Review Reports
- John A. L. Meeuwsen1,*,
- Anastasia Kurysheva2 and
- Gönül Dilaver1
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall, a carefully crafted study and manuscript that was a delight to review.
- Line 142: 3 student success marks, are there other success marks they could investigate? (for future studies)
- Line 242: May be interesting to investigate the impacts of this mandatory selective admissions process on differences even further back in time (when did the lottery system begin?).
- Line 398: Should this be table 1? I don’t see a caption in the version I’m reading. May need to include caption below with clear title (table may need to be reworked).
Author Response
Please find our response attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
The manuscript's topic is very current and significant regarding the challenging issue of student admission procedures focused on the educational context of biomedical sciences, for which, unlike medicine education, there is significantly less literature. The manuscript also provides significant empirical data, based on which guidelines for fairer and more efficient admissions practices in higher education are presented.
The abstract is structured and contains a word count in accordance with the journal's guidelines for authors.
The introduction is coherent and easy to follow.
The theoretical background comprehensively presents the issues addressed by the manuscript. The subheadings of the sections, aligned with the research topic, contribute to a clear insight into the research topic, theoretical assumptions and results of previous studies.
The methods presented are robust and allow for replication of the study. A detailed description of the context and the two admission procedures is essential. Participants in the study, outcome measures and statistical analyses are very precisely described.
The results are clearly presented in tables and figures in the main text and supplementary material (Appendix A1-5), with adequate accompanying text.
The discussion is extensive, and the authors draw attention to many important questions raised by their research and the results of other authors. Moreover, they clearly indicate limitations that may affect the limited generalisation of the obtained data. At the same time, they indicate that future research should include a comprehensive collection and analysis of additional variables.
The conclusions are concise, well-argued, and based on research results. The references mentioned are relevant to the topic that the paper dealt with.
Although the manuscript is 31 pages long, reading it has aroused my interest in the methods you have used to obtain valuable empirical data. Also, the background, the way of presenting the results and the discussion are very valuable. I hope your research will serve as a basis and inspire researchers in other fields of higher education and other EU countries.
I have no suggestions for corrections.
Author Response
Please find our response attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see my comments in the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please find our response attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf