Beyond the Answers: The Role of Questions in Driving Regional School Development—But Whose Questions and with What Focus?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAbstract: The results of the study are not clearly stated in the abstract. Please review it.
Lines 27-28, page 1: The authors do not explain the acronyms PISA and TIMSS, and they could do so as a footnote.
Lines 56-62, page 1: The first paragraph sentences must have literature references. It is acceptable to paraphrase the authors' work, but references are still required, even if only from official documents.
Line 101, page 3, the authors wrote, "[e.g.16]." and it must be "[e.g.,16]."
The same comment for text in line
105, page 3: [e.g. 15,18,19,20]; 132, page 3: [e.g. 24, 25];
166, page 4: [e.g 25, 34]; 174, p. 4: [e.g. 36]; and lines 180 and 182 from page 4.
In paragraph 4, concerning "Methods," no research methods were mentioned; only the content analysis technique was referred to without further development. The authors should carefully consider their methodology and provide support for it in their text.
Line 219, page 5: The authors wrote "(see Figure 1)." It must be "(Figure 1)," since the reader knows they need to refer to Figure 1. I have the same comment for the parentheses in line 388 of page 9.
Line 222, page 5: The authors wrote: "(...) by scholars such as [6]." It must be "by scholars such as Sales et al. [6]."
Lines 241-242, page 6: The authors should refer to the students' ages, as different age ranges are used in other countries. So, the text must be "for the three educational levels: preschool (ages ...-...), compulsory school (grades 1–9, ages ...-...), and upper secondary (ages ...-...)/adult education (ages ...-...)."
Lines 314-316, page 8: The authors wrote "experimental results" and "experimental conclusions," but I think they meant "the project results" and "the project conclusions." I comment on this because, in paragraph 2, "Background," the authors refer (in the first paragraph, lines 51-54, page 2; or the first two lines of paragraph 7) to the project.
To understand the content of tables 2 to 5, the reader should have access to the written or spoken materials recorded or transcribed. Of course, we do believe it was done; that is not the question. How can we reproduce the authors' study if we don't have access to the analysed text? What were the questions posed? How did the authors categorize them? That is not clear in the tables of the results sub-paragraphs.
The authors should provide two or three examples of the posed questions to help the reader understand their code, codifications, and results analysis.
Since the authors provided no examples, I can't verify in the discussion paragraph whether the paragraph in lines 409-418 is correct or not. Of course, there is no question of wrongdoing. The question is, with the evidence missing in the authors' text, how do I, as a reviewer, check it to accept the authors' discussion paragraph?
The same question arises in the text of 6.1. and 6.2 paragraphs. In the authors' text, there is no evidence of what is reported there in connection with the presented results.
The authors did not answer the research questions they presented. So, in reformulating their paper, I suggest they do it.
Author Response
Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 1)
Thank you for your insightful comments. We have addressed all of them—please see our responses below. All changes made to the manuscript have been color-coded as follows: red for comments related to Reviewer 1, green for Reviewer 2, and blue for Reviewer 3. In cases where all reviewers have raised the same issue, the changes are marked in red.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Abstract: The results of the study are not clearly stated in the abstract. Please review it.
Change to: In this study, the aim at regional level students and knowledge/learning was shifted to a focus on teachers and teaching especially at school level.
Lines 27-28, page 1: The authors do not explain the acronyms PISA and TIMSS, and they could do so as a footnote.
Footnote has been put in with explanations.
Lines 56-62, page 1: The first paragraph sentences must have literature references. It is acceptable to paraphrase the authors' work, but references are still required, even if only from official documents.
One of many references is [e.g., 3] as is puted into the text
Line 101, page 3, the authors wrote, "[e.g.16]." and it must be "[e.g.,16]."
The same comment for text in line
105, page 3: [e.g. 15,18,19,20]; 132, page 3: [e.g. 24, 25];
166, page 4: [e.g 25, 34]; 174, p. 4: [e.g. 36]; and lines 180 and 182 from page 4.
Corrected the comma
In paragraph 4, concerning "Methods," no research methods were mentioned; only the content analysis technique was referred to without further development. The authors should carefully consider their methodology and provide support for it in their text.
In “3.3 Questions as a Form of Communication” is a context meaning approach described as an the theoretical framwork for questions interpretation
Line 219, page 5: The authors wrote "(see Figure 1)." It must be "(Figure 1)," since the reader knows they need to refer to Figure 1. I have the same comment for the parentheses in line 388 of page 9.
The correction is done
Line 222, page 5: The authors wrote: "(...) by scholars such as [6]." It must be "by scholars such as Sales et al. [6]."
Thanks for the comment
Lines 241-242, page 6: The authors should refer to the students' ages, as different age ranges are used in other countries. So, the text must be "for the three educational levels: preschool (ages ...-...), compulsory school (grades 1–9, ages ...-...), and upper secondary (ages ...-...)/adult education (ages ...-...)."
It isn’t so easy with age in Swedish schools, but an approximately number is given.
Lines 314-316, page 8: The authors wrote "experimental results" and "experimental conclusions," but I think they meant "the project results" and "the project conclusions." I comment on this because, in paragraph 2, "Background," the authors refer (in the first paragraph, lines 51-54, page 2; or the first two lines of paragraph 7) to the project.
Thanks for the comment
To understand the content of tables 2 to 5, the reader should have access to the written or spoken materials recorded or transcribed. Of course, we do believe it was done; that is not the question. How can we reproduce the authors' study if we don't have access to the analysed text? What were the questions posed? How did the authors categorize them? That is not clear in the tables of the results sub-paragraphs.
In the text is their examples of the different categorizations, it is a bit difficult to include the actual questions into the table
The authors should provide two or three examples of the posed questions to help the reader understand their code, codifications, and results analysis.
Some examples had been put into the table.
Since the authors provided no examples, I can't verify in the discussion paragraph whether the paragraph in lines 409-418 is correct or not. Of course, there is no question of wrongdoing. The question is, with the evidence missing in the authors' text, how do I, as a reviewer, check it to accept the authors' discussion paragraph?
See above
The same question arises in the text of 6.1. and 6.2 paragraphs. In the authors' text, there is no evidence of what is reported there in connection with the presented results.
See above
The authors did not answer the research questions they presented. So, in reformulating their paper, I suggest they do it.
Change into: How are guiding questions developed within a top-down organisation in a regional cooperation project involving several actors?
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to review your article. Below, we provide constructive feedback to enhance clarity, depth, and impact. We hope these insights assist in refining your work and strengthening its contributions.
Title
Beyond the Answers: The Role of Questions in Driving Regional School Development – But Whose Questions and with What Focus?
Abstract
1 – The first sentence jumps directly into a specific mechanism ("questions as an information carrier") without first stating the broader topic or problem area.
2 – The type of study (empirical, qualitative, etc.) is not mentioned in the abstract.
3 – The “focus” is only mentioned at the end and superficially: the shift from students to teachers is stated but not analyzed or contextualized.
4 – Line 19: The abstract lacks a clear concluding sentence. It ends abruptly with the shift in focus, without summarizing broader implications or significance.
Introduction
5 – Line 23: The introduction begins with a generic discussion of declining PISA results in Sweden, which lacks a direct connection to the article’s unique research focus on questions as governance tools. Recommend adding an opening sentence or paragraph that introduces the theme of the study—the role of questions in organizational communication and school development—to better orient the reader before the policy context.
6 – The key constructs in the title—particularly “questions,” “regional school development,” and the critical phrase “whose questions and with what focus”—are not clearly defined or conceptually introduced in the opening section. Recommend clarifying the title or improving the conceptual framing in the introduction.
Methodology
7 – While it’s clear the study is qualitative and uses content analysis (line 203, 276), this is not stated directly or prominently.
8 – No formal instruments are defined, although documents, questions, posters, and one recorded session were used. These are not clearly described as “instruments.”
9 – Ethical considerations are mentioned only in the funding/acknowledgments section (line 477), not in the methodology. While it is stated that participants consented and no personal data were collected, there is no mention of a formal ethical committee or approval number.
10 – Clarify what data sources were analyzed—e.g., written development questions, school posters, reports—and how these were treated methodologically (e.g., as coding units). Consider labeling these explicitly as research instruments.
Results
11 – Many paragraphs (e.g., Lines 307–313; 328–334) mix descriptive results with interpretations, which should be reserved for the discussion section. Suggestion: clearly separate results (what was found) from interpretations (why this might have occurred).
12 – The only example of a school question appears in Line 335: “How do we succeed in creating a flexible learning environment...”. This section would benefit from more representative quotes from the data to illustrate typical or divergent formulations. Suggestion: consider including more illustrative examples of the actual research questions formulated at each level (particularly schools) to support the categorizations and add depth to the analysis.
13 – Each subsection ends somewhat abruptly. For example, section 5.3 (starting at Line 351) ends with Tables 4 and 5 and raw numbers but lacks a synthesizing paragraph to consolidate findings across the three years.
Discussion
14 – There is limited linkage to empirical results: the discussion rarely refers explicitly to findings from Section 5. For example, the shift in focus from students to teachers is not revisited or analyzed in detail.
15 – Line 407–408 mentions organizational engagement but not concrete findings. Suggestion: the discussion would be strengthened by explicitly revisiting key empirical results.
16 – The discussion does not address any methodological limitations, such as reliance on self-reported or internally generated documents, limited audio data, or absence of reliability checks in content analysis.
Conclusion
17 – The conclusion reiterates earlier points without offering a strong synthesis or novel insight. Consider summarizing the main findings more explicitly and uniquely in this section to avoid redundancy.
18 – The conclusion does not directly answer the research question: “How are questions processed within a top-down organization in a regional collaboration project involving multiple actors?” (line 117).
19 – The section gestures toward “more inclusive and communication-driven strategies” (line 473) but provides no concrete examples or policy/practice suggestions.
Ethical Approval
20 – Ethical compliance is described, but there is no mention of an ethical committee or approval number.
Author Response
Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 2)
Thank you for your insightful comments. We have addressed all of them—please see our responses below. All changes made to the manuscript have been color-coded as follows: red for comments related to Reviewer 1, green for Reviewer 2, and blue for Reviewer 3. In cases where all reviewers have raised the same issue, the changes are marked in red.
Dear Authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to review your article. Below, we provide constructive feedback to enhance clarity, depth, and impact. We hope these insights assist in refining your work and strengthening its contributions.
Title
Beyond the Answers: The Role of Questions in Driving Regional School Development – But Whose Questions and with What Focus?
Abstract
1 – The first sentence jumps directly into a specific mechanism ("questions as an information carrier") without first stating the broader topic or problem area.
Change: School development is important in society. This study investigates how questions work as an information carrier between different levels in a school organization.
2 – The type of study (empirical, qualitative, etc.) is not mentioned in the abstract.
Change: This is an empirical study based on documents with questions from the three levels (regional, municipal, and school). The questions were collected and the content in the questions were analysed.
3 – The “focus” is only mentioned at the end and superficially: the shift from students to teachers is stated but not analyzed or contextualized.
Clarifications done in paragraph 2 and 3
4 – Line 19: The abstract lacks a clear concluding sentence. It ends abruptly with the shift in focus, without summarizing broader implications or significance.
Change to: In this study, the aim at regional level students and knowledge/learning was shifted to a focus on teachers and teaching especially at school level.
Introduction
5 – Line 23: The introduction begins with a generic discussion of declining PISA results in Sweden, which lacks a direct connection to the article’s unique research focus on questions as governance tools. Recommend adding an opening sentence or paragraph that introduces the theme of the study—the role of questions in organizational communication and school development—to better orient the reader before the policy context.
We prefer to start in a bigger picture of one of the reasons that trigger school development projects in Sweden
6 – The key constructs in the title—particularly “questions,” “regional school development,” and the critical phrase “whose questions and with what focus”—are not clearly defined or conceptually introduced in the opening section. Recommend clarifying the title or improving the conceptual framing in the introduction.
The second part in the introduction frame these issues.
Methodology
7 – While it’s clear the study is qualitative and uses content analysis (line 203, 276), this is not stated directly or prominently.
We have referred to Zhang and Wildemuths´ [48] describe of a content analysis
8 – No formal instruments are defined, although documents, questions, posters, and one recorded session were used. These are not clearly described as “instruments.”
Audio recording has been put away then we just focus on the questions in this article
9 – Ethical considerations are mentioned only in the funding/acknowledgments section (line 477), not in the methodology. While it is stated that participants consented and no personal data were collected, there is no mention of a formal ethical committee or approval number.
If we hade understand the guideline the Ethics has its own space, as we have put it. In Sweden there is no demand to have a formal ethical license when the participants are over 18 years old, no personal harm and are well informed that they are in a research project.
10 – Clarify what data sources were analyzed—e.g., written development questions, school posters, reports—and how these were treated methodologically (e.g., as coding units). Consider labeling these explicitly as research instruments.
Results
11 – Many paragraphs (e.g., Lines 307–313; 328–334) mix descriptive results with interpretations, which should be reserved for the discussion section. Suggestion: clearly separate results (what was found) from interpretations (why this might have occurred).
The question from the steering group is now more separated in the text and therefore more framed.
12 – The only example of a school question appears in Line 335: “How do we succeed in creating a flexible learning environment...”. This section would benefit from more representative quotes from the data to illustrate typical or divergent formulations. Suggestion: consider including more illustrative examples of the actual research questions formulated at each level (particularly schools) to support the categorizations and add depth to the analysis.
More analysed examples are put into the table
13 – Each subsection ends somewhat abruptly. For example, section 5.3 (starting at Line 351) ends with Tables 4 and 5 and raw numbers but lacks a synthesizing paragraph to consolidate findings across the three years.
When more examples are given in table 2 and 3 will table 3 and 4 be easier to interpret.
Discussion
14 – There is limited linkage to empirical results: the discussion rarely refers explicitly to findings from Section 5. For example, the shift in focus from students to teachers is not revisited or analyzed in detail.
Added: One of these issues appears in the shift from students/children to teachers in the questions. It is easier to investigate teacher and change teaching than evaluate the effects on the students in a project that is limit in time.
15 – Line 407–408 mentions organizational engagement but not concrete findings. Suggestion: the discussion would be strengthened by explicitly revisiting key empirical results.
The sentence answer paragraph 15: The ultimate goal was for schools to independently formulate researchable questions and subsequently investigate them using research-based methods to improve school development processes
16 – The discussion does not address any methodological limitations, such as reliance on self-reported or internally generated documents, limited audio data, or absence of reliability checks in content analysis.
Created an new part 6.3: The study is limited in that it includes a small number of groups and a restricted set of questions that were analyzed. Nevertheless, it reveals a trend indicating how the meaning of questions shifts as participants attempt to interpret those that are positioned higher in the hierarchy. Content analysis inherently involves interpretation of what people write. In this study, however, we chose not to interpret the participants’ intended meanings, but instead focused solely on the written responses. This approach can be seen as both a strength and a limitation. The categorization was based on an initial coding conducted by the three researchers involved in the project, meaning that the analysis reflects the interpretations of three different individuals.
Conclusion
17 – The conclusion reiterates earlier points without offering a strong synthesis or novel insight. Consider summarizing the main findings more explicitly and uniquely in this section to avoid redundancy.
Change to: A more inclusive and communication-driven strategy between the three levels could provide schools with better opportunities to refine their pedagogical practices, ultimately benefiting students’ learning experiences in a more practical and meaningful way. However, if a more extensive communication occurred between the different hierarchical levels, the shift in focus—from, for example, the students/children to the teachers—would not have taken place.
18 – The conclusion does not directly answer the research question: “How are questions processed within a top-down organization in a regional collaboration project involving multiple actors?” (line 117).
The RQ is change to: How are guiding questions developed within a top-down organisation in a regional cooperation project involving several actors?
19 – The section gestures toward “more inclusive and communication-driven strategies” (line 473) but provides no concrete examples or policy/practice suggestions.
See paragraph 17
Ethical Approval
20 – Ethical compliance is described, but there is no mention of an ethical committee or approval number.
See paragraph 9
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsBrief summary: The article describes a study developed through the educational system's macro and meso levels of organization. It is a valuable study focused on comprehending how school actors from different levels of organization can build strategic action for students’ learning improvement. The article can shed some light on how articulation between municipalities and schools can be operated to enhance reflection and build responses in schools. Therefore, the article presents relevant research regarding the school change. The coherence of the theoretical framework mobilized, the study’s aim, research problem, and the methodology assure a logical flow that provides a clear foundation for the findings.
General concept comments:
The article asserts a relevant research topic in educational sciences, providing comprehension to policymakers, researchers, school principals, and teachers. The title is very appellative.
The abstract clarifies the study's purpose, main results, and conclusions well. The study gap is not entirely explicit, and the methodology used is ambiguous and, in some sense, seems equivocal concerning the study aim. It is simple and better explained on page 3, section 2.4. Still, the abstract mobilizes attention and interest, considering how the study proposes to understand interactions between different organizational levels.
The introduction clarifies the context, focus, and purpose of the study. It debates the problem regarding the educational system using PISA results for improvement, suggesting a gap in the literature that is worth studying.
The ‘background’ presents a solid state-of-the-art that supports the study, pointing out decisive factors that can influence school changes. The arguments mobilized sustain the research question defined. Many cited references correspond to publications within the last 10 years and are relevant to the article’s object. The theoretical framework is divided into three areas, but only discusses the first element - “learning. “Collaboration, the second area, should also be considered. Regarding “How is learning situated?” (page 3, line 123), learning needs to be clarified - students' learning, organizational learning … What does “situated” mean?
Section 3.1 refers to “learning”, relating it to some aspects of the “background” – communication and collaboration, but not with leadership (also referred to in the “background”, an essential element for organizational learning). The repetition of theoretical elements is unnecessary, so I do not see the point in separating the “background” from the “theoretical framework”. This section can be explored to define/justify/explain the methodological approach, since IRE model is the basis for designing the method.
The methodological design is generally appropriate. There is some repetition in the method regarding sections 4.1 and 4.2. Step 4 needs some clarification: “The questions from municipalities’ steering groups were tested.” What does ‘tested’ mean exactly? In step 5, it is said that three researchers independently tested the categories, but the results do not clarify whether they reached the same result.
The results are presented clearly and discussed well. The method referred to an audio recording of meetings, but the results rarely refer to it. On page 10, line 410, explain better why (in what sense) the project became ambiguous. Does it sustain school agency, but with a shift on purpose? Can the interpretation induced by the school context and the use of freedom to decide justify a shift on purpose? Does this become a problem considering the project's aims? On line 421, when it is referred “…did not do so”, what are the consequences? Are there different focuses in different levels of educational organization? What are the implications? May PISA lack impact at the school level? (Can the research shed some light on this question, or is it over-extrapolation? – not mandatory to consider the last question)
The conclusions could include considerations regarding the project's benefits and the articulation promoted between municipalities and schools and between principals, teachers, and school developers.
Specific comments:
On page 2, lines 47 and 48, the intention of studying “the consequences this had for school development” is affirmed. However, the study can only suppose its potential to do so, since the school improvement was not analysed.
On page 5, line 187, when referring to “students”, should be reinforced “(leader, teacher, or other) like above (in line 184).
Specify the groups on page 5, line 201. At this point, Fig. 1 can probably be referred to.
On page 6, redefine the last circle of Fig. 1 for coherence. The first two circles exhibit: level, group name, and educational actors involved. Apply the same criterion to the third circle.
On page 7, line 280, it could be specified that conventional or inductive content analysis was used, since the coding categories emerged directly from raw data.
Some text is missing on page 7, line 285 (a typo).
On page 7, line 294, it is mentioned that some groups did not adhere to the research. Please refer to how many. On page 6, line 266, 34 groups are identified… Is this the beginning number of participants?
Perhaps “summary of categories of research questions…” on page 8, line 325, is more suitable (not mandatory). Consider the same proposal regarding tables 3, 4, and 5.
Author Response
Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 3)
Thank you for your insightful comments. We have addressed all of them—please see our responses below. All changes made to the manuscript have been color-coded as follows: red for comments related to Reviewer 1, green for Reviewer 2, and blue for Reviewer 3. In cases where all reviewers have raised the same issue, the changes are marked in red.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Brief summary: The article describes a study developed through the educational system's macro and meso levels of organization. It is a valuable study focused on comprehending how school actors from different levels of organization can build strategic action for students’ learning improvement. The article can shed some light on how articulation between municipalities and schools can be operated to enhance reflection and build responses in schools. Therefore, the article presents relevant research regarding the school change. The coherence of the theoretical framework mobilized, the study’s aim, research problem, and the methodology assure a logical flow that provides a clear foundation for the findings.
General concept comments:
The article asserts a relevant research topic in educational sciences, providing comprehension to policymakers, researchers, school principals, and teachers. The title is very appellative.
The abstract clarifies the study's purpose, main results, and conclusions well. The study gap is not entirely explicit, and the methodology used is ambiguous and, in some sense, seems equivocal concerning the study aim. It is simple and better explained on page 3, section 2.4. Still, the abstract mobilizes attention and interest, considering how the study proposes to understand interactions between different organizational levels.
The introduction clarifies the context, focus, and purpose of the study. It debates the problem regarding the educational system using PISA results for improvement, suggesting a gap in the literature that is worth studying.
The ‘background’ presents a solid state-of-the-art that supports the study, pointing out decisive factors that can influence school changes. The arguments mobilized sustain the research question defined. Many cited references correspond to publications within the last 10 years and are relevant to the article’s object. The theoretical framework is divided into three areas, but only discusses the first element - “learning. “Collaboration, the second area, should also be considered. Regarding “How is learning situated?” (page 3, line 123), learning needs to be clarified - students' learning, organizational learning … What does “situated” mean?
We used situated learning referring to Wenger
Section 3.1 refers to “learning”, relating it to some aspects of the “background” – communication and collaboration, but not with leadership (also referred to in the “background”, an essential element for organizational learning). The repetition of theoretical elements is unnecessary, so I do not see the point in separating the “background” from the “theoretical framework”. This section can be explored to define/justify/explain the methodological approach, since IRE model is the basis for designing the method.
The methodological design is generally appropriate. There is some repetition in the method regarding sections 4.1 and 4.2. Step 4 needs some clarification: “The questions from municipalities’ steering groups were tested.” What does ‘tested’ mean exactly? In step 5, it is said that three researchers independently tested the categories, but the results do not clarify whether they reached the same result.
The results are presented clearly and discussed well. The method referred to an audio recording of meetings, but the results rarely refer to it. On page 10, line 410, explain better why (in what sense) the project became ambiguous. Does it sustain school agency, but with a shift on purpose? Can the interpretation induced by the school context and the use of freedom to decide justify a shift on purpose? Does this become a problem considering the project's aims? On line 421, when it is referred “…did not do so”, what are the consequences? Are there different focuses in different levels of educational organization? What are the implications? May PISA lack impact at the school level? (Can the research shed some light on this question, or is it over-extrapolation? – not mandatory to consider the last question)
The conclusions could include considerations regarding the project's benefits and the articulation promoted between municipalities and schools and between principals, teachers, and school developers.
Specific comments:
On page 2, lines 47 and 48, the intention of studying “the consequences this had for school development” is affirmed. However, the study can only suppose its potential to do so, since the school improvement was not analysed.
Change to: the consequences this had for potential school development.
On page 5, line 187, when referring to “students”, should be reinforced “(leader, teacher, or other) like above (in line 184).
Do not really understand the suggestion
Specify the groups on page 5, line 201. At this point, Fig. 1 can probably be referred to.
Change to: This study is based on collected texts from various groups, specifically the development questions formulated as different groups processed inquiries originating from the management level of the organization (Figure 1).
On page 6, redefine the last circle of Fig. 1 for coherence. The first two circles exhibit: level, group name, and educational actors involved. Apply the same criterion to the third circle.
We choose to have the referred groups on the same level
On page 7, line 280, it could be specified that conventional or inductive content analysis was used, since the coding categories emerged directly from raw data.
It is better just written about content analysis
Some text is missing on page 7, line 285 (a typo).
Tanks, fixed
On page 7, line 294, it is mentioned that some groups did not adhere to the research. Please refer to how many. On page 6, line 266, 34 groups are identified… Is this the beginning number of participants?
Good suggestion the sentence “some groups did not strictly adhere to the research question during their inquiry” is not important in this study then we do not analysis the outcome of the question.
Perhaps “summary of categories of research questions…” on page 8, line 325, is more suitable (not mandatory). Consider the same proposal regarding tables 3, 4, and 5.
The Table has been complemented with examples
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors improved their paper. Therefore, it is now possible to publish it.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMost of the requested revisions were made. The authors responded thoughtfully to the review and made meaningful adjustments to the abstract, methodology, results, and discussion. A few areas could benefit from further elaboration—particularly the introduction’s conceptual framing and more concrete policy implications in the conclusion—but the essential revisions appear to have been implemented.
