Next Article in Journal
Re-Thinking the “Problem” in Inquiry-Based Pedagogies through Exemplarity and World-Oriented
Previous Article in Journal
‘It Depends’: Technology Use by Parent and Family Educators in the United States
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Didactic Focus Areas in Science Education Research

Educ. Sci. 2019, 9(4), 294; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9040294
by Jarkko Lampiselkä 1,*, Arja Kaasinen 1, Päivi Kinnunen 1 and Lauri Malmi 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Educ. Sci. 2019, 9(4), 294; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9040294
Submission received: 24 November 2019 / Revised: 8 December 2019 / Accepted: 10 December 2019 / Published: 12 December 2019

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

LINE

COMMENTS

10

Write out before using acronyms

28

Mere is the wrong word for that sentence

29

“community, as a whole, …”

57

Awkward sentence (this allows to generate…”

66

Careful about being “alarmed” about a lack of specific research – many times it is funding driven.  May want less of an accusatory word and more surprised

67

All the research cited above? 

69

Citation needed

80

Write out entire acronym first

88

ISCED?  Remember that not all readers are from Europe and thus know they same acronyms.  You do write it out later, but it needs to be the first time it is used

286

I’m curious to know the percentage of presenters/research contributors from other continents.  Some “blind spots” may appear that are specific to that conference vs. other conferences in other countries.  This is a major “blind spot” for this study if you are trying to generalize it to the world vs. Europe

302

Remove better.  Besides making it an awkward sentence, since it is the authors it seems a bit much

Table 2

Change heading to “Example” if only one for each foci

377

Define free willing or rephrase

Table 3

Do the blanks indicate 0%?  If so, put that, otherwise it seems like it was forgotten or not done

Discussion

Careful with generalizing beyond the scope of this study and where you took the venues

 

 

Author Response

 

REVIEW 1. Responses

Thank you for your thoughtful comments and careful reading! We have made our best to clarify our text. The manuscript has been professional proof-read.

 

LINE

COMMENTS

10

Write out before using acronyms

OK, corrected.

28

Mere is the wrong word for that sentence

OK, corrected.

29

“community, as a whole, …”

OK, corrected.

57

Awkward sentence (this allows to generate…”

OK, corrected.

66

Careful about being “alarmed” about a lack of specific research – many times it is funding driven.  May want less of an accusatory word and more surprised

OK, good idea. Corrected.

67

All the research cited above? 

OK, corrected, there was a problems with the cited software and that caused a mistake.

69

Citation needed

OK, corrected.

80

Write out entire acronym first

OK, corrected.

88

ISCED?  Remember that not all readers are from Europe and thus know they same acronyms.  You do write it out later, but it needs to be the first time it is used

OK, corrected.

286

I’m curious to know the percentage of presenters/research contributors from other continents.  Some “blind spots” may appear that are specific to that conference vs. other conferences in other countries.  This is a major “blind spot” for this study if you are trying to generalize it to the world vs. Europe.

OK, this is a good idea for our future work!

302

Remove better.  Besides making it an awkward sentence, since it is the authors it seems a bit much.

OK, corrected, we clarified the expression. .

Table 2

Change heading to “Example” if only one for each foci.

OK, well noticed!

377

Define free willing or rephrase.

OK, we took off the concept “free willing”.

Table 3

Do the blanks indicate 0%?  If so, put that, otherwise it seems like it was forgotten or not done.

OK, well noticed! We added lines to the blank spaces.

Discussion

Careful with generalizing beyond the scope of this study and where you took the venues.

OK, we appreciate this comment. We edited this chapter.

Reviewer 2 Report

The content of the article is relevant for science education researchers.

The research questions are clear and well formulated and both the data collection and the data analysis procedures are well explained and adequate to the research.

Data is presented and discussed in a structured way.

Both the discussion and the recommendations are pertinent for science education researchers.

Author Response

REVIEW 2. Responses

 

The content of the article is relevant for science education researchers.

The research questions are clear and well formulated and both the data collection and the data analysis procedures are well explained and adequate to the research.

Data is presented and discussed in a structured way.

Both the discussion and the recommendations are pertinent for science education researchers.

Thank you for your kind comments!

Back to TopTop