is always preferable to compare reported behavior with actual behavior.

G) Is a follow-up planned? Is it foreseen after this study? More lines should be devoted to this topic in the conclusion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work presented is highly relevant to the field of study in which it is developed. But the structure of the paper needs to be improved for better dissemination.

For example, the abstract section should be structured as follows: two to three lines of introduction, one line of the study objective, one line of the methodology, two lines of results and one line of conclusions, and follow the indications of the journal template of up to 200 words.

Following the structure of the document, it should be IMRaD, where 1. Introduction, 2. State of the art, 3.

Thus in (3.) should be the research methodology, design, scope, level, approach, structure or procedural logic. What is in (3. Intensive project description) should be a sub-level of the methodology. Similarly, (4. KYSS survey) and (5. Assessment of project effects).

Results should include what is presented in (5.1. Category: communication) and try to make each sub-section at least half a page long, such as (5.8. Category: self reflection), which is only three lines long.

In addition, the structures of the document should be clearly identifiable, e.g. at the end of the introduction, the aim of the research should be clearly shown. The research questions and section structure that the reader will encounter when reviewing the document.

From the content on the other hand, there are several sentences that do not define quantities, ‘we have participated in several groups’, and in paragraphs that do not define or are expected to indicate quantities, they are very generalised.

For example: The participating 60 students and 10 lecturers met at one of the HEIs and represented different fields of study. How many fields of study, why not from other HEIs? The participants should be defined more clearly.

It should also be clearer when stating: ‘’Students were assigned to teams of 6 persons with members from the six participating HEIs and at least three disciplines", The explanation should be improved and the disciplines of three of how many possible?

In the section indicated (3. Intensive project description) at least one flow or sequence of processes being carried out or phases of work should be presented for a better understanding of the explanation they make. For example, the performance of pre-test and post-test, at what time or in what situation they were performed.

Additionally, the process of data collection and data analysis should be specified. This is why there should be a methodology section, which is not clearly evident.
On page 6 are the hypotheses that should have been at the end of the introduction or at the end of the state of the art or review of related work.

Line 261 states: ‘We present results for all categories independently’, try to use the third person and avoid saying ‘we’.

For example in 5.1. Category: communication, line 262, states ‘This category contains eight questions’, where are they?

Another situation is the explanation, for example: 5.5. Category: creativity. The category creativity contains six questions; we have proceeded the same way as in previous categories (see Fig. 5, Tab. 6).

But neither the graphs nor the table are explained, remember that when figures or tables are used they should explain in a paragraph, their content and indicate their variables or descriptions. In table 6 it seems that it is not right: σ (st. deviation), it can be S.D. according to what you want to indicate.

Also to arrive at a standard, for example in the tables it indicates: pre, post, but in the figures it indicates Pre test, and in the paragraphs it uses: pre- and post-tests, pre-test, pre- and post-event, pre-and post-tests, pre-event tests, pre-and post-survey, post-result minus pre-result, pre- and post-results.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Nothing new.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The abstract could already include some results from the project.
2. It should be avoided that parts of the title are repeated as keywords, so please adapt them. I do not understand the meaning/use of the keywords “intensive” and “international”, as they are not explored in the text. They are not analysed/discussed in the article. They are not the focus of the study.
3. Concise and relevant definitions. However, some of the bibliography is over 20 years old, so I would also suggest reading and referencing more contemporary authors.
4. The sample needs to be described more clearly (age, courses, etc.).
5. It is necessary to describe in more detail the common considerations and differences between the analysed categories of respondents. It is also necessary to make clearer links of opinion between different groups about the observed areas.
6. In addition to this conclusion, it is necessary to better study the literature and based on it (if not on the investigation experience), in the discussion analyse the possibilities from which the proposals will be presented in the conclusions.
7. Along with theapproach to teaching in soft and future skills in a short, intensive joint project, it is necessary to propose ways of evaluating and solving ethical dilemmas (e.g., based on the argumentation of students' attitudes) and outline proposals for evaluating the development of team competencies and project effectiveness (e.g., with the help of rubrics or other forms of criterion evaluation).
8. Adding a summary table of the different aspects could be helpful.
9. Line 117/118 - review the sentence.
10. It would be interesting to support the discussion with other studies that have already been carried out, otherwise the “Discussion” is nothing more than a summary presentation of the results, which is not the intention.
11. In conclusion, it would be interesting to reflect on the long-term impact of the project and what the outputs are for future projects.
12. Organise the article according to the journal's guidelines: Abstract; 1. Introduction; 2. Materials and Methods; 3. Results; 4. Discussion; 5. Conclusions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf