Mapping Problems and Approaches in Educational Governance: A Systematic Literature Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFirstly, this is an important study, particularly as the term "governance" frequently appears in global agendas but remains conceptually ambiguous. Here are some suggestions that may enhance the clarity and consistency of the paper:
- Timeframe of the SLR: To strengthen the impact of the study, consider extending the review period to cover publications from 2019 through mid-2025. This would allow the inclusion of the most recent research, which may reflect important developments in governance thinking and practice in public schools and avoid an `out-of-date` publication.
- Scope of included literature: Please clarify whether international, peer-reviewed journal articles were included in the review.
- Paragraphs: Some paragraphs are quite short and could benefit from being expanded or integrated with related content to improve flow and readability.
- Abbreviations: Ensure all abbreviations are written out in full the first time they are introduced in the text for clarity.
- PRISMA guidelines: Check that all aspects of the PRISMA guidelines listed in Section 2 are appropriately aligned with the subsections in Section 2 to maintain transparency.
- Figure 1: Figure 1 is well-designed and effectively summarizes the methodology. It’s a strong visual aid that enhances comprehension.
- Section 3.2 – Methodological frameworks: The research problems and themes discussed in Section 3.2 appear closely related to the conceptualization of "governance." Consider framing them as part of the conceptualization of `governance`.
- Conclusion and limitations: For clarity and ease of reading, it would be helpful to separate the conclusion and limitations from the Discussion and Conclusions Section into distinct sections.
- Referencing: Please ensure consistency in the referencing style, such as the appropriate use of "and" vs. "&." Additionally, some in-text references are missing from the reference list, including sources like Bulgrin & Semedeton and Gamedze & Ruiters. All cited works should appear in the reference list.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Kind regards.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study is grounded in current translanguaging theory and links this to issues of equity and inclusion. The methodology is appropriate and ethically sound, and the thematic analysis is well-developed and clearly presented. The manuscript is well-written and logically structured, with a clear progression from theory to findings and implications.
However, several areas would benefit from further development to meet the standards of Education Sciences and MDPI’s emphasis on transparency, open science, and practical applicability. These are outlined below.
-
Expand the leadership theory section to include relevant conceptual frameworks and clarify how findings contribute to or challenge these models.
-
Consider adding a conceptual or analytical diagram to synthesize key theoretical concepts.
-
Provide more detail on coding procedures, including examples and analytic strategies, and address how trustworthiness was ensured.
-
Discuss the implications of the sample composition in greater depth, especially regarding generalizability.
-
Include a summary table of themes and sub-themes for enhanced clarity.
-
Enhance the conclusion by offering specific, actionable recommendations for both school leaders and policymakers.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Kind regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article deals with the problem of educational governance and aims to map the trends in research in the last five years through a systematic literature review.
The steps undertaken are well-documented, and the analyzed articles are transparently listed in the appendix. Despite the lack of explanation for their selection, the three chosen databases are relevant for educational research. Also, it is not transparent why only the five years.
In the theoretical part, we were missing a theoretical framework of analysis and the actual debate on educational governance, so the analytic approach in the second part can be better understood.
In the analysis section, it is not clear how the categories of analysis were derived.
Generally, the article gives the impression of a limited analytic and interpretative power, despite multiple analytic categories. For instance, it is not clear what aspects of governance are covered at the school level compared to the system level or what levels of concern and autonomy can be identified. Which aspects of governance pertain to the teacher level, and why?
What are the findings of previous literature reviews on this topic, and what new insights does this systematic review provide? Based on what data, analyzing the last five years, it can be concluded that there are “persistent research gaps” (L733)?
There are also surprising interpretations (L712-713): the fact that there are more terms used in relation to governance means that there is a terminological inconsistency, in the authors’ view, not that there are different types of governance.
All in all, the article gave me more the feeling of a technical exercise than of a scientific paper that brings together consistent information about school governance.
We would like to invite the author(s) to make more informative interpretations based on the data they extract from the analysis’s articles so we can identify theoretical and practical implications for the different educational actors of the presented findings.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Kind regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll feedback from the authors is highly appreciated, and the changes were made appropriately.
Author Response
We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for thoughtfully engaging with our manuscript and for recognizing our revisions. We truly appreciate your acknowledgment of the changes we made, and we are pleased that the improvements have met your expectations. Your feedback has been crucial in enhancing the clarity, coherence, and overall contribution of the study.
With warm regards and gratitude.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents a timely and relevant topic because educational governance is increasingly central in understanding how policy, leadership, and institutional practices evolve in education systems worldwide. The paper emphasises the fragmentation and multidimensionality of the concept, making the SLR especially valuable. It presents a clear use of PRISMA methodology and a structured thematic analysis using Braun and Clarke's framework. It offers a sophisticated understanding of how governance is theorised (with five distinct analytical traditions). It demonstrates academic maturity in handling complex debates.
Some improvements can be made before the final submission:
Some paragraphs, especially in Sections 3.3 and 4, are overly long and conceptually dense and difficult to read.
The conclusion does not recap the main findings, connect them to broader implications, or explicitly highlight policy/practice contributions. It would be important to add a concluding section that draws out the key implications for: Educational researchers, policymakers, school leaders and future research agendas
While qualitative depth is evident, the authors acknowledge that only one mixed-method and one quantitative study were included. It is important to reinforce this limitation or propose targeted future reviews on quantitative governance studies.
Terms like “meta-governance,” “policy assemblage,” or “data performativity” are used effectively but would benefit from succinct definitions in footnotes or in-text.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
