Are Decision-Making Styles, Locus of Control, and Average Grades in Exams Correlated with Procrastination in University Students?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

ear Authors, 

First of all I would like to congratulate you for the work done. Undoubtedly, it generates an interesting contribution in the unstable educational context that we currently have.

I would like to present a series of suggestions that you can integrate if you consider it appropriate. 

 

Abstract
Mainly, females is not a very scientific term. Please define the sample more. N total, n of females etc. Talk a bit more about the study sample in the abstract.
Specify what you mean by "partially support".
What multiple regression test?

Introduction
First paragraph very good.
Line 29 you put the pages, why not on Line 40, then on 63 you put again. Unify criteria
Go a little deeper into your detected research gap, I do not see clearly what this research brings as novelty to the literature.
This idea: "psychological dimensions put at risk during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as decisional procrastination and decision-making styles in college students", should be more substantiated in the introduction.

Method
2.1 The purpose of the study should be presented in a more straightforward manner. It might be interesting to integrate lines 116-122 in the introduction. 
Sample: Did they belong to the same university course?
2.3 Perhaps the word instruments should be included in the title. INSTRUMENT AND PROCEDURE
2.4 Statistical analysis
Perhaps it would be interesting to specify the tests that are then discussed in the results section.

3. RESULTS
Very correct, congratulations

4. DISCUSSION
This part is undoubtedly the weakest part of the article. It requires more discussion with other works in order to justify the results obtained. Only two citations appear in the whole discussion, don't you think this is poor?

5. Limitations and conclusions
Indeed, the limitations are very well argued. However, the conclusions of their work are not conveyed at length. It seems that you have some interesting conclusions, "sell" it better. This idea, would gain more prominence if you strengthen your discussion.

I hope these contributions will be helpful.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your interesting suggestions.

We substituted the word "females" with "girls" and included more information about the characteristics of the sample in the abstract.

In Introduction we explained the link between the COVID-19 pandemic and the examined topics in our study.

We modified the title of paragraph (Instruments and procedure) and specified in data analysis the type of tests carried out in the "Result section".

In Discussion we added some studies to confirm our results or to show the inconsistency of general results.

We hope that these revisions are satisfactory.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript presents a high percentage of plagiarism, more than 30%, in Introduction, section 2.3, and limits of the work, also in some part of the results. This percentage explains my scores, which cause me to doubt the originality of the work. Apart from this, questions to review and improve:
In the introduction, the conceptual framework, I suggest that it relates to procrastination, learning and Higher Education. This relationship is only observed in the effects produced, of the Academic Locus, but it would be important to know at a theoretical level this relationship between Higher Education, learning and procrastination. Similarly, in the literature on the subject, reference Higher Education studies with procrastination, apart from Academic Locus studies. Also, clarify and better specify the objective and secondary objectives, along with what hypotheses. The first part of section 2.1. of Method, should be developed and in greater detail in the introduction.
In method, it is necessary to indicate the type of study, to develop the methodological procedure in its different phases from design to interpretation. Detail the sample, the student audience, characterize it by data.
In the conclusions, it is necessary to add to the discussion of results, its relationship with a hypothesis and literature on the subject, with the results, in a relational discourse. It remains in a mere discussion.
I suggest reviewing the references, to the format of the journal, especially the articles in terms of the name of the journal, year, review. Also, the most recent bibliography on the subject, which exists.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your revisions.

Regarding the percentage of plagiarism, we revised the content of the paper including the pages of citations (p...) from the other sources in relation to the principal topics of this manuscript, even if we confirm that this paper is original both in its elaboration and in data collection. 

In Introduction, we don't consider the influence or the effects of learning processes neither the connection between higher education and procrastination, since our interest is focused on the university context. There are very few studies analyzing these relationships, as indicated in Introduction.

As suggested, we reformulated the principal and secondary purposes of study in a better and comprehensible way. We indicated the type of study and the research design including the diagram ( Figure 1) to specify the used model.

About the Discussion section, we added updating references referred to the psychological dimensions analyzed in this paper and revised the connections with the initial hypotheses.

We corrected the form of bibliography according to the norms of Journal.  

Reviewer 3 Report

The article presents a relevant study, using validated and consistent measures, and contributing to deepen the analysis of the relations between concepts under study.

It is unclear, however, how the study relates to COVID19 pandemic, which is highlighted in the Abstract and the Discussion sections, but not substantiated. How do the authors feel these variables may have affected or been affected by this context? What other studies reveal such a relation? If there are no indicators of a relation between the pandemic and the variables under analysis, I would recommend simply stating the fact that data were gathered during the pandemic in the methods section, and remove all other references to the pandemic.

Although I am not a native English speaker myself, I have detected unclear phrasings in some parts of the text, which I have highlighted in the original document. I recommend the authors proceed to a text revision, preferably by a native speaker.

A few other comments, including a reference to the difference between causality and correlation, were made directly in the document – although the authors recognize this as a limitation of their study, they point to causality at a given point, which I have commented on.

Apart from these, and the need to clarify the scale on which students were rated, in regard to academic achievement, I believe the paper is publishable with minor revisions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you so much for your suggestions.

As correctly suggested, there is no direct relationship between the COVID-19 pandemic and the examined variables. We modified the sentences in the correct way.

We revised the manuscript with the help of the MDPI English Editing service.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

I recommended the authors to change Table 4, to better understanding their results

Author Response

Thank you for your revisions and suggestions.

We modified the Table 4.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The work continues with a plagiarism percentage of 24%, which cannot be allowed in a scientific journal study, when the plagiarism is in even full paragraphs, especially in introduction and conclusion, and even in results. Attachment result of plagiarism.

With regard to the first reponse there is a contradiction: they say that they do not think it is related to Higher Education, and, instead, the work focuses on the university. Isn't a university context Higher Education? In addition, this shows that thematic conceptual knowledge is lacking, because there is a close relationship between procrastination and academic performance. A conceptual framework related to learning and academic performance is necessary because it is in the subject of the article. And there is a bibliography referring in other areas to the relationship between procrastination and academic performance in Higher Education or University (it is the same). Figure 1 remains to be explained.

The article has improved in method.

The discussions and conclusions are mainly a discussion of results, which is still lacking, which implies relating objectives, conceptual framework, possible hypotheses (not defined in the article), results, and literature review.

References require revision in the use of the year of the journal.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for further revisions.

This paper presents 100% of uniqueness, with 0% of plagiarism (as reported in the attached report).

We included the close relations between procrastination and academic achievement in terms of GPA (or average grades on exams at university) as requested by the reviewer's comments.

We updated the bibliography with recent studies in this field and included support to our results in the Discussion.

We followed the Template form of the Journal.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf