Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for conducting this research, and for contributing this article to the academic discourse. I found it very interesting to read about the interconnectedness of instruction, research, and extension in the Philippine SUC context, and to consider how that could relate to my context.

There are some instances where information is given and/or discussed earlier than I would typically expect in a manuscript (e.g., foreshadowing results in the literature review section). Consider whether these elements should be restructured/repositioned.

I have also made note of some formatting/word choices to ensure clarity and smooth readability of the manuscript. There may be others that I have not explicitly pointed out (particularly regarding plural agreement), so I encourage you to proof read the manuscript thoroughly after making revisions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: Useful description of your context - great!

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, no revisions were made from the manuscript.

Comments 2: May be worth noting that elsewhere 'extension' may be known as 'service work' or 'impact'. The discussion of Boyer's model in the Literature Review is appreciated, this helps to ensure a consistent understanding of 'extension' when that term may not be used by readers' institutions.

Response 2: Thank you very much. Indeed, in SUCs especially in the Philippines, extension is always used, synonymously used for community engagement or outreach program.

Comments 3: Make sure acronyms are spelled out on first use (HEIs)

Response 3: Agree. We have spelled out the acronym HEI before using it as acronym in the succeeding sections.

Comments 4: Word choice: 'draws' instead of 'drawing' Or: 'Addressing these gaps and drawing inspiration.... this article focuses on...'

Response 4: We changed the word from “drawing” to “draws” as to not change more on the manuscript.

Comments 5: I gather that the text colour change here is intended to highlight the changes made before the article was sent out for peer review (and as such I will ignore it as a formatting choice).

Response 5: The color was changed to black for cohesiveness.

Comments 6: Questions were modified and some wordings are deleted.

Response 6: Agree. We think that these questions need revisions for the research questions be straight to the point.

Comments 7: Check journal/reference style expectations for in-text citations of this type (as opposed to parenthetical citations, like at the end of the previous sentence).

Response 7: Agree. To make citations consistent with the others cited, the researchers decided to change it in parenthetical citations.

Comments 8: Check journal/reference style expectations for in-text citations of this type (as opposed to parenthetical citations, like at the end of the previous sentence).

Response 8: Agree. To make citations consistent with the others cited, the researchers decided to change it in parenthetical citations.

Comments 9: I wonder if this paragraph would be better placed later in the manuscript (after the present study has been presented). Same applies for the subsequent sections. Take care when foreshadowing results in the literature review.

Response 9: Agree. We agreed that revisions be made especially on the last paragraphs of the literature review to not overshadow the results.

Comments 10: 2.5

Response 10: The numbering was updated and changed from 2.4 to 2.5 for continuity.

Comments 11: Word choice: 'full' instead of 'fill'?

Response 11: Changed the word “fill” to “full”

Comments 12: Word choice: 'scholarly' instead of 'scholar'

Response 12: Changed the word “scholar” to “scholarly”

Comments 13: Word choice: 'was' instead of 'as'

Response 13: Changed the word “as” to “was”

Comments 14: Why was this institution chosen? Is it because it is recognised for strong performance in this area? How might that influence the study and its findings?

Response 14: Reasons for selecting the institution was detailed in the manuscript, that is, national and regional quality-assurance exercises consistently describe the institution as having relatively mature policies and practices for instruction, research, and extension

Comments 15: Why were these particular inclusion criteria employed? Wherever possible, justify the choices that you made in designing and implementing the study.

Response 15: The study provided the reason for including the science faculty teaching science-related subjects because these disciplines are particularly sensitive to the tensions between teaching, research, and extension: laboratory- and field-based research must be coordinated with demanding teaching schedules and community projects, and national policies explicitly expect science programs to contribute to innovation and development.

Comments 16: This labelling of academic rank is unfamiliar to me (and may also be to other readers of the article around the world). Perhaps include a brief explanation (e.g., is III a higher or lower position than II?)

Response 16: The study included in the discussion that labelling of the academic ranks as stipulated in NBC, in Philippine context. The higher the roman numeral means an incremental step in the academic rank, then to the next academic position.

Comments 17: Check journal expectations for formatting around quotes. For quotes less than 40 words (like these) I anticipate you will remove the line breaks. For example: ... explained that "research propels.... improves our instruction," referring to how...

Response 17: Upon checking the journal articles, the researchers agreed to remove the line breaks.

Comments 18: Word choice: 'It may operate' or 'It operates' instead of 'It may operates'

Response 18: Agree. This is really a wrong choice of phrases of words. The researchers have changed it as to sound good.

Comments 19: This paragraph connects the findings to the broader literature, which is more typically found in the Discussion section (with those findings interpreted in the context of the broader conversation) rather than in the Results section.

Response 19: Agree. The paragraph was transferred to the Discussion section of the manuscript to elaborate the findings.

Comments 20: Possibly missing words: '... participants gave responses that expressed...'

Response 20: Agree. The sentence is a bit tangled. The researchers incorporated what the reviewer has suggested.

Comments 21: Capitalise names: John Ray

Response 21: The name was capitalized.

Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: I have also made note of some formatting/word choices to ensure clarity and smooth readability of the manuscript. There may be others that I have not explicitly pointed out (particularly regarding plural agreement), so I encourage you to proof read the manuscript thoroughly after making revisions.

Response 1: The manuscript was proofread, particularly regarding the plural agreement.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses an important gap regarding research enactment in Philippine SUCs. The systems thinking framework and three-theme conceptualization are promising.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: You document that integration occurs, but need specificity about how What pedagogical changes resulted from research? What do "redesigned lesson plans look like? The variation you mention, senior main campus faculty embedding research in coursework vs. junior satellite faculty confining it to classroom discussions, deserves full analysis. Is integration an achievement requiring resources or an aspiration constrained by context? Address this tension explicitly.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have (a) provided more concrete examples of how research leads to specific pedagogical changes (e.g., redesigned lesson plans, research-based projects), and (b) elaborated the variation between main-campus senior faculty and satellite-campus junior faculty. These revisions can be found in Section 4.1 “Research as a catalyst for instruction and extension,” paragraphs 2–4 and the new final paragraph.

Comment 2: Major Undertheorized Finding: Melanie's "not everything is about Scopus" stance and choice to mentor junior faculty, even when these activities were not fully captured promotion points, represents your most distinctive contribution. This "ethics of care" alternative to metric regimes needs full theoretical development with engagement of care ethics literature (Noddings, Tronto). Is this individual resistance? Sustainable practice? Replicable model? Don't mention it briefly, theorize it deeply. Missing Evidence: Your key claim that "the same performance regime can create different trajectories depending on how it interacts with personal commitments mentoring, and institutional supports" lacks demonstration. Provide contrasting cases: two faculty at similar starting points whose trajectories diverged based on mentoring/support differences. Without this, the insight remains abstract.

Response 2: Thank you for highlighting this major finding and for suggesting engagement with care ethics and academic capitalism literature. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have (a) substantially expanded the analysis of Melanie’s “not everything is about Scopus” stance, explicitly linking it to care ethics and feminist critiques of academic capitalism, and (b) added a contrasting pair of cases to empirically demonstrate how similar performance regimes produce different trajectories depending on mentoring and support. These changes appear in Section 4.2 (paragraph on Melanie and new final paragraph) and Section 5.2 “Productivity, pressure, and agency – ethics of care”

Comment 3: Critical Equity Issue Underexplored: Your finding that "early-career faculty in satellite campuses reported fewer available mentors and relied more on self-study. which slowed their entry into competitive funding schemes" is mentioned but not analyzed. This is a structural disadvantage; satellite faculty face no mentors, limited infrastructure, yet identical expectations. Add a Discussion subsection titled Addressing Structural Inequities in Research Access" that: (a) states the disadvantages of satellite faculty, (b) analyzes whether expectations should differ by context, (c) proposes specific compensatory mechanisms (faculty exchanges? virtual mentoring? differentiated workload?), and (d) connects to equity in research capacity building literature.

Response 3: Thank you for emphasizing the equity implications of our findings. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have (a) made the satellite-campus disadvantages more explicit in the Results and (b) added a new Discussion subsection titled “5.3 Addressing structural inequities in research access” that analyses expectations by context, proposes compensatory mechanisms, and links to research capacity-building literature. These revisions appear in Section 4.3 and Section 5.3.

Comment 4: Coding transparency: Table 2 shows one example. Add at least one more for a different theme to demonstrate consistency. 

Response 4: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have clarified in the Methods that Table 2 provides a worked example for Theme 1 and that parallel coding tables for Themes 2 to demonstrate consistency in the analytic process. This appears in Section 3.4 Data Analysis, last paragraph. 

Comment 5: Document analysis: You collected NBC/CHED circulars and workload reports, 2. but don't report findings. Do documents confirm or contradict faculty accounts? What do workload policies actually allocate for research? 

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree that our document analysis findings needed to be reported more explicitly. Therefore, we have added a paragraph summarizing what the NBC/CHED circulars, research guidelines, and workload reports showed and how they corroborate faculty accounts. This appears in Section 3.4 Data Analysis, paragraph immediately following Table 2.

Comment 6: Insider positionality: You mention being "insider faculty" but don't elaborate, 3. Your rank? Relationship to participants? How did this shape responses? 

Response 6: Thank you for asking us to elaborate on our insider positionality. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have expanded the trustworthiness section to specify our ranks, relationships to participants, and steps taken to mitigate bias. This revision is located in Section 3.5 “Trustworthiness, reliability, and validity,” final paragraph. 

Comment 7: Cross-case comparison: You mention matrices comparing ranks but don't show them. Include a table comparing the main vs. satellite campus on key dimensions: mentoring access, infrastructure, and research integration. 

Response 7: Thank you for this suggestion. We agree that presenting the cross-campus comparison concretely strengthens the manuscript. Therefore, we have (a) added a brief subsection on cross-case comparison and (b) included Table 3, comparing main vs satellite campuses on mentoring access, infrastructure, and research integration. These are in Section 3.6 “Cross-case comparison and campus-level differences” and Table 3.

Comment 8: Create systems diagram showing stocks (mentors, infrastructure. time), flows (research productivity, skill development), feedback loops (reinforcing and balancing), and leverage points for intervention. Place in Discussion 5.3 before policy recommendations. Without visualization, your systems framework remains implicit rather than analytical

Response 8: Thank you for urging us to make the systems framework analytical and visible. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have developed a causal-loop systems diagram (Figure 1) showing key stocks, flows, feedback loops, and leverage points, and we explain it in the Discussion before the policy recommendations. References to the diagram are in Section 3.4 (last paragraph) and Section 5.3

Comment 9: Boyer's framework is appropriately invoked but could be mapped more explicitly esearch as catalyst = scholarship of teaching; extension translating research scholarship of application, Make these connections clear in the discussion

Response 9: Thank you for this suggestion. We agree that Boyer’s framework should be mapped more explicitly onto our themes. Therefore, we have rewritten the opening paragraph of the Discussion to clarify how each theme relates to the scholarships of discovery, integration, application, and teaching. This appears in Section 5, first paragraph

Comment 10: Theme 1: Strong evidence, needs variation analysis. The integration you document challenges binary TRN formulations. However, you note that integration varies by rank and campus location--senior main campus faculty co-publish with students, while junior satellite faculty discuss research only in class. Add subsection "'Variation in Integration by Context" that explicitly analyzes how resources enable or constrain integration. This matters because your claim about triadic nexus may actually describe the privileged position of some faculty rather than universal practice. 

Response 10: Thank you for asking us to analyze variation explicitly. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added a final paragraph in Theme 1 that explicitly discusses how resources enable or constrain integration and frames the triadic nexus as an achievement in some contexts and an aspiration in others. This is in Section 4.1, last paragraph, and is also taken up in Section 5.1

Comment 11: Theme 2: Excellent in ambivalence, missing comparative cases The identification of simultaneous burden and fulfillment is sophisticated. But your claim about differential trajectories needs empirical demonstration through a contrasting pair of cases showing how initial conditions shape divergent paths 

Response 11: Thank you for this important point. We agree that our claim about differential trajectories needed empirical demonstration. Therefore, we have added a contrasting pair of cases (Rizza and Stefano) to illustrate divergent paths under the same performance regime. This change is in Section 4.2, final paragraph.

Comment 12: Theme 3: Strong but equity issue demands fuller treatment Infrastructure barriers are well documented , but the satellite campus disadvantage requires an explicit justice analysis and remediation proposals 

Response 12: Thank you again for emphasizing the equity dimension. We agree with this comment. As noted in Response 3, we have added explicit justice analysis and remediation proposals in Section 5.3 and strengthened the statement of structural disadvantage in Section 4.3. Together these revisions directly address your concern that the satellite-campus disadvantage required fuller treatment.

Comment 13: Section 5.1: Engage classic TRN literature (Hattie & Marsh, Healey, Brew) to sharpen comparative claims. Address whether integration is an achievement or an aspiration based on your findings. 

Ressponse 13: Thank you for encouraging a stronger theoretical engagement with TRN literature. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised Section 5.1 to explicitly reference classic TRN syntheses (e.g., Hattie & Marsh, Healey, Brew) and to position our findings in relation to debates on whether integration is an achievement or aspiration. This appears in Section 5.1, first and second paragraphs 

Comment 14: Section 5.2; Expand Melanie's ethics of care with theoretical engagement. Connect to feminist critiques of academic capitalism (Slaughter). Explore sustainability and replicability.

 

Response 14: Thank you for this excellent suggestion. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have deepened Section 5.2 by explicitly engaging care ethics and feminist critiques of academic capitalism, and by discussing sustainability and replicability of Melanie’s stance. This is reflected in Section 5.2, second and third paragraphs

Comment 15: Section 5.3: Good foundation but needs: (a) satellite campus equity analysis, (b) engagement with Global South research capacity building literature (Cloete et al. on Africa, Suspitsyna on post-Soviet contexts)

Response 15: Thank you for encouraging us to connect to wider Global South debates. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have integrated explicit references to research capacity-building literature from other regions within the new equity subsection in Section 5.3. This is visible in the first paragraph of Section 5.3 

Comment 16: (a) Research time protection: Don't just say "course releases or rotating models"specify: How many hours/week? For which ranks? With what accountability* Example: "Institute tiered system: Instructors 3 hours/week; Assistant Professors 6 hours/week; Associate/Full 9 hours/week, with research plans and annual reports. 

Response 16: Thank you for asking for more specific and operational recommendations. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the policy recommendations on research time protection to specify hours per week, eligible ranks, and accountability mechanisms. This appears in Section 5.5, recommendation (a) 

Comment 17: (b) Mentoring programs: How do you connect satellite faculty with main campus mentors given that senior faculty are already overloaded? Specify mechanisms: Visiting scholar exchanges? Virtual networks? Cross-campus research teams? Workload credit for mentoring?

Response 17: Thank you for this practical suggestion. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have elaborated the mentoring recommendation to specify mechanisms for connecting satellite faculty with main-campus mentors and to propose workload credit for mentoring. This is included in Section 5.5, recommendation (b)

Comment 18: (c) Streamline procurement: Identify bottlenecks specifically: Reduce signatures from X to Y2 Online portal with 2-week turnaround? Quarterly vs. annual reporting ? Dedicated research support staff?

Response 18: Thank you for this comment. We agree that our procurement recommendations should be more concrete. Therefore, we have revised this section to identify typical bottlenecks and propose specific targets. This appears in Section 5.5, recommendation (c)

Comment 19: (d) Align NBC/CHED criteria: This is your most radical recommendation fundamental evaluation reform. Develop it fully: What specific criteria should change? How should community-engaged scholarship be weighted? Should teaching journals count equally with disciplinary journals? Engage international reform novements: Leiden Manifesto, DORA, UK REF impact agenda

Response 19: Thank you for encouraging us to develop this key recommendation more fully. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have expanded the section on aligning NBC/CHED criteria with diverse forms of scholarship, specifying which criteria might change, how community-engaged and teaching-related scholarship could be weighted, and linking our proposal to international reform movements. This appears in Section 5.5, recommendation (d)

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I approve the new version.