Personality Types and Traits—Examining and Leveraging the Relationship between Different Personality Models for Mutual Prediction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I would want to point out that the author should make the work simple so that non-experts can understand it

I also want to suggest that the abstract be re-written

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time and energy to review our paper, as well as for providing valuable insights into the possible improvements for our work. We firmly believe that it has improved our research and contributed to the betterment of presentation of our work. Please find the Response PDF file attached with a point-by-point reply. Let us know if we can in any way further improve the work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, 
I enjoyed reading your work and believe it contributes highly to contemporary literature. Congratulations on the excellent design and robust analyses. 

Good luck!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your kind words in your review and the valuable feedback you have provided, as it has help vastly improve our paper. We have tried our best to address all the concerns that were raised. Please find a point-by-point reply attached as PDF, and please let us know if we can further improve our work. Thank you again so much!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

It was my pleasure to review this manuscript entitled “Personality types and traits Examining and leveraging the relationship between different personality models for mutual prediction”. The manuscript addressed crucial issues intensively. However, the organization of the manuscript need much revision. Thus, I raised many important comments to help authors improve their manuscript quality.

 

As I have seen, the type of paper is a scientific article. However, the introduction is not in line with standard regulations and includes the most important elements, such as a hook to catch the reader's interest, relevant background on the topic, details of your research problem, research question and the paper overview. In addition, this is not a suitable place to present the figures. Thus, the authors should rewrite the introduction to be more concise and clear for readers.

 

 

Section 2 is too long and extensive. I would suggest changing the name of this section to literature review then 2.1 will be the background (a summary of previous theories). The literature review of a scientific paper should keep the review focused but make it of broad interest, and the authors should be critical and consistent.

 

3 Related research is the most important, and at the end of it, you need to show readers what is unique in your study or the gap that you filled with this study.

 

Section 4 could be the (motivation behind this research). It also should be as subtitled under the literature review or introduction.

 

In the methodology, the authors neglected to mention the tradition of their study; what kind of data they used for analysis? And what is their research design?

 

Where is the conclusion section? It is essential to add it, and then authors should write a brief about the study, and the theoretical and practical implications of the study

 

Other comments need to consider:

·       In lines 103, 110: please add the reference of the book

 

·       In lines 163-165: this sentence should be at the end of the introduction

·       In line 319: Personality computing is a rapidly developing research field, and as such has attracted interest from many new researchers. Please provide the references.

·       While the benefits of using social media platforms as a source of data were previously mentioned, it is also important to note and address potential concerns that could arise from using them in personality research. Please provide the references.

 

·       PANDORA, please expand the abbreviation for the first time.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for providing such a detailed and fair review. We have tried our best to address all the concerns raised. Thank you very much for your valuable feedback, as we firmly believe that trying to address it has contributed in betterment of not only our paper, but also our research approach. Please find a point-by-point response attached in the PDF format. If we can further improve our work by addressing any more concerns, please let us know. Thank you again very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Really  I have seen a lot of changes in the whole manuscript. The authors have taken my comments seriously, so the manuscript has improved accordingly. Thus I believe that the paper can accept in the present version. All the best!