Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents a valuable study of educational innovation in Portugal, focusing on two school clusters implementing innovation plans (AE_X and AE_Y). The topic fits well within the scope of Education Sciences, as it addresses how schools respond to national policy reforms and the challenge of transforming the traditional “grammar of schooling.”

The manuscript shows several strengths. The theoretical framing is solid and engages with both Portuguese and international literature. The research design is appropriate for the questions asked, and the authors clearly describe their data collection procedures.  However, the table that lists the data collection techniques and objectives (Table 1), although it is helpful, should show how each method connects to the research questions. This would make the study design easier to follow and demonstrate how each source of data contributes to answering the main questions.

The results section is not equally strong for both schools. The first school (AE_X) is described in detail, with good examples of leadership, teamwork, and school culture. The second school (AE_Y) has much less information because fewer people took part in the study. This makes it hard to compare the two schools or draw wider conclusions. The authors do mention this problem, but they should explain more clearly why there were fewer participants at AE_Y and how that affects the reliability and meaning of their findings.

The analysis focuses mainly on describing what happened in each school, but it would be stronger if it were more interpretive. Instead of just reporting what participants said or what was observed, the authors should explain why these findings matter, what they reveal about school innovation, and how they relate to existing theories or previous research. A more interpretive analysis would show deeper understanding and help readers see the broader meaning of the results.

The English is generally good, but the paper would benefit from some language editing. Many sentences are very long and complex, which makes some parts difficult to read. At times, the writing sounds overly edited or polished, which can make the ideas harder to follow. A careful review to shorten sentences and make the wording clearer would improve the overall flow and readability.

No ethical issues or plagiarism were detected. The study appears original and well conducted.

 

Author Response

Comments 1: "the table that lists the data collection techniques and objectives (Table 1), although it is helpful, should show how each method connects to the research questions. This would make the study design easier to follow and demonstrate how each source of data contributes to answering the main questions."

Response 1: We agree with this comment. This change can be found - page 3, line 124-125. 

 

Comments 2: "The second school (AE_Y) has much less information because fewer people took part in the study. This makes it hard to compare the two schools or draw wider conclusions. The authors do mention this problem, but they should explain more clearly why there were fewer participants at AE_Y and how that affects the reliability and meaning of their findings."

Response 2: We agree with this comment. This change can be found - page 21, line 800-804. 

 

Comments 3: "Instead of just reporting what participants said or what was observed, the authors should explain why these findings matter, what they reveal about school innovation, and how they relate to existing theories or previous research. A more interpretive analysis would show deeper understanding and help readers see the broader meaning of the results."

Response 3: We agree with this comment. This change can be found - page 27, line 1033-1037. 

 

Comments 4: "The English is generally good, but the paper would benefit from some language editing. Many sentences are very long and complex, which makes some parts difficult to read." 

Response 4: We agree with this comment and are committed to reviewing the text. This change can be found - page 8, line 300-305. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is a valuable and timely contribution, clearly structured and relevant to current discussions on educational innovation and collaboration. The use of a case study is a strength, providing in-depth insights. However, some revisions are needed: overly long sentences should be shortened, minor typographical errors corrected, and certain archaic expressions simplified. Methodological details such as sample selection and data analysis should be clarified, and the discussion strengthened by clearer links to existing literature. Conclusions would benefit from being more explicitly grounded in the results, with practical recommendations for teachers, school leaders, and policymakers. 

Author Response

Comments 1: "Methodological details such as sample selection and data analysis should be clarified"

Response 1: We agree with this comment. This change can be found - page 4-5; line 145-150

 

Comments 2: "Conclusions would benefit from being more explicitly grounded in the results, with practical recommendations for teachers, school leaders, and policymakers."

Response 2: We agree with this comment. This change can be found - page 26; line 1017-1022

 

Comments 3: "overly long sentences should be shortened, minor typographical errors corrected, and certain archaic expressions simplified." 

Response 3: We agree with this comment and are committed to reviewing the text. This change can be found - page 8, line 300-305.