Review about Online Educational Guidance during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In general, the article complies with the sections that a scientific article must follow, but some inconsistencies are detected, which I will now describe: Title: It is very brief and very general. Perhaps if you provide a little more information, the reader can get an idea of ​​the context where the research has been developed. Also, if one of the disadvantages is the lack of digital training by counselors in the pandemic, something should appear in the title. Summary: Relevant information about the process followed is missing: participant sample, data collection instruments, main results and most relevant conclusions. The theoretical framework focuses on justifying and arguing the need for guidance professionals to train in ICT to help students during the time of the pandemic. This theory is very briefly linked to the documentation analysis process presented by the authors based on a bibliographic search on certain keywords. The results are well analyzed but the process followed is not indicated. The discussion almost does not exist. What do exist are general conclusions. In this sense, it would be necessary for the authors to carefully review the coherence of the article they present in all its sections, from the title to the discussion.

 

En general, el artículo cumple con los apartados que debe seguir un artículo científico pero se detectan algunas incoherencias que paso a describir:

Título: Es muy breve y muy general. Quizás si aportara un poco más de información, el lector puede hacerse una idea del contexto donde se ha desarrollado la investigación. Además, si una de las desventajas es la falta de formación digital por parte de los orientadores en la pandemia, algo debería aparecer en el título.

Resumen: Se echa en falta información relevante sobre el proceso seguido: muestra participante, instrumentos de recogida de datos, principales resultados y conclusiones más relevantes.

El marco teórico se centra es justificar y argumentar la necesidad que tuvieron los profesionales de la orientación de formarse en TIC para ayudar a los alumnos durante el tiempo de pandemia. Esta teoría se enlaza muy someramente con el proceso de análisis de documentación que presentan los autores a partir de búsqueda bibliográfica sobre determinadas palabras clave. Los resultados están bien analizados pero no se indica el proceso seguido. La discusión casi no existe. Lo que sí existen son conclusiones generales.

En este sentido, sería necesario que los autores revisaran bien la coherencia del artículo que presentan en todos sus apartados, desde el título hasta la discusión.

Author Response

We appreciate the interest that reviewers have taken in our manuscript. We have addressed the major concerns of the reviewers.

We believe that the previous have resulted in an improved revised manuscript. 

We thank all the reviewers for their thorough comments and final recommendations that helped to improve the manuscript. Thanks to them, we think that the paper is strongly improved, especially regarding the effectiveness in communication and coherence. We hope that the current version answers their concerns.

In the following, your comments are presented in black and our responses are reported in blue. The suggestions have been incorporated into the manuscript. Likewise, we have highlighted these changes.

Reviewer 1

R1.1	Title: It is very brief and very general. Perhaps if you provide a little more information, the reader can get an idea of the context where the research has been developed
Answer	Title has been changed, to be more concise.
R1.2	if one of the disadvantages is the lack of digital training by counselors in the pandemic, something should appear in the title
Answer	Our work has a strong relationship with digital competence, but we think that new title has shown that (introducing “online”).
R1.3	Summary: Relevant information about the process followed is missing: participant sample, data collection instruments, main results and most relevant conclusions
Answer	We made some changes in abstract, within the limit of 200 words.
R1.4	This theory is very briefly linked to the documentation analysis process presented by the authors based on a bibliographic search on certain keywords.
Answer	Some new content and references about digital competence has been added to the main text.
R1.5	the process followed is not indicated.
Answer	We think that our description within materials and method is comprehensive, following the PRISMA model (Figure 1) and offering our model analysis sheet (Table 2), but we added some new notes for clarifying analysis.
R1.6	Discussion
Answer	We split “Discussion and conclusions” into two different parts. Discussion analyses results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies. The limitations of the work are highlighted. Future research directions also be mentioned.
R1.7	Coherence
	Coherence has been improved with the changes introduced in the whole article from the title to the conclusions.

 

Thank you again for your consideration of our revised manuscript.

Yours sincerely,

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to act as a reviewer for this article.

 

This study is interesting from a pedagogical perspective, and from the impact of the COVID pandemic in education and in the school counselors. The research method focus on a systematic or scoping review of the literature, so authors are kindly requested to consider these suggestions:

 

In the Abstract section you can read that “The objective of this study is to verify how the educational counselors experienced this situation, to know the online resources that were used the most, and the consequences that the lack of presence had for the counselors”.

 

Nevertheless, in the Materials and Methods section you can read that “For this study, with the aim of analysing the scientific literature on guidance work using ICTs in times of COVID-19, Systematic Literature Review (SLR) was used as a reference, using the PRISMA model (see figure 1), but near to a scoping review, with a wider perspective and audience”.

 

So, what is really presented in this paper? What is the objective of the study? What is the purpose of the paper?

 

You have to include clearly in the abstract the aim and the method of your study.

 

On the one hand, the scoping reviews serve as a preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature (Grant and Booth, 2009). They are often used determine the nature and extent of research evidence, and to synthesize it (usually including ongoing research).

 

On the other hand, a systematic literature review (SLR) seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesize research evidence, often adhering to guidelines on the conduct of a review (Grant and Booth, 2009). You specify in the paper that this guide is PRISMA. Which aim is to provide an exhaustive summary of the available literature related to a research question or a series of very specific research questions posed beforehand, using explicit and systematic methods that are chosen in order to minimize bias. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Declaration was developed to establish the features that a SLR must fulfil. PRISMA comprises a list of 27 items that should be present in a SLR or meta-analysis publication, and a diagram of the workflow. Compliance with each item allows a complete and transparent description of the process followed in the systematic review. The PRISMA Declaration has been updated to guarantee its validity and relevance, and to reflect advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. The PRISMA 2020 Declaration replaces PRISMA 2009, which should no longer be used (http://www.prisma-statement.org/).

 

If your paper presents a SLR, the research question is not included. Also, the flowchart in figure 1 should look more like the current one (http://www.prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/FlowDiagram).

 

Moreover, you should include in the title that it is a SLR, i.e., you should Identify the report as a systematic review, the time parameters (start and years), the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the articles included in the SLR...

 

If the coronavirus outbreak in Europe was in March 2019 (a few months earlier in China), and the search pattern included the term “COVID”, how can the search results include papers from 2013 to 2019? Although this is explained in line 332, it should have been done previously.

 

The Introduction section is extensive. However, the discussion of the outcomes should be based on this introduction, on the data mentioned in it. The results do not seem to be in tune with the introduction, they are quite general, and they do not include references. They do not seem to correspond to the objective formulated in the abstract.

 

Author Response

We thank all the reviewers for their thorough comments and final recommendations that helped to improve the manuscript. Thanks to them, we think that the paper is strongly improved, especially regarding the effectiveness in communication and coherence. We hope that the current version answers their concerns.

In the following, your comments are presented in black, and our responses are reported in blue. The suggestions have been incorporated into the manuscript. Likewise, we have highlighted these changes. 

R1.1	In the Abstract section you can read that “The objective of this study is to verify how the educational counselors experienced this situation, to know the online resources that were used the most, and the consequences that the lack of presence had for the counselors”. Nevertheless, in the Materials and Methods section you can read that “For this study, with the aim of analysing the scientific literature on guidance work using ICTs in times of COVID-19, Systematic Literature Review (SLR) was used as a reference, using the PRISMA model (see figure 1), but near to a scoping review, with a wider perspective and audience”.
Answer	Abstract has been modified for clarifying aim and method.
R1.2	scoping review
Answer	This topic is clarified in abstract and material and methods, adding new references.
R1.3	papers from 2013 to 2019? Although this is explained in line 332, it should have been done previously.
Answer	Updated in material and methods
R1.4	About discussion.
Answer	We split “Discussion and conclusions” into two different parts. Discussion analyses results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies. The limitations of the work are highlighted. Future research directions also be mentioned.
R1.5	Coherence
	Coherence has been improved with the changes introduced in the whole article from the title to the conclusions.

Thank you again for your consideration of our revised manuscript.

Yours sincerely,

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper respects the format of the journal, but we believe that it would be beneficial for the conclusions section to be reflected separately from that of the discussions, in order to highlight the debated thematic value.
We recommend the authors to analyze the option of an adjustment of the title, with reference to the type of counseling analyzed in the paper, in order not to create confusion with the vast field of counseling, which is not addressed here.
It would be useful for the authors to make some references to the limits of the research, through the analyzed databases, or the keywords used in the paper.
The paper can be published, after a minor revision.

Author Response

We thank all the reviewers for their thorough comments and final recommendations that helped to improve the manuscript. Thanks to them, we think that the paper is strongly improved, especially regarding the effectiveness in communication and coherence. We hope that the current version answers their concerns.

In the following, your comments are presented in black and our responses are reported in blue. The suggestions have been incorporated into the manuscript. Likewise, we have highlighted these changes. 

R2.1	Conclusions section to be reflected separately from that of the discussions
Answer	We split “Discussion and conclusions” into two different parts. Discussion analyses results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies. The limitations of the work are highlighted. Future research directions also be mentioned.
R2.2	Adjustment of the title, with reference to the type of counseling analyzed in the paper
Answer	Title has been changed, to be more concise.
R2.3	limits of the research, through the analyzed databases, or the keywords used in the paper.
Answer	We added in discussion some lines about limits of the research (about databases and language).

 We believe that the previous have resulted in an improved revised manuscript.

Thank you again for your consideration of our revised manuscript.

Yours sincerely,

Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made changes that help to improve the article and, therefore, you have my approval for publication as an e-reviewer.      

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

       Thank you for your reviews.

Best regards.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, thank you for considering my suggestions. Best regards.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

       Thank you for your reviews.

Best regards.