Strengthening ECEC Workforce Systems in Low-Resource Contexts: Insights from a Delphi Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations on an interesting study and well written paper. This was easy to read and addresses some important issues for LMICs. 

My only suggestion is that you use some alternate keywords in the keywords section under the abstract in order to optimise your search functions. Use words other than what is in the abstract and/or title and it really helps people to search for your work.

I look forward to seeing this published.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your supportive comments and helpful suggestion about revising the keywords. That is very helpful advice!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-structured and cogently written paper that will be of interest to ECEC professionals and policy makers. The focus on the needs of LMICs is timely and the methodological clarity of this paper provides confidence in its results and the author(s) arguments.

There are a small number of minor revisions I suggest the authors make. These are just points at which my eye 'tripped' over the content and I had to back-track to establish clarity:

- 'LMIC' is introduced as an abbreviation (line 53) without prior use of the full term

- the segue to SECD (at line 113) wasn't clear. I suggesting starting this paragraph with 'For example, ...'

- I would have liked to see a little more about the ethical protocols for the study in the Materials and Methods section. Was the study subject to ethics approval by a governing institution? How were confidentiality and de-identification managed, for example?

- At the start of the Results section we are told there are 'four key sections' but only three headings are then provided.

- I didn't understand what was meant by 'shared learning' (line 262).

- 'curricular' (line 330) should be 'curricula'

- section 3.1.4 is headed Teaching Materials but in the para that follows there is repeated reference to 'teaching methods'

- I wasn't sure why 'debate' (at line 379) was in quotation marks. What are the authors trying to convey here?

- 'training for at national level' (line 460) was confusing; do the authors perhaps mean 'training at a national level'? Or 'training for the national level'?

- the Darling-Hammond citation (line 525) is incomplete

Notwithstanding these minor points, the paper makes a valuable contribution to understanding the needs of ECEC systems that are the least resourced but it greatest need of development. I commend the authors for the persuasiveness of this study.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your very careful reading of this article. We are very grateful for your identification of several errors. Thank you also for your encouraging comments on our work.

 

• 'LMIC' is introduced as an abbreviation (line 53) without prior use of the full term.

Thank you - we have revised this as suggested.

• the segue to SECD (at line 113) wasn't clear. I suggesting starting this paragraph with 'For example, ...'

Thank you - we have revised this as suggested.

• I would have liked to see a little more about the ethical protocols for the study in the Materials and Methods section. Was the study subject to ethics approval by a governing institution? How were confidentiality and de-identification managed, for example?

Thank you - we have added this detail (from line 247-252).

• At the start of the Results section we are told there are 'four key sections' but only three headings are then provided

Thank you, you are correct - we have revised this sentence to refer to three sections.

• I didn't understand what was meant by 'shared learning' (line 262).

Thank you - we have revised the sentence to clarify that we are referring to the three groups covered in the study  (education, health and community-based practitioners).

• 'curricular' (line 330) should be 'curricula'

Thank you - we have revised this as suggested.

• section 3.1.4 is headed Teaching Materials but in the para that follows there is repeated reference to 'teaching methods'

Thank you very much for noting this error - we have revised the paragraph to refer to 'materials'.

• I wasn't sure why 'debate' (at line 379) was in quotation marks. What are the authors trying to convey here?

Thank you - we have removed the quotation marks.

• 'training for at national level' (line 460) was confusing; do the authors perhaps mean 'training at a national level'? Or 'training for the national level'?

Thank you - we have revised this as suggested.

• the Darling-Hammond citation (line 525) is incomplete

Thank you - the citation is now complete.