Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is well-conceived, carefully executed, and data is appropriately analyzed. It is well-written and easy to follow with robust descriptions of the quantitative analysis. 

I would like to see more information on how the principals were chosen for interviews. There are no definitions or supporting information to define high or moderate levels of "transformational skills." And were there no principals with low levels of skill, or is there some reason those were excluded?

The implications and suggestions for future research are appropriate and clearly delineated. 

Author Response

Reviewer 1 Response

 

Comment 1: I would like to see more information on how the principals were chosen for interviews. There are no definitions or supporting information to define high or moderate levels of "transformational skills." And were there no principals with low levels of skill, or is there some reason those were excluded?

 

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the comment. Therefore, we addressed this comment in the Materials and Methods Section (3.1), page 6, second paragraph of the section (see text highlighted in red).

 

Thank you for helping us to improve the manuscript. Your help is greatly appreciated.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript presents a valuable and timely contribution to the study of school leadership, specifically within the context of Cyprus’s centralized education system. The integration of transformational and transactional leadership under the Full-Range Leadership Model (FRLM) is well-conceived and theoretically grounded. The explanatory sequential mixed-methods design adds methodological robustness and provides a nuanced understanding of how leadership practices relate to principal effectiveness.

Strengths:
The paper is commendably structured, and the literature review is extensive and current, offering a rich theoretical background. The use of both quantitative (SEM) and qualitative (thematic analysis) techniques strengthens the overall credibility and allows for triangulation of findings. The discussion clearly connects empirical results to broader debates in educational leadership and policy. The authors also succeed in situating the Cypriot case within the wider international literature, highlighting its relevance for smaller and centralized systems.

Areas for improvement:

1. Theoretical Contextualization:
   While the FRLM is well presented, the introduction could more explicitly position the study within recent theoretical debates—particularly regarding integrated leadership models that combine transformational, instructional, and distributed approaches. This would further emphasize the originality of the work.

2. Research Questions and Hypotheses:
   The research objectives are clear, but the hypotheses could be stated more explicitly, preferably at the end of the Introduction, to guide the reader through the subsequent analysis.

3. Depth of Qualitative Interpretation:
   The qualitative findings are rich but would benefit from deeper interpretative commentary linking participants’ voices to the conceptual dimensions of transformational leadership (e.g., how specific quotes illustrate or contradict the FRLM factors).

4. Integration of Phases:
   The connection between the quantitative and qualitative phases could be made more explicit in the Discussion. A short section on “Integration of Findings” would strengthen the explanatory sequential logic and reinforce the coherence of the mixed-methods design.

5. Clarity and Conciseness:
   Some paragraphs in the Literature Review and Discussion are lengthy and could be slightly condensed to improve flow and readability, without losing the analytical depth.

6. Language and Style:
   The English language is generally very good, though some sentences could be revised for concision and stylistic refinement. Occasional minor grammatical or syntactical adjustments (e.g., article use and transitions) would further enhance clarity.

Conclusion:
Overall, this is a well-conceived and competently executed study that meaningfully contributes to understanding transformational leadership in education. With greater integration between the empirical strands and minor language refinements, the paper has strong potential for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear Authors,

The English is fine and does not require significant improvement, only light polishing for flow and precision.

Author Response

Reviewer 2 Response

 

Comment 1:  While the FRLM is well presented, the introduction could more explicitly position the study within recent theoretical debates—particularly regarding integrated leadership models that combine transformational, instructional, and distributed approaches. This would further emphasize the originality of the work.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the comment. Therefore, we addressed this comment in the Introduction Section, page 2 (see text highlighted in red).

 

Comment 2: The research objectives are clear, but the hypotheses could be stated more explicitly, preferably at the end of the Introduction, to guide the reader through the subsequent analysis.

Response 2: We agree with the comment. Therefore, we addressed this comment in the Introduction Section, page 2 (see text highlighted in red).

 

Comment 3: The qualitative findings are rich but would benefit from deeper interpretative commentary linking participants’ voices to the conceptual dimensions of transformational leadership (e.g., how specific quotes illustrate or contradict the FRLM factors).

Response 3: We agree with the comment. Therefore, we addressed this comment in the Results Section (Section 4.2), pages 11-12 (see text highlighted in red).

 

Comment 4: The connection between the quantitative and qualitative phases could be made more explicit in the Discussion. A short section on “Integration of Findings” would strengthen the explanatory sequential logic and reinforce the coherence of the mixed-methods design.

Response 4: We agree with the comment. Therefore, we addressed this comment in the Discussion Section, page 14 (see text highlighted in red).

 

Comment 5: Some paragraphs in the Literature Review and Discussion are lengthy and could be slightly condensed to improve flow and readability, without losing the analytical depth.

Response 5: We agree with the comment. Therefore, we made changes in the text. We deleted a number of sentences in both sections in order to address this comment (see, for example, the last two paragraphs of Section 2.1, pages 3-4).

 

Comment 6: The English language is generally very good, though some sentences could be revised for concision and stylistic refinement. Occasional minor grammatical or syntactical adjustments (e.g., article use and transitions) would further enhance clarity.

Response 6: We read the manuscript very carefully, made corrections and used a language corrector tool.

Thank you for helping us to improve the manuscript. Your help is greatly appreciated.