Future Online Learning for Public Administration
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper Future Online Learning for Public Administration describes an evaluation study about the professional training of the public administration staff using a questionnaire with 13 questions. The paper has two objectives: (1) the analysis of professional training improvement in public administration in the last two years, from the perspective of accessibility, organizational manners and training topics, and (2) to design a model from the viewpoint of the sustainability criteria.
The results of the questionnaire are presented in figures and are analyzed using the Romanian Sustainability code that is based on the German Sustainability code which contains 20 criteria. The authors conclude that the sustainability perspective implies the rethinking of the professional training in public administration, both with respect to the process, and to the content. They conclude that the training programme was not connected with the sustainability elements and they recommend a thorough review of the content of and the process of the training programme.
The objectives of the paper are relevant. The authors refer to a relevant literature in the field.
The paper needs to be thoroughly improved and the writing style needs to follow the style of a scientific paper.
- in the Introduction where the authors explain the focus of specialty studies the literature references are missing. The references need to be added there.
- the methodology is described in an unusual and cumbersome way. I suggest that the authors find a paper in this journal where some questionnaire was used as an instrument and describe the method in an appropriate way.
- the sample of participants involved in the research is not described in the chapter Method now. This needs to be added/improved in appropriate way. The number of the participants of the training programmes and the number of the participants who have completed the questionnaire is missing and need to be added. I advise to look at the guidelines of the journal and find also one sound research paper to see how the participants in a study can be presented in a proper way.
- in Results on all figures the number of respondents is missing. This need to be added on all figures.
- the questionnaire is not described in a proper nor effective way. Were the survey questions 4-point Likert-scale questions?
- I recommend to include the questions of the survey in the appendix
- the discussion should be closer connected to the research questions and should provide answers and some argumentations about both questions / objectives
- the objective 2 is not answered in the paper
- on page 5 at the bottom there is an error. It is written “only 10I71 persons with the age lower”.
- on figures 6, and 7 there is some text in a language that is not English.
- the labels on the x axis of the figure 12 need revision
- the style of the references doesn’t follow the APA style and is not consequent.
Author Response
Cover Letter
Regarding the amendments brought to the paper “Future Online Learning for Public Administration” as a result of the recommendations provided by reviewers
The paper “Future Online Learning for Public Administration” was reviewed according to the recommendations provided by reviewers, with changes, additions, and restructuring both in the structure and in the content, research methodology, conclusions, and bibliography.
We would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for the rigorous analysis and results provided for our work and we hope that this new form will satisfy the requirements and criteria for publication. The paper was retranslated in its entirety by native English translators.
In the following we highlight the details of the changes made.
Rev.1
The paper Future Online Learning for Public Administration describes an evaluation study about the professional training of the public administration staff using a questionnaire with 13 questions. The paper has two objectives: (1) the analysis of professional training improvement in public administration in the last two years, from the perspective of accessibility, organizational manners and training topics, and (2) to design a model from the viewpoint of the sustainability criteria.
The results of the questionnaire are presented in figures and are analyzed using the Romanian Sustainability code that is based on the German Sustainability code which contains 20 criteria. The authors conclude that the sustainability perspective implies the rethinking of the professional training in public administration, both with respect to the process, and to the content. They conclude that the training programme was not connected with the sustainability elements and they recommend a thorough review of the content of and the process of the training programme.
The objectives of the paper are relevant. The authors refer to a relevant literature in the field.
We thank you for your review. It has provided valuable input for continuing our research and improving its content
The paper needs to be thoroughly improved and the writing style needs to follow the style of a scientific paper.
The new version of the paper has a more rigorous scientific approach, in compliance with the customs for drafting and drafting of such works. Over 60% of the paper was rewritten.
The chapters abstract, methodology, results and conclusions were completely rewritten. The introduction was completed with clearer research objectives and the former "Discussions" chapter was integrated into the one regarding the research results.
- in the Introduction where the authors explain the focus of specialty studies the literature references are missing. The references need to be added there.
Literature references have been added to the “Introduction”. Furthermore, new references were added, providing a bibliographic support compatible with the research objectives proposed
e.- the methodology is described in an unusual and cumbersome way. I suggest that the authors find a paper in this journal where some questionnaire was used as an instrument and describe the method in an appropriate way.
The methodology was reviewed by adding details on the systematic bibliographic research, its orientation, and details on the questionnaire. We introduced correlation and regression statistical analyses, comparative statistical analyses, and statistical modelling of certain variables
- the sample of participants involved in the research is not described in the chapter Method now. This needs to be added/improved in appropriate way. The number of the participants of the training programmes and the number of the participants who have completed the questionnaire is missing and need to be added. I advise to look at the guidelines of the journal and find also one sound research paper to see how the participants in a study can be presented in a proper way.
The sample used was described in detail, while also adding its distribution on the various levels of public administration. Clear references to the group of stakeholders included in the empirical research were also added
- in Results on all figures the number of respondents is missing. This need to be added on all figures
. The number of respondents was added to each graphic/figure.
- the questionnaire is not described in a proper nor effective way. Were the survey questions 4-point Likert-scale questions?
- I recommend to include the questions of the survey in the appendix
The questionnaire was reorganized on the appropriate Likert scale. This was added to the paper as Annex 1
- the discussion should be closer connected to the research questions and should provide answers and some argumentations about both questions / objectives
The “Results” section was fully reorganized in dedicated subsections: content of the programs, forms of organization and implementation and sustainability of continuous training programs. Furthermore, the “Conclusion” refer to the objectives presented in the introduction, in relation to the substantiation included in the current paper.
- the objective 2 is not answered in the paper
Objective 2 of the previous paper, reformulated in this version, was provided with specific substantiation in Chapter 2 “Extensive bibliographic context”, while a special subchapter (4.3) was dedicated to it in the “Results” section. Clear references are also provided in the “Conclusions”.
- on page 5 at the bottom there is an error. It is written “only 10I71 persons with the age lower”.
The error was removed.
- on figures 6, and 7 there is some text in a language that is not English
The previous paper was initially drafted in Romanian. The current version only includes text in English.
- the labels on the x axis of the figure 12 need revision
The current values are expressed in the statistical averages of the variables
- the style of the references doesn’t follow the APA style and is not consequent.
All references were reviewed according to the editorial guide of the publication
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Paper needs to be revised as there are parts of the figures that have not been translated (Figures 6 and 7).
The methodology described is clear, however, it is very basic, making a questionnaire and based on a count of frequencies and mean of the data. There is a lack of coherence between the question-title of the figures and the information presented in the images. No validated questionnaire is detected, nor is there any reference to it.
Discussion and conclusions lack depth and critical analysis.
It is recommended to improve the methodological process by integrating some type of qualitative information to serve as triangulation; or, another type of more complex statistical analysis that combines data.
A review of the literature is also recommended, since in the last two years many articles have been published that can help in the discussion and in the approach to the problem.
Author Response
Cover Letter
Regarding the amendments brought to the paper “Future Online Learning for Public Administration” as a result of the recommendations provided by reviewers
The paper “Future Online Learning for Public Administration” was reviewed according to the recommendations provided by reviewers, with changes, additions, and restructuring both in the structure and in the content, research methodology, conclusions, and bibliography.
We would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for the rigorous analysis and results provided for our work and we hope that this new form will satisfy the requirements and criteria for publication. The paper was retranslated in its entirety by native English translators.
In the following we highlight the details of the changes made.
Rev.2
Thank you for your recommendations. They were all taken into account in full. The answers can be found below.
Paper needs to be revised as there are parts of the figures that have not been translated (Figures
6 and 7).
All graphics/figures have been remade and provided with appropriate translations.
The methodology described is clear, however, it is very basic, making a questionnaire and based on a count of frequencies and mean of the data. There is a lack of coherence between the question-title of the figures and the information presented in the images. No validated questionnaire is detected, nor is there any reference to it.
The methodology was redesigned through systematization according to the practices on using the questionnaire, references to the manner of selecting the bibliography and the completion thereof.
Correlation and regression statistical analyses, statistical modelling of the variables and the use of their averages to interpret and compare the results were introduced.
Discussion and conclusions lack depth and critical analysis.
The “Discussions” chapter was integrated in and synthesized with the “Results” chapter. Furthermore, the “Results” were focused on three directions, according to the research objectives proposed: content of the programs, form of organization and implementation, sustainability of continuous training programs.
Furthermore, the conclusions were completely reviewed, thus meeting, in our opinion, the research objectives to a higher extent, and capitalizing on the results obtained.
It is recommended to improve the methodological process by integrating some type of qualitative information to serve as triangulation; or, another type of more complex statistical analysis that combines data.
The methodology was redesigned through systematization according to the practices on using the questionnaire, references to the manner of selecting the bibliography and the completion thereof.
Correlation and regression statistical analyses, statistical modelling of the variables and the use of their averages to interpret and compare the results were introduced.
A review of the literature is also recommended, since in the last two years many articles have been published that can help in the discussion and in the approach to the problem.
According to the new methodology, the bibliography was completed with recent papers on the future of online learning, its structure and the sustainability of professional development and continuous training programs
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article needs to be thoroughly revised in terms of the level of English. The article has errors and mistakes that could easily be corrected by rereading the text before submission.
In addition, there are incompressible errors of formatting: differents size fonts in differentes sections on the paper. It seems the authors have re-packed the article from a different version. Maybe it was sent to a different journal or a congress previously.
The abstract sounds a bit unclear and repetitive. It needs to be rethinked accroding to the pourpose of the article.
There are a lot of statments without any references what lead the article to an unrigorous. Specially, those regarded to the education field. Is to risky write about education if the authors are not researchers in education.
The methodological approach is weak and biased. The questinnarie used has no scientific based. It seems an ad-hoc questionarrie made by the authors without previous theoretical background. In addition, the results only point out the descriptive data. The authors must present the results regarding the internal consistency of the instrument used (CFA, realiability, etcétera).
Author Response
Cover Letter
Regarding the amendments brought to the paper “Future Online Learning for Public Administration” as a result of the recommendations provided by reviewers
The paper “Future Online Learning for Public Administration” was reviewed according to the recommendations provided by reviewers, with changes, additions, and restructuring both in the structure and in the content, research methodology, conclusions, and bibliography.
We would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for the rigorous analysis and results provided for our work and we hope that this new form will satisfy the requirements and criteria for publication. The paper was retranslated in its entirety by native English translators.
In the following we highlight the details of the changes made.
Rev 3
Thank you for your recommendations. They were all taken into account in full. The answers can be found below.
The article needs to be thoroughly revised in terms of the level of English. The article has errors and mistakes that could easily be corrected by rereading the text before submission.
The current version of the article was reviewed in its entirety by native translators. We believe that in this form it meets the journal's requirements.
In addition, there are incompressible errors of formatting: differents size fonts in differentes sections on the paper. It seems the authors have re-packed the article from a different version. Maybe it was sent to a different journal or a congress previously.
The paper was not sent to a different journal. The paper was reedited in its entirety.
The abstract sounds a bit unclear and repetitive. It needs to be rethinked accroding to the pourpose of the article.
The abstract was redone as to comply with and better express the objectives and content of the paper.
There are a lot of statments without any references what lead the article to an unrigorous. Specially, those regarded to the education field. Is to risky write about education if the authors are not researchers in education.
The new form of the paper has a better and more explicit substantiation. The bibliography was selected according to the criteria of systematic bibliographic research, by focusing on some of the paper’s man ideas: professional development as right and obligation, content, form of organization and technological support and correlating programs with the sustainability criteria
The methodological approach is weak and biased. The questinnarie used has no scientific based. It seems an ad-hoc questionarrie made by the authors without previous theoretical background. In addition, the results only point out the descriptive data. The authors must present the results regarding the internal consistency of the instrument used (CFA, realiability, etcétera
The authors do coordinate and provide professional development and continuous training programs. The questionnaire aims and is designed to investigate relevant aspects arising from the experience of the last two years, when these programs were carried out under the impact of the SARS-COV-2 pandemic. Its structure was established by consulting a special group of experts from universities and administrative institutions with attributions in the provision of training programs for the public administration. Statistical analyses were carried out using IBM SPSS statistics 20. In compliance with the practice As per best practices, the correlation and regression analyses were correlated with ANOVA variance analyses.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The document has improved considerably in form and substance. It is recommended that the manuscript be read carefully to correct some editorial errors when integrating references to other texts. As numbers must be integrated, sometimes the wording is a little more complex at an academic level. You can see an example of what is discussed here: "Arguments and a pertinent analysis from this point of view is provided in [13]". This sentence must be rewritten to read correctly. The same situation: "Inspired by [37], with specific reference to continuous "
At the end of the Methodology some results are integrated, this part should be reviewed.
Discussion has been removed. It would be interesting to incorporate some discussion into the study.
Author Response
The observations and suggestions made were carefully analyzed. Once again, we thank the editor and the referees for the support they gave us and are giving us in the making of this article.
Considering the appreciations regarding the translation and some aspects of the writing of the article, I sent it to the specialized service of MDPI indicated by the editor. Also, a few corrections and additions were made to the text, duly indicated.
The phrase Arguments and a pertinent analysis from this point of view have been provided in [13], has been removed.
The phrase "Inspired by [37]" was completed with "Inspired by the German Sustainability Code [37]".
Also, part of the discussions were integrated and synthesized in conclusions, and the others, of a methodological nature, in the special chapter called "Methodology".
At the end of the "Methodology" some results are integrated regarding the sample, its representativeness and the level of validity. I have included these details here to answer more convincingly the previous discussions regarding empirical research tools.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article has improved considerably from the previous version to this one. It still shows deficiencies in some basic aspects that I think could improve the article. However, I believe that the editor's criteria should prevail and make the final decision.
Author Response
The observations and suggestions made were carefully analyzed. Once again, we thank the editor and the referees for the support they gave us and are giving us in the making of this article.
Considering the appreciations regarding the translation and some aspects of the writing of the article, I sent it to the specialized service of MDPI indicated by the editor. Also, a few corrections and additions were made to the text, duly indicated.
The topic addressed in the articles is vast and a vast specialized literature is associated with it, on which we will focus in our future studies.As we show in the text, the article cannot present an exhaustive situation regarding the future of online learning in public administration, but only a "sequence" based on our experience and studies.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
