Digital Technologies at the Pre-University and University Levels

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper explores knowledge and the use of digital technologies among college students and the relationship this has with their prior academic experience. The English used in the paper is very good and the topic is quite interesting. Structure-wise the paper is properly ordered and organized. The introduction section provides enough evidence of current developments in the field and clearly sets the goal and the motivation of the paper.

Methodology-wise, I would recommend more to be added regarding evidence or explanation as how the hypothesis are tested/verified. By doing so, they will provide an easy and less complicated understanding for the readers. As it is currently in the paper, only the last paragraph of section 3 pertains or mentions briefly the hypotheses. Moreover, Table 2 is not referred to in the text, it just stays in page 4 without mentioning somewhere else in the text.

To summarize, this is a paper dealing with very interesting and relevant topic, but, if accepted, the authors need to think towards upgrading the paper by addressing the above-mentioned remarks.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I am grateful for the opportunity to review your paper, “Digital technologies at the pre-university and university level”. The paper addresses a relevant topic for current education. However, there are several issues that I would like to draw the authors’ attention to. My detailed comments are outlined below.

• The main research question needs to be reframed; it seems to be very general in the introduction.
• I think it is important to include a theoretical section. My suggestion is to start by the development of your theoretical part and finally build your hypothesis.
• You need to provide more information concerning to the Materials and Methods. Why the questionnaire is organized into 16 groups? It is necessary to indicate validated scales for measure the constructs used in the analysis. I am a bit sceptical about the validity of these constructs.
• I suggest working more on the Tables and the way you show your results.
• The discussion section needs more development and you need to build more on your contributions. An effort must be done to elaborate a more fine-grained discussion.

I hope you find my reviewers helpful in further developing this paper. Good luck!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed and revised their manuscript according to the comments.