Tales of Doctoral Students: Motivations and Expectations on the Route to the Unknown

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic covered in the article is interesting and current. However, there are some important aspects about the manuscript, in its current version, that should be improved:

1. there are some descriptions that are very detailed but, as far as I understand, do not provide significant information for the study (e.g., the description of the university).
2. The description of the research methods should be revised. There should be a subsection devoted to explaining the participants in the study (this is explained, but not in a subsection of its own), another to state the variables, another to describe the instrument (the questionnaire is cited, but not made explicit), and another to state the research procedure, explaining the techniques, quantitative or qualitative, employed.
3. The objectives or research questions of the work should be made more explicit.
4. In this regard, it is not clear what the discriminating variables of the study are: Is the type of doctorate, STEM or SSLH, the main discriminating variable? Are gender, age, marital status, etc., discriminating variables?
5. It is surprising that there is no section in which the results are presented. The authors present them in the Discussion section, but they should differentiate the results from the discussion, in which they relate their results to the preceding literature and explain. Both sections (Results and Discussion) should be adjusted to the independent and dependent variables defined and, in the case of the discussion, to the objectives pursued.
6. Most of the references lack DOI or web link.

Author Response

The authors are extremely thankful to the valuable support of these comments and points raised to improve the overall quality of the manuscript, which we believe is now more clear and able to better contribute to the debate on doctoral education and its publics as well as its changes. As many parts of the article went through significant changes and editing, track changes were not maintained all the time, so that the document could be read and be analyzed in a clearer way. However, it is possible to see where these changes, editing, cuts, were made.

We have addressed both the reviewers’ comments and would like to highlight the following changes, starting first with Reviewer 1:

- The description of the university was maintained, although shortened and revised, considering that the with major changes throughout the document (e.g. theoretical parts), this section provides information on the types of PhDs of the institution (3 year program with at least one year being a course work with fixed curriculum and learning outcomes; with few professional doctorates, for example, in this institution) and number of students enrolled in doctoral programs, while it also helps to contextualize the Portuguese Higher Education system. The description of the research methods was revised, with a subsection devoted to explain the Study Design and Methods, the instruments, variables and research procedures employed (section 3.2.), and another section explaining the participants in the study (3.2.1). On this, we also believe that the main discriminating variables analyzed in the study emerge now clearer as current focus is on the different types of doctorates, through the different disciplines, and on the relationship with the supervisor, and not on the definition of a” non-traditional PhD student”.

- Following the previous comment, a section on the results is presented, separated from the Discussion of the findings section, in which the authors relate their results, now more focused in the variables above mentioned and to the preceding literature and explained it. In fact, significant additional and more up to date literature was included in the whole manuscript to ground its contribution to this theme.

- Following this, the objectives of the study, as well as the whole manuscript were made more explicit.

- References were also updated and DOIs were included.

We’re looking forward to the reviewer’s comments and feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is well presented and may be of interest. However, there are some parts of it that should be improved, especially with regard to the research methodology, the description of the instruments and the process followed. 

Firstly, the authors mention that they use a questionnaire and an interview, so that we are dealing with a mixed methodology study (qualitative and quantitative). However, they do not mention the reliability or validity of the questionnaire, nor do they refer to it. The same applies to the interviews: what was the process used to create them? What questions does the questionnaire consist of? How was its reliability and validity calculated? How were the results analyzed? Excel, SPSS...?

Secondly, the authors mention that a thematic analysis has been carried out. However, they do not detail the system used: what were the categories analyzed, were they analyzed with specific software (Nvivo, Atlas.ti, etc.), and were they analyzed with specific software (Nvivo, Atlas.ti, etc.)? 
Thirdly, no results section is presented. The research methodology is followed by the discussion. The authors carry out the discussion by presenting the results. A section on "Results" should be included. Or, at least, "Results and discussion".

Fourth, the authors say that they conducted 33 interviews. However, when talking about the reasons for enrolling in a doctoral program and their expectations, they contemplate the response of 292 students. I think you are mixing quantitative and qualitative results, since you then reaffirm this sentence with a fragment of the interview. What was the questionnaire passed to them? And the interview? This situation occurs throughout the discussion.

The article is of interest and may be publishable if all these guidelines are corrected, so I encourage the authors to take them into consideration. 

Author Response

The authors are extremely thankful to the valuable support of these comments and points raised to improve the overall quality of the manuscript, which we believe is now more clear and able to better contribute to the debate on doctoral education and its publics as well as its changes. As many parts of the article went through significant changes and editing, track changes were not maintained all the time, so that the document could be read and be analyzed in a clearer way. However, it is possible to see where these changes, editing, cuts, were made.

We have addressed the  reviewers’ comments and would like to highlight the following changes, specifically highlighted by the reviewer:

- The description of the research methods was substantially revised, with a subsection devoted to explain the Study Design and Methods, the instruments, variables and research procedures employed (section 3.2.), and another section explaining the participants in the study (3.2.1). All details on the questionnaire and interviewees in terms of reliability and validity are now detailed. On this, we also believe that the main discriminating variables analyzed in the study emerge now clearer as current focus is on the different types of doctorates, through the different disciplines, and on the relationship with the supervisor, and not on the definition of Naidoo’s ” non-traditional PhD student”.

- Following the previous comment, a section on the results is presented, separated from the Discussion of the findings section, in which the authors relate their results, now more focused in the variables above mentioned and to the preceding literature and explained it. In fact, significant additional and more up to date literature was included in the whole manuscript to ground its contribution to this theme. 

We’re looking forward to the reviewer’s comments and feedback.

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic is very relevant and the study itself is done reasonably well. but there are some major concerns. In the first place, the literature review is limited in that it does not reflect enough debates about for instance professional doctorates, and also lacks a consistent connection to the study itself. In the second place is the use of Naidoo' s non-traditional students' rather vague in relation to the purpose of the study but takes a strong place in the research approach. As mentioned 'non-traditional students' is a non-homogeneous and very diverse group and its use in the South African context relevant but applying it in this study does not add much as the main focus is between disciplines and national-international students. It makes more sense to focus on those two aspects than on the sue of non-traditional. In the third place, the findings are not-surprising but the study lacks a comparison and adequate context (also relevant givne the mall sample from one institution). More alignment between literature review (also look at the study Yudkevich, Altbach and de Wit, Sage, 2020), a focused research question and the findings will strengthen the article, as will be to do so in the conclusions and context analysis.

Author Response

The authors are extremely thankful to the valuable support of these comments and points raised to improve the overall quality of the manuscript, which we believe is now more clear and able to better contribute to the debate on doctoral education and its publics as well as its changes. As many parts of the article went through significant changes and editing, track changes were not maintained all the time, so that the document could be read and be analyzed in a clearer way. However, it is possible to see where these changes, editing, cuts, were made.

We have addressed both the reviewers’ comments and would like to highlight the following changes regarding Reviewer 2:

- The whole document is not more focused and clearer, with significant additional and more up to date literature being included to ground its contribution to this theme, including the work of Yudkevich, Altbach and de Wit (2020). Following this, the Naidoo' s non-traditional students' approach was replaced by an analysis more focused on the different disciplines (different types of doctorates) and on the relationship with the supervisor.

The description of the research methods was revised, with a subsection devoted to explain the Study Design and Methods, the instruments, variables and research procedures employed and another section explaining the participants in the study. On this, the main discriminating variables analyzed in the study emerge now clearer and more objective, as well as the objectives, the findings and the overall analysis of the study, which is also more aligned with the literature review.

We’re looking forward to the reviewer’s comments and feedback.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have responded adequately to the comments made and have significantly improved their manuscript. In particular, the structure and presentation of the methodological aspects of the research are clearer. I thank the authors for their response.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for having taken into consideration the guidance given. The article is much improved.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for addressing my concerns with respect to the first version in this new one. It has improved enough to make it acceptable for me. No further actions required for me.