Next Article in Journal
Generational Inclusion: Getting Older Adults Ready to Own Safe Online Identities
Next Article in Special Issue
An Interval AHP Technique for Classroom Teaching Quality Evaluation
Previous Article in Journal
Learning and Teaching Urban Design through Design Studio Pedagogy: A Blended Studio on Transit Urbanism
Previous Article in Special Issue
E-Learning Courses Evaluation on the Basis of Trainees’ Feedback on Open Questions Text Analysis
Peer-Review Record

Ready for a Career in the Agriculture Sector in Egypt? Perceptions of Students, Faculty, and Employers on the Value of Essential Technical and Employable Skills

Educ. Sci. 2022, 12(10), 713;
by Ramjee P. Ghimire 1,*, D. Hashini Galhena Dissanayake 1, Karim Maredia 1, Nanda P. Joshi 2 and Paul Ebner 3
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12(10), 713;
Submission received: 14 August 2022 / Revised: 2 October 2022 / Accepted: 4 October 2022 / Published: 17 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education—Series 2)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, this is a very good study.  It could be improved for clarity and flow.  The following are recommendations for your consideration:

1) In section 1.1, first paragraph would benefit from the inclusion of some citations.

2) the transition to gender in the third paragraph of 1.1 (Lines 75-78) seemed out of place and didn't fit there without some transitions. 

3) Paragraph starting on line 90. You make the case that mentoring is one-sided (line 97) and, yet, on line 92, #2, states that a feature of mentoring is reciprocal and mutual. 

4) Throughout the entire introduction, there seems to be redundancy from section to section as well as a need for more clarity and consistency in language. There is unnecessary confusion because of the use of mentor-mentee, mentor-protege, faculty to student, advisor vs advisee, graduate vs undergraduate all being used interchangeably.  Provide context and explanation that the literature uses all these but pick one and use throughout the manuscript.

5) Part of the lack of clarity is also because of the inclusion of work place/career development in this as well.  As written, the work place doesn't seem to fit.  Rewrite so that the context is consistent and you are viewing this study through a single lens. 

6) Differences in the target population and the respondents (there were more respondents that the total target population).  See lines 447-49 vs 555-56.  

7) Line 542 is an an incomplete sentence

8). If this is a study of the entire system, what is the value of the demographic breakdown  by university in table 4.?

9) Table formatting is not consistent and does not conform to the conventions of the journal. Including the need for notes and scales for all tables so that can be interpreted. 


Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see attached comments for consideration 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for addressing my comments. 

Back to TopTop