Systemic Review through Bibliometric Analysis with RStudio of Skills Learning to Favor the Employability of Its Graduates

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review of the literature is adequate, collecting the position of different authors on the topic under study.

At the methodological level, the PRISMA model must be followed. The authors do not apply this model rigorously. As an example, the exclusion criteria are not clearly explained. The following guide should be used (https://www.prisma-statement.org//PRISMAStatement/FlowDiagram). The checklist proposed by the model itself should also be used (https://www.prisma-statement.org/documents/PRISMA_2020_checklist.pdf).

A table with the complete list of publications of the systematic review should be included as an ANNEX.

The results are considered adequate.

The limitations and prospective of the study should be included in the conclusions.

Likewise, a consideration of the article “Transversal Competencies for Employability in University Graduates: A Systematic Review from the Employers’ Perspective” (https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030204) is recommended. This article follows a similar line.

 

Author Response

Translated

 The first thing is to recognize the indications made that undoubtedly contribute to a substantial improvement of the article. After that, we comment on the changes made:

• The Prisma model was introduced to clarify the sample chosen.
• Include limitations and suggestions of the study after the conclusions.
• The databases used are not included as annexes because they are very extensive, the reader can download them for free Wos and Scopus and in any case we have them available in csv format.
• The authors have reviewed the article "Transversal skills for employability in university graduates: a systematic review from the perspective of employers" (https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030204) and also current articles in the line of research , which have been added as references in text and bibliography.

 

Original comments

Lo primero es reconocer las indicaciones realizadas que, sin duda, contribuyen a una mejora sustancial del artículo.
Después de eso, comentamos los cambios realizados:

• Se introdujo el modelo Prisma para aclarar la muestra elegida.
• Incluir limitaciones y sugerencias del estudio después de las conclusiones.
• Las bases de datos utilizadas no se incluyen como anexos por ser muy extensas, el lector puede descargarlas gratis Wos y Scopus y en todo caso las tenemos disponibles en formato csv.
• Los autores han revisado el artículo "Competencias transversales para la empleabilidad en egresados ​​universitarios: una revisión sistemática desde la perspectiva de los patrones" (https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030204) y también artículos actuales en la línea de investigación , que se han añadido como referencias en texto y bibliografía.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

We thank the authors for submitting a review manuscript pertaining soft skills and employability of graduates. After reviewing the paper, the authors have to make the following amendments / revisions before the paper can be considered for publication.

1. The abstract needs to be rewritten - covering the following: (a) motivation of review paper (b) objective of review paper (c) methodological approach adopted (d) key findings and (e) practical implications of the review paper

2. The paper requires a major proof reading to enhance the readability of the paper

3. The section on Theoretical framework is not well defined. The current state is more of a review on the various research done on categorizing employability with competences. Basically a theoretical framework comprises a philosophical stance comprised of different theories supported by empirical research to explain the phenomenon. This aspects needs to be strengthen in the paper.

4. In the introduction section, please state the overall motivation and objective(s) to be achieved through this review paper

5. In the methodology section, please explicitly mention the inclusion / exclusion criteria for the review process

6. Figures 1-10 are not clear. Please enhance the quality of this.

7. There is lack of discussion on the outcome of the review paper. A great deal on the adopted method was discussed, but the significance of the review was not well discussed. Example, what is the outcome of the review in terms of competencies and employability? how can universities draw conclusions to bridge these? 

General comments

(i) Relevance: The work is relevant but lack depth of discussion. This is evident from the number of references used in the review paper

(ii) Focus: The paper lacks clear focus. Research questions to be addressed through the review is not well defined

(iii) Contribution: The authors did not clearly articulated how their research will contribute to current field of study

(iv) Context: The authors have analyzed prior research related to their work

(v) Methodology: Methodology adopted is satisfactory, but discussion can be improved in terms of the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the review

(vi) Findings: The findings lack depth to support practical implications. 

Author Response

The first thing is to acknowledge the indications made that, without a doubt, contribute to a substantial improvement of the article.

After that, we comment on the changes made:

REVISOR 2

1. Summary, the indicated aspects have been separated so that the reader verifies that they are all included.
2. The text has been read by modifying punctuation marks to make it more readable with shorter paragraphs.
3. The theoretical framework is a review of the scientific literature found so far since the research starts from the state of the current issue to be able to make decisions, not wanting to take sides for any scientific or philosophical position.
4. Modified the introduction, developing more motivation and expanding objectives, since the main objective appears at the end of the question.
5. The Prisma model has been added to clarify the inclusion of the WOS and Scopus sample.
6. The quality of the figures has been improved, although they were sent in a separate document and are editable so that editors can improve the appearance depending on the size
7. The importance of the revision has been included in the introduction itself.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The changes have been properly applied.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for answering my comments/questions.

Author Response

Translated:

  Thank you for your invaluable help that contributes to the improvement of the article.

 

Original

Gracias por su inestimable ayuda que contribuye a la mejora del articulo.