Productive Method as the Basis for Soft Skills Development in Engineering Foreign Language Education
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors the topic of the article is relevant and current.
The abstract is well prepared and has all the information about the research background and results. I think it can be improved with a better and more clear research question.
The introduction has an exhaustive and sufficient literature review on the study's keywords. However, the literature review is based on scientific production with some years that can be improved.
The following sections follow the rules for writing scientific articles and are well prepared, since the presentation and analysis.
The statistical methods used are adequate considering the formulated hypotheses.
There is no sample description. A part integrating this topic is very important and relevant. Also, relating methodology the arguments regarding the survey development can be developed.
Also, it would be good to understand how the research question was developed, its relevance, and a higher pertinence would be an asset to the paper.
In the discussion its relevant to further develop the main ideas clearly stating what would be the main contribution of the paper to the area.
To conclude, it is suggested that the authors improve the abstract and carry out a more current literature review, improve metholody and discussion.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
25-26: the definition of hard and soft skills would be helpful
Line 66: it is not clear which authors do you follow. It would be good to name them and explain why were these authors selected and how did you select the criteria mentioned. Is these are the same you name in the following paragraphs, I would suggest including a mention about that.
66 and 136: You mention that you focus on Russian authors, but until the line 143 it is not revealed that the survey takes place in Russia. It would be helpful to explain it in the introduction, if not, it seems not clear why do you center on Russian studies
140-147: please explain how was the questionnaire designed and validated. If it is detailed below, please mention this.
140-147 or 172-178: please provide further information about the participants (gender, age, nationality, etc.)
Minor point: please add SPSS version used
157: Please provide further information about this questionnaire. How does it look like? If it is detailed below, please mention this.
155-156: how was the experimental group created? Please add criteria
199: please add a source for the table (authors). It would be good to add more description to the table title. On what data is it based?
3.1. part has more theoretical aspect rather than analysis.
288: wording "finally" is not appropriated at the beginning of the paragraph
Please provide information if the questionnaire was applied in Russian or in English. If in English, please mention how did you manage language level and possible incomprehension.
Table 3 and 4: please add source. In the case of both tables, it is not clear how do the authors create these. Also, the tables are large and the structure is not clear. In the table 4 "professional skills" is mostly empty. It is hard to understand where do the tables come from and what is the aim of this information
Figure 1: please add source
Generally, it seems no tables and figures include source.
It is not clear what did the experimental group do in the survey. Please specify.
The clear discussion is missed. The authors do not make relations between their findings and previous studies.
427-432: this is a general reflection not based on any data, not recommended in the conclusions
Generally, the quality of the study is good and the approach is great. My main concerns are mostly about the structure of the article that should be clarified. The study contains 4 parts and all of them are included in the present paper. It is hard to follow all the paradigms and the complicated structure of the paper does not help. I strongly recommend the authors to clarify the structure of the paper.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
- This is a meaningful study.
- The content is proper for the title.
- The introduction and contextualization are proper.
- A suggestion is to include a description in the results and discussion section of how the findings of this study can be applied in the field of engineering foreign language education.
- Authors must review the detection of plagiarism (line406~409).
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your comments and suggestions! We are pleased to respond to them in the following way.
- “A suggestion is to include a description in the results and discussion section of how the findings of this study can be applied in the field of engineering foreign language education.”
In line 447-453, we added that the results are of practical importance for foreign language teachers whom we show that they can use professionally-oriented foreign language, the EMI concept and interactive technologies within the productive method for students’ soft skills development as well as they can evaluate the soft skills while teaching a foreign language using the designed assessment criteria.
- “Authors must review the detection of plagiarism (line406~409).”
We have reviewed the lines and found that there is an interpretation of the results of T-statistics which, in our opinion, can’t be expressed in different words except for the verb ‘found out’ which we changed to ‘discovered’.
Following your suggestions, we have made all corrections which we hope meet with your approval.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Thanks for your explanations and reformulations.
However, the literature remains very old..2008, 2005. It is very relevant to expand literature both in introduction and on discussion to papers with no more than 5 years old. You need to expand, if not in the same specific area, to related areas with significant literature in the last 5 years.
The paper would also benefit from a totally reformulated conclusion section. The conclusion section as it is show now, seems more an abstract than a conclusion section. We suggest to totally reformulate the conclusion section (for instances remove specific statistical results, and so on). The conclusion should not be in bullets, but in in an integrated text with only the research question and associated relevant results.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author/s,
Thank you for revising your work. My only comment is still that discussion and data analysis should be a separate parts. Right now you have the block 3 called "Results and discussion" while the standard for academic papers is first to present the data analysis and after in "Discussion" to analyze how your results are related to the existing theories. Please improve this point.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
