Machiavellianism, Lying, and Motivation as Predictors of Academic Performance in Romanian Engineering Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the invitation to peer review this manuscript. This is an outstanding study and the presentation of the findings is logical. A few items require attention.

1. On pages 3-4, Academic performance is explored in WoS. Was this something you did? How does this support your study? How did you arrive at the cluster conclusion, and what settings did you use in WoS? Each of these clusters needs a reference.
2. In the discussion section, I encourage the authors to summarize the results for each hypothesis. 
3. On page 22, a dedicated section on implications should be included along with the limitations, starting from the second paragraph. 
4. To strengthen the manuscript, AI and cheating are a hot topic. I encourage the authors to expand the implications section and consider providing future directions in the conclusion.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive comments regarding our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you invested in reviewing our work and for the insightful suggestions, which have helped us to improve the clarity, depth, and overall quality of the article. Your feedback has been extremely valuable, and we have addressed each point with great care and attention.

Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to your comments.

1. „On pages 3-4, Academic performance is explored in WoS. Was this something you did? How does this support your study? How did you arrive at the cluster conclusion, and what settings did you use in WoS? Each of these clusters needs a reference.”

Thank you for your thoughtful observations. Indeed, the bibliometric analysis using VOSviewer was conducted by the authors as a preliminary exploratory step to map the research landscape on "academic performance" in the last five years. The goal was to understand the dominant conceptual areas and to better position our study within the existing literature.

We now provide a clearer explanation of the method used, including the search query, inclusion criteria, and VOSviewer parameters.

 

1. „In the discussion section, I encourage the authors to summarize the results for each hypothesis. ”

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We agree that summarizing the results for each hypothesis in the Discussion section improves clarity and reader understanding. In response, we have added a concise paragraph that explicitly revisits each of the five hypotheses (H1–H5) and states whether it was supported or not by the data. This summary appears at the beginning of the revised Discussion section.

 

1. „On page 22, a dedicated section on implications should be included along with the limitations, starting from the second paragraph. ”

Thank you very much for this valuable suggestion. In response, we have restructured the Discussion section to improve clarity and coherence. Specifically, we divided it into three distinct subsections:

• 5.1. Summary and Interpretation of Hypotheses – which offers a concise synthesis of the results for each hypothesis tested in the study;
• 5.2. Practical Implications – a newly added section that discusses the educational, psychological, and institutional implications of the findings;
• 5.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions – which outlines the study’s constraints and offers suggestions for future research.

We believe this structure enhances the accessibility and relevance of the discussion and responds directly to your recommendation.

 

1. „To strengthen the manuscript, AI and cheating are a hot topic. I encourage the authors to expand the implications section and consider providing future directions in the conclusion.”

We appreciate this timely and insightful suggestion. In response, we have expanded subsection 5.2. Practical Implications to include a focused paragraph on the role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in academic contexts. We discuss both the risks and opportunities associated with AI use in relation to student behavior and ethics. Furthermore, we added a forward-looking statement in the Conclusion section that addresses the need for constructive integration of AI in education, particularly in our geographical region where current trends suggest a tendency toward avoidance or restriction. This addition aligns with the study's emphasis on promoting ethical, self-regulated, and intrinsically motivated learning.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please find the attached review report for your reference.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please find the attached review report for your reference.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive comments regarding our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you invested in reviewing our work and for the insightful suggestions, which have helped us to improve the clarity, depth, and overall quality of the article. Your feedback has been extremely valuable, and we have addressed each point with great care and attention.

Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to your comments.

1. „The abstract should include not only the research methodology but also specific numerical results to allow readers to clearly understand the findings of the study.”

Thank you for this observation. In response, we have revised the abstract to include both the key elements of the research methodology (instruments, sample size, statistical tests) and the most relevant numerical results (correlation coefficients and regression outcomes). We believe this update improves the clarity and informativeness of the abstract for potential readers.

2. „The title of the paper is somewhat long and descriptive; it should be revised to be more concise while still specifying the target group (e.g., Romanian engineering students).”

Thank you for this suggestion. We agree that a more concise title improves readability and focus. Accordingly, we have revised the title to clearly reflect the core variables and target population, while maintaining clarity and scientific relevance.

3. „Although the introduction presents the significance of the research variables and briefly mentions the research questions, the logical flow is somewhat In particular, the research aim, questions, and hypotheses—which are currently presented in Section 2.4— should be clearly stated within the introduction. Presenting them in Section 2.4 is unconventional, and the current version is overly lengthy. A complete restructuring of the introduction is necessary for clarity and conciseness.”

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We agree that the research aim, questions, and hypotheses should be clearly presented within the Introduction. Accordingly, we have moved this content to the end of the Introduction section, where it now follows a clear and logical structure: central research question, aim, specific questions (Q1–Q3), and hypotheses (H1–H5).

To ensure coherence, the former Section 2.4 has been removed, and its content was integrated seamlessly into the end of Section 2.3, which now concludes the theoretical foundation. We believe this restructuring improves the clarity and academic flow of the manuscript, in line with your recommendation.

4. „2. Literature In Section 2.1 (p. 2), the paper introduces Jean-François Decker’s three psychological resources using a numbered list format as follows:

“Jean-François Decker suggested that several psychological resources are involved in achieving individual performance [9,10]:

Motivation – the strong desire to achieve goals; Beliefs – belief in success and in one’s own abilities;

Willpower – the conscious decision to achieve goals…”

However, this type of numbered listing is more commonly found in lecture materials or reports rather than in academic journal articles. Considering the logical flow and formal tone expected in academic writing, this section should be rewritten as continuous prose or as an integrated paragraph. Similar instances of this formatting issue appear elsewhere in the manuscript (e.g., Figure 1 and throughout pp. 5, 9, 13, 16 etc.), and the authors are advised to revise all such occurrences accordingly.”

Thank you for pointing out this formatting issue. We acknowledge that numbered lists are not typically used in academic manuscripts and may interrupt the formal flow of the text. In response, we have revised the section referring to Jean-François Decker by converting the numbered list into continuous prose, better aligned with the expected academic tone. Additionally, we have carefully reviewed the manuscript for similar formatting instances and revised them accordingly to ensure consistency and adherence to academic standards.

5. „Section 1: Literature Review on Academic Performance and Figure 1

The authors attempt to demonstrate the vast scope of research on academic performance by citing the number of studies indexed in Web of Science (approximately 49,000) and Google Scholar (approximately 5.9 million), and by presenting a visualization generated using VOSviewer. While this effort is understandable, such quantitative references have little direct relevance to this study’s core research questions and instead risk diverting the reader’s attention from the main focus of the paper. In particular, Figure 1 presents only general keyword clusters (e.g., instruction, relationship) and lacks direct connection to the theoretical framework of this study (e.g., the MUSIC model, Machiavellianism, lying tendencies). Given the limited interpretability and minimal contribution of this figure to the reader’s understanding, it would be more appropriate to either remove it from the main text or relocate it to the appendix as supplementary material.”

We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful observation regarding the limited relevance of Figure 1 to the study’s core theoretical framework. Although our intention was to offer a broader bibliometric perspective on the research field of academic performance, we acknowledge that the visualization may not directly support the central hypotheses or variables of this study. In response to your suggestion, we have relocated Figure 1 to the Supplementary Materials section (now labeled as Supplementary Figure S1) to avoid distracting them from the main narrative. The in-text reference has been updated accordingly. We thank the reviewer for helping us improve the focus and clarity of the manuscript.

6. „Placement of Research Aims, Questions, and Hypotheses (Section 4)

Research aims, questions, and hypotheses are conventionally presented at the end of the introduction. Including them in Section 2.4 is unconventional and disrupts the logical flow of the paper.”

Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the structure of the manuscript. We fully agree that presenting the research aims, questions, and hypotheses at the end of the introduction is a more conventional and effective approach. In response to your suggestion, we have revised the manuscript accordingly: the content previously found in Section 2.4 has been integrated at the end of the Introduction section to ensure a more coherent and logical flow for the reader. We appreciate your guidance in improving the clarity and organization of the paper.

7. „Justification for the Selection of Study Participants

• Although this study was conducted with a sample of Romanian engineering students (n = 706), the paper does not provide theoretical or practical justifications for selecting this particular population. If there is a specific reason why engineering students are particularly relevant for analyzing the relationships among Machiavellianism, lying tendencies, academic motivation, and academic performance, it should be clearly stated in the introduction or research design section to address potential concerns about the study’s validity and
• Conversely, if engineering students were chosen without a clear theoretical or practical rationale, this may suggest arbitrariness in participant selection, thereby weakening the study’s design. Moreover, since the main variables under investigation (e.g., Machiavellianism, academic motivation, lying tendencies) are psychological and behavioral constructs that are not limited to any specific academic discipline, the rationale and scope of using engineering students as a single population must be clarified. The paper should also include a discussion of the limitations of the sample and its implications for external validity in the discussion section.”

Thank you for this detailed and thoughtful comment. We agree that a clear justification for participant selection, as well as a discussion of its limitations, is essential for strengthening the study’s design and transparency. In response, we have made the following revisions:

• In Section 3.1 (Participants), we have added a paragraph clarifying that the present study is part of a larger international research initiative, which includes students from various disciplines. Due to the substantial amount of data collected, we chose to focus this analysis on engineering students, a group that was both accessible to the authors and relevant for the study's broader aim of informing educational strategies in technical disciplines. The competitive and performance-driven nature of engineering education also makes this population particularly suitable for examining traits such as Machiavellianism and attitudes toward dishonesty.
• In the Discussion section, we have included a paragraph addressing the limitations related to external validity. Specifically, we acknowledge that the findings, while informative, may not generalize to students in other academic fields or cultural contexts. We also recommend that future research expand to more diverse academic populations to strengthen the applicability of the results.

8. „Section 1: Participants and Data Collection Period”

• „This study states that data were collected from a total of 706 engineering students via an online survey, with the data collection period spanning from 2018 to 2025. However, this seven-year collection period raises several critical concerns.”
• „First, changes in the socio-educational context over time—particularly the COVID-19 pandemic, the expansion of online learning, shifts in assessment methods, and recent developments such as the use of ChatGPT—may have had substantial impacts on students’ motivation, ethical awareness, and academic Although the study adopts a cross- sectional design, the extended time span introduces the risk of time-based bias.”

Thank you for highlighting the potential risk of time-based bias due to the extended data collection period. We fully agree that contextual factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the transition to online learning, and the emergence of AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT) may have influenced students’ academic motivation and ethical attitudes. Although all participants completed the same instruments under comparable survey conditions, we acknowledge that broader socio-educational changes could have impacted their responses. We have addressed this limitation explicitly in the revised Discussion section, where we note that this temporal variability may affect the interpretation of results and should be considered in future research designs.

• „Second, the lack of uniformity in external conditions—such as the platforms used for instruction, the survey administration environment, and the teaching staff involved—likely compromises the homogeneity and consistency of the Therefore, additional explanation is necessary, along with an account of whether any control variables were used to mitigate such variability.”

Thank you for this important observation regarding potential inconsistencies in the instructional context. To clarify, all participants completed the survey individually and online, outside of scheduled class hours, using a standardized digital format with identical instructions and item structure. We have added a paragraph in Section 3.3 explaining this consistent data collection procedure. While variations in teaching staff and learning platforms may have occurred across academic years, no control variables were included for instructional setting, as the study focused on individual psychological constructs rather than instructional factors. We now acknowledge this as a limitation in the Discussion section.

• „Third, the indication that data were collected until 2025 is somewhat It is unclear whether the data collection truly extended through 2025 or if only a small portion of responses from early 2025 were included. A more precise description is required to clarify the actual endpoint of data collection.”

Thank you for highlighting the ambiguity regarding the endpoint of data collection. We have revised Section 3.1 to specify that data collection was conducted between October 2018 and March 2025. This clarification distinguishes the final phase of data collection and improves the temporal transparency of the study.

• „In sum, the authors should provide a year-by-year breakdown of data collection, justify the extended data collection period, and consider narrowing the analysis to responses collected within a more homogeneous time frame to improve sample consistency and validity.”

Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the extended data collection period. As part of a larger research effort spanning several academic years, data were collected annually between 2018 and 2025. To evaluate the potential impact of this time frame, we conducted statistical comparisons across academic cohorts. These analyses did not reveal significant differences in the main variables (e.g., motivation, Machiavellianism, lying attitudes, performance), so we opted to retain the entire dataset to maintain statistical power and enhance generalizability. This methodological choice is now explained in Section 3.3, and a corresponding limitation has been added to the Discussion section to transparently acknowledge the potential influence of unmeasured contextual factors over time.

• „Furthermore, in addition to reporting participants’ gender, age, and year of study (Section 1), it is essential to include detailed information about their specific engineering majors (e.g., mechanical engineering, information technology, civil engineering). Such academic background differences can lead to varying learning experiences, assessment formats, and motivational structures, which are crucial for interpreting the results and assessing the study’s reliability and generalizability.”

Thank you for your thoughtful observation. We have now added in Section 3.1 a detailed description of the students’ academic programs, which include Engineering and Management in Mechanical Field, Industrial Engineering and Management, Transport and Traffic Engineering, as well as master’s programs in Industrial Business Management and European Project Management. To address potential concerns regarding sample heterogeneity, we conducted preliminary analyses to examine differences in the main variables across these academic tracks. The results showed no statistically significant differences, and therefore the data were analyzed as a unified sample. This clarification has also been noted in the Discussion section as part of the study’s limitations.

• „Notably, approximately 25% of the participants are senior undergraduates or graduate students. This raises concerns about sample consistency, as ‘university students’ was defined as the study population. Motivation, learning outcomes, and psychological variables may differ significantly depending on academic level. In particular, graduate students often have distinct educational experiences and academic goals compared to undergraduates. Including such heterogeneous groups in a single analysis may compromise the clarity and validity of the To address this issue, the authors should consider treating degree level as a control variable or conducting separate analyses for each subgroup.”

Thank you for pointing out this important distinction. In our context, both undergraduate and master’s students are formally classified as university students, which may have led to a lack of clarity in our original wording. We have now revised the phrasing in Section 3.1 to explicitly distinguish between undergraduate and graduate-level participants. Additionally, we conducted statistical analyses comparing these two groups and found no significant differences in the main variables. Nevertheless, we acknowledge this potential heterogeneity as a limitation, now mentioned in the Discussion section.

9. „Section 3: Methods

The Lie Questionnaire contains a relatively small number of items and appears to mix conceptually distinct categories. Therefore, additional explanation regarding its construct validity is necessary.”

Thank you for this valuable observation. We recognize the importance of addressing construct validity, especially when dealing with a conceptually complex behavior such as lying. As noted in Section 3.2, the Lie Attitude Questionnaire demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.728), which supports its interpretability in this context.

Furthermore, we acknowledge that the instrument includes a mix of items reflecting different domains of dishonesty (e.g., social desirability, rule breaking, and self-protection). This multidimensional nature is consistent with other validated measures of lying behavior. For example, the Lying in Everyday Situations Scale (LEiSS) developed by Hart et al. (2021) also structures items across distinct categories such as antisocial lies, white lies, exaggeration, and prosocial lying. We now briefly mention this parallel in Section 3.2 to support the use of the current scale.

10. „Section 4: Results

The presentation and interpretation of results are repetitive, and there is a lack of clear distinction between findings and their interpretation. Section 4 should focus solely on reporting the results, while Section 5 should provide interpretation and discussion of the findings in relation to the research questions and hypotheses. Moreover, information regarding effect sizes should be explicitly stated.”

Thank you for your valuable observation regarding the structure of the Results and Discussion sections. We agree that clearer separation between findings and their interpretation improves the overall clarity of the manuscript.

To address this, we have reorganized the content as follows: the subsection originally labeled 4.5 (Exploring the Relationships Between Machiavellian Tendencies, Lying, Motivation, and Academic Performance) has been relocated to the beginning of Section 5 (Discussion).

Thank you for your suggestion regarding effect sizes. In response, we have explicitly clarified in Section 3.4 that effect size indicators such as Spearman’s rho and adjusted R² are reported alongside significance values. For non-parametric analyses, group comparisons are contextualized through mean rank differences, which help reflect the magnitude and direction of observed effects.

11. „Section 4.2. The description of results lacks sufficient specificity. Presenting relative frequencies of responses in Figures 2 and 3 is unnecessary; instead, it is more appropriate to report item-level scores, percentages, or other quantitative indicators.”

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the clarity of the result presentation. In response, we have added a paragraph reporting item-level descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) in Section 4.2. To streamline the presentation and avoid redundancy, Figures 2 and 3 were moved to the Supplementary Materials section, where they remain available for reference.

12. „Although the manuscript states that the interpretation followed Professor Jones’s guidelines, it does not specify which criteria were applied. If these guidelines are essential to the study, the relevant benchmarks (e.g., threshold values for motivation levels, score interpretation methods) should be clearly summarized and presented.”

We appreciate this helpful comment. To clarify the interpretation process, we have now specified the threshold values used in accordance with Professor Jones’s scoring guidelines. Specifically, we have included a brief summary of the criteria for interpreting motivation levels based on average scores across the MUSIC scales. This information has been added to Section 3.3.1 to guide readers in understanding the reported values.

13. „Sections 3 and 4.4

The detailed item-level responses of the survey scales are presented in Figures 5, 6, and 7; however, these visualizations are unnecessary. It is more conventional and effective to present the means, standard deviations, and results of significance tests (e.g., gender differences) in a concise tabular or textual format.”

Thank you for your suggestion. In response, we have supplemented the narrative with clear and concise descriptive tables (see Tables 1, 2,  and 3), including means, standard deviations, and sample sizes, in accordance with academic reporting conventions.

At the same time, we chose to retain the visual representations in the main text because they illustrate aspects that are not always fully evident in tabular form. These figures enhance interpretability, especially for readers with a preference for visual information, and support a multimodal communication approach that has gained recognition in educational research.

We have ensured that each figure is directly referenced and explained in the accompanying text, keeping the overall presentation balanced and informative.

14. „Section 5.1

To clearly convey the relationships between variables, it is standard practice to present correlation coefficients in a table format, which also enhances the transparency of statistical interpretation.”

We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable suggestion regarding the presentation of correlation coefficients. In response, we have introduced a dedicated table (Table 4) in Section 4.5.1/ 5.1.1, which presents the Spearman’s rho correlations between Machiavellianism and the five MUSIC model dimensions. This tabular format enhances the clarity, transparency, and interpretability of the reported results, as recommended.

15. „Sections 5.2 and 4.5.3

There appears to be a conceptual confusion between correlation analysis and regression analysis in the interpretation of results. For example, when discussing the correlation results for Hypotheses H2 and H3, the use of terms like “regression line” suggests a misunderstanding of the analytical method employed. Correlation analysis indicates the rank- based association between variables, but it does not provide evidence of causality or predictive power. Therefore, the description of results should be adjusted to use appropriate terms such as “association” or “relationship.” Additionally, the interpretation of regression lines shown in Figures 9 and 10 should be expressed with greater caution, reflecting the non- causal nature of the underlying correlation analysis.”

Thank you for your valuable observation regarding the conceptual distinction between correlation and regression analyses. We acknowledge that the previous wording may have caused confusion about the statistical methods employed. To address this, we have revised the text to clearly specify the type of analysis conducted in each case.

Specifically, we now state that simple linear regression analysis was used to test Hypothesis H2 (academic motivation – lying) in Section 5.1.2, and Hypothesis H3 (Machiavellianism – lying) in Section 5.1.3. In both cases, we included tables reporting the regression coefficients (both standardized and unstandardized), significance levels, and the explained variance (R²), in order to enhance the clarity and transparency of the results.

We hope these revisions adequately address your concern and contribute to the methodological rigor and clarity of the paper.

16. „Sections 4.5.4 – 4.5.5. In relation to Hypotheses H4 and H5, the study employs multiple regression analysis to identify predictors of academic However, the interpretation of regression coefficients and discussion of practical significance are lacking. For instance, while Machiavellianism is reported as a statistically significant predictor, the regression coefficient (β = 0.0107) is extremely small, suggesting that its actual impact may be minimal. It is insufficient to merely report statistical significance; a critical discussion of the interpretive implications and potential educational applications of the findings is necessary.”

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments regarding the interpretation of regression coefficients and the importance of discussing practical significance. In response, we have revised Sections 5.1.4 and 5.1.5 to better clarify the meaning and impact of the regression results.

For Section 5.1.4, we acknowledged that some predictors—although statistically significant—have relatively small, standardized coefficients (e.g., Machiavellianism), and we explicitly discussed their limited practical relevance. The interpretation has been rephrased accordingly to avoid overstating the findings, and the bar chart (Figure 11) was retained to offer a visual understanding of the relative strength of predictors.

For Section 5.1.5, we clarified that the regression model incorporating interaction terms revealed gender as a significant predictor, with female students generally obtaining higher academic performance. Additionally, the marginally significant interaction between gender and motivation was highlighted as potentially meaningful, and we added a final sentence discussing the possible practical implications of this effect. Specifically, we suggested that gender-sensitive strategies aimed at enhancing student motivation might improve learning outcomes, particularly in engineering education.

We hope these adjustments meet the reviewer’s expectations and contribute to a clearer and more balanced interpretation of our regression findings.

17. „In Section 4.5.5, the regression model including interaction terms for H5 yields a relatively low explanatory power (R² = 0.069), indicating that the model explains only a small portion of the variance in academic performance. Nevertheless, the manuscript focuses solely on interpreting the results without acknowledging this The limited explanatory power of the model must be explicitly stated, and greater caution should be exercised in interpreting the findings. This limitation should also be clearly addressed in the discussion section.”

We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We fully acknowledge that the regression model tested in Section 4.5.5, although statistically significant, had limited explanatory power (adjusted R² = 0.069). As suggested, we have now explicitly addressed this limitation in the discussion section. A sentence has been added to acknowledge the modest variance explained and to emphasize the need for caution in interpreting the findings. We have also suggested that future studies incorporate additional variables to better capture the complexity of academic performance predictors.

18. „Presentation of Tables in Section 4: Although this study reports the use of various statistical analyses—including simple regression, multiple regression, and PROCESS macro model 7—it does not present a single table summarizing the numerical results. This is highly unusual for an academic article. To enhance clarity and comprehensibility, the statistical findings should be organized into clearly structured tables.”

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion regarding the organization of statistical results. In response, we have revised the Results section and included structured tables summarizing the outcomes. These tables were added in accordance with the recommendations provided in the previous comments and are intended to enhance both the clarity and interpretability of the findings. We hope this improved structure better aligns with academic standards and expectations.

19. „A visual representation of the research model should be provided at the end of the However, rather than relying solely on Figures 2–12, the manuscript should include tables summarizing precise statistical values, such as regression coefficients, standard errors, and p- values. In academic writing, it is standard practice to present results in tables and use figures only as complementary visuals. Therefore, it is recommended that the authors include summary tables (e.g., Table 1, Table 2) containing the main statistical outputs and consider either supplementing or replacing most figures accordingly.”

We thank the reviewer for highlighting the importance of including a visual representation of the research model. In response to this suggestion, we have created and inserted a conceptual diagram at the end of the Introduction (now Figure 1). This figure illustrates the core variables of the study—academic motivation, Machiavellianism, and lying behaviors—as predictors of academic performance, as well as the moderating role of gender. The structure also integrates the key statistical methods employed (e.g., multiple linear regression, interaction effects, PROCESS Model 7) in a visually accessible manner.

We hope this visual aid enhances the clarity and coherence of the research design.

20. „Section 5: Discussion

The discussion section is somewhat lengthy and contains repetitive narrative descriptions, which obscure the key points. A more concise and focused summary centered on the main findings is needed. Additionally, the distinction between practical implications and theoretical contributions is unclear and should be articulated more explicitly.”

Thank you for your insightful observation regarding the structure of the Discussion section. We have revised the entire content to reduce repetition and enhance clarity. The analysis has been reorganized into a series of subsections dedicated to each hypothesis, offering a more focused and concise discussion of the main findings. Additionally, we have explicitly separated the theoretical implications (subsection 5.2.1) from the practical implications (subsection 5.2.2) to more clearly reflect the study’s contributions.

21. „References and In-Text Citations

Please revise all references and in-text citations to fully comply with the formatting guidelines of the target journal, Education Sciences.”

Thank you for your observation. We have carefully reviewed all references and in-text citations and have revised them to ensure full compliance with the formatting guidelines of Education Sciences.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Most of the comments have been adequately addressed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Most of the comments have been adequately addressed.