Review Reports - How Do Creativity and Social Support Affect the Resilience of Mediterranean University Students? A Cross-National Study in the Post-Pandemic Period

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author(s),

I hope you are doing well. Thank you for your submission. I appreciate the time you put into this manuscript.

Please see the following suggestions to increase the quality of this manuscript:

General

· Please proofread for format issues and ensure you use a consistent style and language throughout the manuscript.

Abstract

· The current abstract contains convoluted sentences and could benefit from clearer, more concise language.

· It lacks specificity regarding the measures used to assess creativity, social support, resilience, and other variables. Including this information would give readers a better understanding of the study's design and validity.

· The abstract briefly mentions the results but could provide more detail on the specific findings related to the predictors of resilience.

· Please avoid speculative language and focus on presenting empirical evidence and conclusions based on the study's findings.

· The abstract briefly mentions the importance of promoting creativity in educational settings and the significance of social relationships for young adults. However, it could expand on the practical implications of the study's findings for educators, policymakers, and practitioners working with university students during times of crisis.

Introduction

· It’s not clear what your conceptual framework for creativity is.

· Lines 145-146, you mentioned, “There is a lack of studies that have examined the resources of university students during the pandemic.” If you use a database such as ERIC, you can find hundreds of research studies on this topic. I would suggest revising this and similar pieces.

· One of your RQs states, “Are there differences in creativity factors, social support, and resilience between university students in Italy and Spain?” Why exploring this difference is important?

Materials and Methods

· Your sampling strategy is not clear. Please elaborate on sampling, recruitment, and inclusion criteria.

· You mentioned, “The majority of the total sample was female (75% evenly distributed between the two countries).” Please discuss this issue.

· In lines 187-188, you mentioned, “…they voluntarily completed the questionnaire in a maximum of 20 minutes.” In addition to demographic questions, you used four measures in your study. Does this mean each participant spent less than 5 minutes (on average) for each measure?! (For example, CPS is a 30-item scale, and the short form of RIBS consists of 23 items.) Please explain.

· Did you use the English version of these measures, and if so, is there any concern(s) regarding language?

Data Analyses and Results

· Be consistent in reporting statistics and statistical analysis results throughout the results section.

· I suggest conducting ANOVA/ANCOVAs to check for differences in your demographic info.

· Some parts in your Results section belong to the Discussion section. For example, linens 263-280 should move to the discussion. Please separate your results and discussion.

· In your regression model, please justify why you included only gender and nationality and excluded other variables.

· Discuss assumptions for hierarchal regression, including normality, homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices, and multicollinearity.

Discussion and Conclusion

· Lines 339-3341, you mentioned, “The Italian sample describes themselves as more creative than their Spanish peers, both in terms of personality attributes and divergent thinking.” What are the implications and/or applications of this result?

· You mentioned, “...the Spanish sample feels more socially supported than their Italian peers.” What are the implications and/or applications of this result?

· In line 42, you mentioned, “People with greater creative potential in everyday activities have higher resilience [10].” This is basically what you concluded from your study, right? Did you provide evidence supporting this statement for the specific college/emerging adult population?

· Lines 353-355, you mentioned, “These results suggest that the most important factors for resilient behavior of emerging adults do not stem from purely individual variables, as is the case for creative personality attributes.” This is not an appropriate language for correlational study.

· I would suggest removing your conclusion section as it’s repetitive.

Best wishes,

Your peer

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for your comments and suggestions, which we have taken on board in the hope of improving the work. Below you will find the changes in detail.

ABSTRACT

the abstract has been revised according to your suggestions to make it more fluid and detailed

INTRODUCTION

- was added to further clarify the theoretical framework in relation to creativity.

- the reference to the lack of resource studies has been better explained.

- Why exploring this difference is important? ("Are there differences in creativity factors, social support, and resilience between university students in Italy and Spain?"). As explained in the previous paragraph, Italy and Spain have lived through the pandemic with a very similar timeline and very similar socio-economic and health impacts. However, the comparative studies between the two countries do not take into account these aspects of students' well-being and resources. Conversely, there are studies that focus on student resilience but do not include countries that are culturally and geopolitically close (e.g. America and China).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A section was added to explain better the sampling procedure: Dissemination and inclusion criteria.
About the gender gap: Research has shown that women are more interested in mental and physical health and wellbeing issues and are generally more likely to participate in online surveys, especially if they are students. In addition, women's response rates are higher than men's, regardless of the survey format, whether paper or digital (Sax et al., 2008; Smith, 2008).
“…they voluntarily completed the questionnaire in a maximum of 20 minutes.” as we have corrected the error, it took around 20 minutes to complete the questionnaire rather than a maximum of 20 minutes. The digital format makes it much easier to answer, and time was not a prerequisite for taking the questionnaires; the length of the compilation is purely informative.
We added a clarification with respect to the language of the questionnaires “the questionnaire was completed in the native languages of the samples, Italian and Spanish. validated or currently validated versions in the respective national languages were used for each scale”.

DATA ANALYSES AND RESULTS

ANOVA/ANCOVA: we decided not to include any differences related to the socio-demographic factors of the sample because an additional paper is being submitted at this time that addresses this along with other more in-depth analyses of the sample.
As suggested, we have revised the results and moved some parts to the discussions
As already mentioned, this study is only the first to refer to the data of this project. For this reason, it was decided to include in the regression only the two socio-demographic variables where the greatest differences were expected based on the literature (gender and country of origin). Future studies, currently being written, will instead consider other socio-demographic variables in light of these preliminary results.
As suggested, discussion of assumptions has been added.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

As you suggested, we have emphasized more the implications of the results in terms of applicability in educational contexts (added in the discussion)
As you suggested, we have removed the conclusions so as not to repeat them

All the changes made to the paper were made in an attempt to follow the suggestions of the various reviewers, so it is possible to find something that does not exactly meet the requirements.

Sax, L. J., Gilmartin, S. K., Lee, J. J., & Hagedorn, L. S. (2008). Using web surveys to reach community college students: An analysis of response rates and response bias. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32(9), 712-729.

Smith, W. G. (2008). Does gender influence online survey participation? A record-linkage analysis of university faculty online survey response behavior. Online submission.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "How Do Creativity and Social Support Affect the Resilience of Mediterranean University Students? A Cross-National Study in the Post-pandemic Period" presents a comprehensive study on the influence of creativity and social support on the resilience of university students in Italy and Spain during the post-pandemic period. The authors have conducted a well-designed cross-national study, providing valuable insights into the role of creative competence and social networks in fostering resilience among young adults.

The paper is well-structured, with clear objectives, a detailed methodology, and a thorough analysis of results. The discussion section effectively ties the findings back to the literature, highlighting the contribution of this study to the field. The conclusion succinctly summarizes the key findings and their implications for educational and academic contexts, suggesting that fostering creativity and social support can support positive development and lifelong learning.

To further enhance the manuscript, consider the following suggestions:

Expand on the theoretical framework to more deeply contextualize the study within existing research, particularly focusing on how the pandemic has uniquely impacted the creative and social dynamics of university students.
Provide more detail on the selection and justification of the specific scales and measures used in the study, as well as any cultural adaptations made for the Italian and Spanish contexts.
While the analysis is robust, exploring additional factors or variables that might influence the relationship between creativity, social support, and resilience could enrich the findings.
The implications of the study are well-noted, but further discussion on practical applications, such as specific strategies for educators and policymakers, would be valuable.
Consider the limitations section in more depth, possibly including reflections on the study's generalizability beyond the Mediterranean context and suggestions for future research directions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript "How Do Creativity and Social Support Affect the Resilience of Mediterranean University Students? A Cross-National Study in the Post-pandemic Period" is well-composed and addresses an intriguing topic with significant relevance in the current global context. The authors have made a commendable effort to maintain clarity and coherence throughout the text. However, there are areas where the quality of English language and expression can be improved to enhance the manuscript's readability and impact:

Clarity and Conciseness: Some sentences could be more concise and direct, which would improve the readability and impact of the manuscript. Simplifying complex sentences and avoiding redundancy can make the arguments stronger and more accessible to readers.
Consistency in Terminology: Ensure consistency in the use of key terms and phrases throughout the manuscript to avoid confusion. For example, the use of "creativity factors," "creative competence," and "creative attributes" could be standardized to a specific term if they refer to the same concept.
Use of Passive vs. Active Voice: The manuscript predominantly uses the passive voice, which is common in academic writing. However, using active voice in certain sections, especially in describing the research actions (e.g., "we conducted the survey" instead of "the survey was conducted"), can make the text more engaging.
Transition Phrases and Linking Words: The use of transition phrases can be enhanced to create smoother transitions between sections and paragraphs, ensuring a logical flow of ideas.
Proofreading for Typographical Errors: A thorough proofreading session is recommended to catch and correct typographical errors, incorrect word usage, and minor grammatical mistakes that may distract readers from the content.
Sentence Structure Variety: Incorporating a variety of sentence structures can make the text more dynamic and engaging. This includes mixing complex and simple sentences, as well as varying sentence length and rhythm.
Precision in Language: Some sections could benefit from more precise language, particularly when describing statistical methods, results, and interpretations. Clear and unambiguous descriptions will strengthen the manuscript's academic soundness.
Avoiding Jargon: While the manuscript is intended for an academic audience, minimizing the use of jargon or clearly defining complex terms upon first use can make the research more accessible to a broader readership, including interdisciplinary scholars.

By addressing these points, the authors can significantly enhance the manuscript's overall quality and ensure that the valuable research findings are communicated effectively and clearly to the intended audience.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for your comments and suggestions, which we have taken on board in the hope of improving the work. Below you will find the changes in detail.

as suggested, we have extended the theoretical framework by adding studies that specifically address the impact of Covid on the mental health of emerging adults, particularly in relation to risks and resources (p. 3)
specifications were added regarding sampling, the choice of scales for this specific sample, and the language of administration of the scales.
this study is only the first to refer to the data of this project. For this reason, it was decided to include in the regression only the two socio-demographic variables where the greatest differences were expected based on the literature (gender and country of origin). Future studies, currently being written, will instead consider other socio-demographic variables in light of these preliminary results.
considerations were added regarding the study's limitations and implications in education
The English language has been revised in the article to improve the final rendering

All the changes made to the paper were made in an attempt to follow the suggestions of the various reviewers, so it is possible to find something that does not exactly meet the requirements.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the article titled "How does creativity and social support affect the resilience of Mediterranean university students? A Cross-National Study in the Post-Pandemic Period" it is considered a clearly written article with a theme of interest. However, some suggestions can be made to improve the article.

Abstract:

- In the introduction of the summary, one sentence is not linked to another.

Instruments:

- An example of each instrument would be useful.

Discussion:

- It would be advisable to set a limit that it is not possible to generalize the results taking into account the study sample. This sample is limited, although sufficient to make this comparison. Therefore, a future line of research could increase the study sample.

References:

- Review the regulatory file that the magazine marks.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for your comments and suggestions, which we have taken on board in the hope of improving the work. Below you will find the changes in detail.

the abstract has been revised according to your suggestions to make it more fluid and detailed
Sample items for each scale have been added
considerations were added regarding the study's limitations and implications in education

All the changes made to the paper were made in an attempt to follow the suggestions of the various reviewers, so it is possible to find something that does not exactly meet the requirements.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

RESPONSE

This is a rather original article, as it aims to look at how variables as disparate as creativity and social support can be conducive to a resilient response in post-pandemic adolescents.

The article is interesting in that the research explores a sufficient number of subjects from the Mediterranean area and does so adequately, both in terms of the tests used and the analyses carried out.

The conclusions about the differences between the Italian and Spanish samples are not very relevant and may be consistent with the cultural and educational differences between these two countries. The view presented in this article seems to me more realistic than the one proposed by Papadopoulos & Roumpakis [26]. In this sense, I believe that it is a good idea to make this cross-national comparison, and that studies like this contribute to a better understanding of the diversity of populations in Europe.

What is of great interest is that, considering the TOTAL sample, results appear in line with the idea that both creativity and social support contribute to greater resilience in adolescents. But the nuance, moreover, is that the aspect of creativity that DOES participate in this influence is precisely Divergent Thinking, while the attributes of a creative personality do NOT contribute to resilience.

These findings are of interest, since this is not a subject that has been studied very much. But we should not lose sight of the fact that this is a small initial note that, beyond having been evidenced in this article, needs to be studied with larger samples. Why is resilience favoured by social support and divergent thinking? Why does self-perceived creative personality, on the other hand, not predict resilience in adolescents? These are questions that will need to be answered in further research.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for your comments and suggestions, which we have taken on board in the hope of improving the work. Below you will find the changes in detail.

the abstract has been revised to make it more fluid and detailed
we have extended the theoretical framework by adding studies that specifically address the impact of Covid on the mental health of emerging adults, particularly in relation to risks and resources (p. 3)
A section was added to explain better the sampling procedure: Dissemination and inclusion criteria.

All the changes made to the paper were made in an attempt to follow the suggestions of the various reviewers, so it is possible to find something that does not exactly meet the requirements.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf