Toward an Integrated Model of Reading: Bridging Lexical Quality and Comprehension Systems
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorssee attached report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The English is OK, but the text is very difficult to read, and it is not always clear what meaning the authors intended.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for this comprehensive article. To enhance its impact and scientific rigor, please consider the following points:
- Formalize the Word-Text Integration (WTI): Provide an operational definition, outline the processing stages, and specify resource constraints (e.g., working memory load).
- Include a schematic or pseudocode: Illustrate the information flow and empirical markers through a flowchart or algorithmic representation.
- Clarify level interactions: Describe real-time feedback loops between word identification and inferential processes. Consider presenting a graphical model of cognitive flows.
- Improve methodological transparency: For each cited study, specify sample size, age range, language or orthographic system, and experimental design. Acknowledge method-specific limitations (e.g., ERP variability, cultural influences).
- Broaden the evidentiary base: Integrate independent or contrasting work (e.g., DIME studies, alternative computational models). Justify the inclusion or omission of research on other orthographies (e.g., Spanish, Finnish, Cyrillic).
- Add a critical discussion: Include a dedicated section on theoretical and empirical limitations, as well as potential failure modes. Present counterexamples or scenarios where the integrated model may not apply.
- Tone: Soften promotional language using conditional phrasing.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
- Overall, the text is clear but contains redundancies. Targeted editing will improve conciseness.
- Some sentences are lengthy; breaking them into shorter clauses will enhance readability.
- Technical terms (e.g., “global framework,” “critical mechanism”) could be replaced with more measured descriptors.
- Ensure consistency in tense and voice across all sections.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis entry provides a theoretically rich and well-informed discussion that integrates the Lexical Quality Hypothesis (LQH) and the Reading Systems Framework (RSF). The attempt to bridge micro-level lexical processing and macro-level comprehension mechanisms is conceptually valuable and could represent an important contribution to the understanding of reading as a multi-component cognitive skill.
However, in its current form, the text sounds more like a theoretical paper or a review article than an encyclopedia entry. Its structure, density, and self-referential phrasing make it less accessible to readers seeking a concise, balanced overview of the topic.
The entry is substantially longer and more complex than expected for an encyclopedia format. Sentences are often multi-clausal and could be simplified to improve readability. Reducing redundancy (e.g., repeated explanations of decoding vs. comprehension) would enhance clarity.
In addition, the repeated self-referential expressions (this entry introduces, this paper proposes…) are stylistically more appropriate for an academic article than for an encyclopedia.
Finally, a brief discussion of the Dual Route Cascaded Model (Coltheart et al., 2001*) would strengthen the theoretical balance of the entry.
*
@article{coltheart2001drc, title={DRC: a dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud.}, author={Coltheart, Max and Rastle, Kathleen and Perry, Conrad and Langdon, Robyn and Ziegler, Johannes}, journal={Psychological review}, volume={108}, number={1}, pages={204}, year={2001}, publisher={American Psychological Association} }
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe set of modifications introduced into the document appears entirely acceptable and consistent with the initial requirements.
They do not raise any substantive concerns and, on the contrary, contribute to enhancing the clarity and internal coherence of the manuscript. In light of these considerations, the publication of the article seems fully warranted and timely. It will serve to highlight the work accomplished and to ensure the appropriate dissemination of the results within the scientific community.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall, the revised manuscript is more coherent, concise, and effectively addresses the main objectives. The authors have improved clarity and theoretical coherence, making the entry more accessible and informative.
While I appreciate the authors’ rationale for not including the Dual Route Cascaded (DRC) Model (Coltheart et al., 2001), I still believe that a brief mention would strengthen the theoretical framing. The DRC model is seminal in explaining how automaticity (mentioned in line 118 of the revised version of the manuscript) in word recognition develops, which is a prerequisite for freeing cognitive resources for higher-level comprehension processes. Even a short acknowledgment of its role would provide readers with a more balanced view of the continuum from sub-lexical decoding to fluent reading. This would not dilute the focus on LQH and RSF but rather situate them within the broader architecture of reading models.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
