Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Modeling: Applying Vitae Researchers’ Development Framework through the Lens of Web 2.0 Technologies for Vocational-Health Education Researchers
, Javed Iqbal 4, Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen 1, Elena Barbera 3, Fatih Mutlu Ozbilen 5 and Yasira Waqar 6
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
I can see some potential in your study, but many major flaws prevent me from recommending it for publication in its current form.
The language is poor, so I strongly recommend you have the language carefully checked and revised.
You emphasized the importance of web 2.0 technologies and mentioned the concept multiple times in the manuscript, but I could not see any paragraph that thoroughly explained what it is, why it is important, and how it is operated.
The information presented in the Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses Development is like a laundry list. Meanwhile, it has limited value in explaining how research competencies could enhance the use of web 2.0 technologies and research productivity, as well as how web 2.0 technologies could mediate the relationship between research competencies and research productivity. Thus, the Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses Development section needs substantial revision. I have two recommendations for revising it:
- You should make the section concise by being more selective with information that will be used to conceptualize and formulate hypotheses.
- A theory is needed to connect your fragmented arguments together. Since your study deals with information literacy, individual competency, and productivity, the best candidate (i.e., the theoretical foundation) I can suggest is the mindsponge theory, an emerging and widely adopted foundation for many recent quantitative studies. The theory advocates that the human mind is an information collection-cum-processor. Based on this theoretical assumption, you might feel it easier to conceptualize and develop hypotheses. Its bibliographical info encloses:
o Quan-Hoang Vuong. (2023). Mindsponge Theory. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter. https://books.google.com/books?id=HnegEAAAQBAJ
More details of the data collection should be given. For example, universities where the data were collected, informed consent, and how the universities were selected.
The authors mentioned many methods for statistical analyses, but the rationales for using them were not provided. It gives me a feeling that the authors are blindly using all the existing methods but do not understand why those methods should be used. For instance, it’s not clear why symmetrical and asymmetrical data analyses had to be employed simultaneously.
The discussion is superficial and does not add many theoretical nor practical values to the fields of education and training. To resolve this problem, I have two suggestions. First, the authors should connect your findings with the mindsponge theory, explain how it helps provide supporting evidence or contradicting evidence to the theory and recommend further research directions. Second, the findings should be discussed in the context of Bangladesh for practical values. You may find the information-processing approach helpful in addressing two these points (Vuong, Nguyen, & La, 2022).
o Vuong QH, La VP, Nguyen MH. (2022). The mindsponge and BMF analytics for innovative thinking in social sciences and humanities. De Gruyter. https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=EGeEEAAAQBAJ
Best wishes,
Author Response
I can see some potential in your study, but many major flaws prevent me from recommending it for publication in its current form.
Thank you for your precious time to review our paper and your valuable suggestions. It helped us to improve the paper.
The language is poor, so I strongly recommend you have the language carefully checked and revised.
We have revised the language of paper carefully, and it is checked by academic writing experts. Hopefully, it will meet your standards.
You emphasized the importance of web 2.0 technologies and mentioned the concept multiple times in the manuscript, but I could not see any paragraph that thoroughly explained what it is, why it is important, and how it is operated.
We have added a section 2 of literature review. We have provided the background information such as definitions, categorization of Web 2.0 and basic theories as well as models of research competences frameworks.
The information presented in the Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses Development is like a laundry list. Meanwhile, it has limited value in explaining how research competencies could enhance the use of web 2.0 technologies and research productivity, as well as how web 2.0 technologies could mediate the relationship between research competencies and research productivity. Thus, the Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses Development section needs substantial revision. I have two recommendations for revising it:
- You should make the section concise by being more selective with information that will be used to conceptualize and formulate hypotheses.
- A theory is needed to connect your fragmented arguments together. Since your study deals with information literacy, individual competency, and productivity, the best candidate (i.e., the theoretical foundation) I can suggest is the mindsponge theory, an emerging and widely adopted foundation for many recent quantitative studies. The theory advocates that the human mind is an information collection-cum-processor. Based on this theoretical assumption, you might feel it easier to conceptualize and develop hypotheses. Its bibliographical info encloses:
o Quan-Hoang Vuong. (2023). Mindsponge Theory. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter. https://books.google.com/books?id=HnegEAAAQBAJ
We have concise the hypothesis and conceptual framework development portion. It is elaborated with Vitae researcher development framework through the lens of information literacy. We have read and cited the sponge theory book, but RDF through the lens of information literacy is mroe relevant to this paper. Therefore, we have focused the conceptual framework on RDF and information literacy.
More details of the data collection should be given. For example, universities where the data were collected, informed consent, and how the universities were selected.
We have added the information in section 3.3.
The authors mentioned many methods for statistical analyses, but the rationales for using them were not provided. It gives me a feeling that the authors are blindly using all the existing methods but do not understand why those methods should be used. For instance, it’s not clear why symmetrical and asymmetrical data analyses had to be employed simultaneously.
We have added information in section 3.4.
The discussion is superficial and does not add many theoretical nor practical values to the fields of education and training. To resolve this problem, I have two suggestions. First, the authors should connect your findings with the mindsponge theory, explain how it helps provide supporting evidence or contradicting evidence to the theory and recommend further research directions. Second, the findings should be discussed in the context of Bangladesh for practical values. You may find the information-processing approach helpful in addressing two these points (Vuong, Nguyen, & La, 2022).
o Vuong QH, La VP, Nguyen MH. (2022). The mindsponge and BMF analytics for innovative thinking in social sciences and humanities. De Gruyter. https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=EGeEEAAAQBAJ
We have revised the discussion section by connecting findings with previous studies and conceptual framework. Please see discussion, conclusion and practical implications.
Reviewer 2 Report
This study basically focused on vocational-health education students' research competencies on their use of web 2.0 technologies to enhance research productivity in Pakistan. It used Vitae researchers' development frame (RDF) through the lens of web 2.0 technologies. Results revealed that web 2.0 technologies mediated research competencies and research productivity.
Introduction: It is too long and there are so many unnecessary explanations. The introduction should give a good background to the study. Need to revise it accordingly.
Section 2 “Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses Development”. I don’t think that you need a separate section for this. Authors can incorporate essential points (if available in this section) under methodology.
Results: Need to provide the interpretation of the finding rather than reporting them. Definitions and the way of measuring each variable need to be given clearly.
Conclusions: Need to link with possible policy implications
Author Response
This study basically focused on vocational-health education students' research competencies on their use of web 2.0 technologies to enhance research productivity in Pakistan. It used Vitae researchers' development frame (RDF) through the lens of web 2.0 technologies. Results revealed that web 2.0 technologies mediated research competencies and research productivity.
Thank you for your valuable suggestions. It helped us to improve our research.
Introduction: It is too long and there are so many unnecessary explanations. The introduction should give a good background to the study. Need to revise it accordingly.
We have revised it.
Section 2 “Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses Development”. I don’t think that you need a separate section for this. Authors can incorporate essential points (if available in this section) under methodology.
Other reviewers have suggested to make it a comprehensive section. Therefore, we kept this section in the paper.
Results: Need to provide the interpretation of the finding rather than reporting them. Definitions and the way of measuring each variable need to be given clearly.
We have revised the results section according to suggestion.
Reviewer 3 Report
1. This study did not mention the theory, but the motivations behind choosing these concepts has not been clearly explained in the text. The author can include a new section in the literature review to discuss this.
2. Under the section on research background, what is the main contribution of this study? The author can better explain the context of the entire study and their reason for choosing these variables.
3. Please provide the results of the CMV data analysis.
4. The research conclusions and limitations should be more specific.
Author Response
- This study did not mention the theory, but the motivations behind choosing these concepts has not been clearly explained in the text. The author can include a new section in the literature review to discuss this.
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. We have added the literature review section in the paper to explain the key variables and conceptual framework.
- Under the section on research background, what is the main contribution of this study? The author can better explain the context of the entire study and their reason for choosing these variables.
We have revised the introduction section.
Please provide the results of the CMV data analysis.
It is added now in 4.2.1. Quality Measures of SEM.
The research conclusions and limitations should be more specific.
We have revised the conclusion and limitation section.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has been significantly improved by the authors. Some statements in the manuscript need backup references. For example, lines 554-559 can be supported by the following well-known research article regarding Covid-19 vaccine production: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01034-6
Author Response
The paper has been significantly improved by the authors. Some statements in the manuscript need backup references. For example, lines 554-559 can be supported by the following well-known research article regarding Covid-19 vaccine production: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01034-6
Response: Thank you for your valuable time and review. We have added the suggested citation.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you to the authors for spending a lot of time making corrections. After reviewing the manuscript, the overall structure of the paper has become close to complete. Therefore, I agree to accept this study.
Author Response
Thank you to the authors for spending a lot of time making corrections. After reviewing the manuscript, the overall structure of the paper has become close to complete. Therefore, I agree to accept this study.
Thank you for acceptance.
