Evaluation of Sustainability and Accessibility Strategies in Vocational Education Training

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors

With all my respect to the work done, I have some/many suggestions to you.

The authors need to remember that in formal writing we do not use contractions (such as let's, don't and others). line 42

Taking into account today's approach to some pronouns (even if the reviewer is not a supporter of it) the authors should try to avoid using HE, but he/she. (line 45)

The above said concerns the pronoun HIS. It should be transferred into HIS/HER. Same is for HIMSELF that should be HIMSELF/HERSELF.

line 60 suggests checking the authors in the end of the manuscript, while it might have been better to say: Karademir, A. H. et al [3] and Benli Özdemir, E. et al [4] proposed ...

receiving AN education sounds bad. line 72, 76

education life - difficult to agree with this construction

development of sustainable development -line 83

It was surprising to read that this sentence has been taken (thus, cited) twice from two researchers: "This study is qualitative research in nature that is to reveal perceptions and events in a natural environment in a realistic and holistic manner [8][9]". line 102. That could have been done following the proposals by these researchers.

Next passage makes the reviewer raise another question of the same kind: The semi-structured interview schedule created within the scope of this study included four open-ended semi-structured questions. Further, the interviews were recorded with a voice recorder with the consent of the participants in order not to lose any data in  the interviews[10]. (i.e., is it a citation?)

the pronoun ITS concerns who - the student or the country?: improving the productive student profile of the country within the scope of its studies and objectives (line 183-184)

Table 2: The ability of any product, service, service, technology... (what does the second SERVICE mean?)

lines 207-212 contain the same ideas as lines 201-206.

line 213  any product, service, service, technology  (what does the second SERVICE mean?)

lines 228-240 repeat the same ideas with and without paranthesis. 

Each tome, before using acronyms, the researchers should use the full writing (VET stands for Vocational Education training). After the first use, the authors can use the acronym without further explanation.

In the SWAT part the authors made the same mistake - rewriting the findings, filling lines 269-299. Moreover, line 297 says: because the majority of students are weak and have more problematic students... (students have problematic students?

lines 361-363 We can say that vocational education has a great purpose and importance as raising individuals who will contribute to the country's economy by improving the productive student profile of the land. (the sentence lacks a predicate)

In this context, we can say that any product, service, service, technology, or environment - line 373 (what is the second SERVICE?)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks for your suggestions. Your suggestions provide great insights to our paper. Following suggestions were considered and corrected.

 

The authors need to remember that in formal writing we do not use contractions (such as let's, don't and others). line 42

Authors >>> thank you. Corrected.

Taking into account today's approach to some pronouns (even if the reviewer is not a supporter of it) the authors should try to avoid using HE, but he/she. (line 45)

The above said concerns the pronoun HIS. It should be transferred into HIS/HER. Same is for HIMSELF that should be HIMSELF/HERSELF.

Authors >>> thank you. Good suggestion. Corrected.

line 60 suggests checking the authors in the end of the manuscript, while it might have been better to say: Karademir, A. H. et al [3] and Benli Özdemir, E. et al [4] proposed ...

Authors >>> thank you. Good suggestion. Corrected.

receiving AN education sounds bad. line 72, 76

Authors >>> thank you. Corrected.

education life - difficult to agree with this construction

Authors >>> thank you. Corrected.

development of sustainable development -line 83

Authors >>> thank you. Corrected.

It was surprising to read that this sentence has been taken (thus, cited) twice from two researchers: "This study is qualitative research in nature that is to reveal perceptions and events in a natural environment in a realistic and holistic manner [8][9]". line 102. That could have been done following the proposals by these researchers.

Authors >>> thank you. Corrected.

Next passage makes the reviewer raise another question of the same kind: The semi-structured interview schedule created within the scope of this study included four open-ended semi-structured questions. Further, the interviews were recorded with a voice recorder with the consent of the participants in order not to lose any data in  the interviews[10]. (i.e., is it a citation?)

Authors >>> thank you. Corrected.

 

the pronoun ITS concerns who - the student or the country?: improving the productive student profile of the country within the scope of its studies and objectives (line 183-184)

Authors >>> thank you. Corrected.

Table 2: The ability of any product, service, service, technology... (what does the second SERVICE mean?)

Authors >>> thank you. One occurrence of ‘service’ word has been deleted.

lines 207-212 contain the same ideas as lines 201-206.

line 213  any product, service, service, technology  (what does the second SERVICE mean?)

Authors >>> thank you. One occurrence of ‘service’ word has been deleted.

lines 228-240 repeat the same ideas with and without paranthesis. 

Each tome, before using acronyms, the researchers should use the full writing (VET stands for Vocational Education training). After the first use, the authors can use the acronym without further explanation.

Authors >>> thank you, it has been added at line 256.

In the SWAT part the authors made the same mistake - rewriting the findings, filling lines 269-299. Moreover, line 297 says: because the majority of students are weak and have more problematic students... (students have problematic students?

Authors >>> thank you. Corrected.

lines 361-363 We can say that vocational education has a great purpose and importance as raising individuals who will contribute to the country's economy by improving the productive student profile of the land. (the sentence lacks a predicate)

Authors >>> Thank you. Text has been revised.

In this context, we can say that any product, service, service, technology, or environment - line 373 (what is the second SERVICE?)

Authors >>> thank you. One occurrence of ‘service’ word has been deleted.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper it to explore what the situations of sustainability and accessibility in vocational education. And the 6 questions were used to understand what the concerned problems can be explored. After the reading some comments as below:

 

Why the 6 questions were concerned??

This is connected to the section 3 the Findings and Comments. However, that has no enough theories to support the following “Findings,” especially, which called “dimension.”

 

Research method is ok, since the collected data were based on the semi-structured questions. And the content analysis was used to analyze the interviewed questions.

 

The 6 dimensions were used to explain what concerned problems have revealed. But, I think this section is difficult to link with any theory from introduction.

 

The “6 dimensions” is the core in this paper, but it is difficult to ready, when I played a role – reader. The tables and contents should be clearly and easy to read.

 

The final section should be “4. Conclusions,” and then sub-sections with 4.1. implications and 4.2. limitations or future works. Although, this paper has provided enough information in the final section, but it still can be improved.

 

And finally, I have a little bit confuse that this paper has no any mention with sustainability. I mean this paper has no any content talking about sustainable development.

 

Is this paper does not fit the goal of special issue?  Please make a double check.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks for your suggestions. Your suggestions provide great insights to our paper. Following suggestions were considered and corrected.

Why the 6 questions were concerned??

Authors >>> These 6 questions were framed with the purpose to assess the sustainability and accessibility strategies in vocational education.

This is connected to the section 3 the Findings and Comments. However, that has no enough theories to support the following “Findings,” especially, which called “dimension.”

 Authors >>> dimension here has been used representing a parameter.

Research method is ok, since the collected data were based on the semi-structured questions. And the content analysis was used to analyze the interviewed questions.

 Authors >>> Thank you.

The 6 dimensions were used to explain what concerned problems have revealed. But, I think this section is difficult to link with any theory from introduction.

 The “6 dimensions” is the core in this paper, but it is difficult to ready, when I played a role – reader. The tables and contents should be clearly and easy to read.

 The final section should be “4. Conclusions,” and then sub-sections with 4.1. implications and 4.2. limitations or future works. Although, this paper has provided enough information in the final section, but it still can be improved.

Authors >>> thank you. text has been revised.

 And finally, I have a little bit confuse that this paper has no any mention with sustainability. I mean this paper has no any content talking about sustainable development.

 Is this paper does not fit the goal of special issue?  Please make a double check.

Authors >>> thank you. it has been revised.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for your submission to the journal. I feel overall this paper makes a contribution to research but can be enhanced by addressing the following issue(s):

Enhance the context/literature, there needs to be a little more to address the why and what of this research - why is this research necessary and what does this research do for consolidating and taking research forward? more sources need to be added to make the focus and subsequent discussion more compelling. You could also add a clear theoretical underpinning to drive the narrative.

Derive more meaning from the data collected. Qualitative research is meant to encourage a 'rich' discussion and although there was discussion, I feel more interpretation could be performed to do the data justice. Use of qualitative tools can assist you here.

Good luck with your amendments and best wishes

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks for your suggestions. Your suggestions provide great insights to our paper. Following suggestions were considered and corrected.

 

Thanks for your submission to the journal. I feel overall this paper makes a contribution to research but can be enhanced by addressing the following issue(s):

Enhance the context/literature, there needs to be a little more to address the why and what of this research - why is this research necessary and what does this research do for consolidating and taking research forward? more sources need to be added to make the focus and subsequent discussion more compelling. You could also add a clear theoretical underpinning to drive the narrative.

Authors >>> text has been revised.

 

Derive more meaning from the data collected. Qualitative research is meant to encourage a 'rich' discussion and although there was discussion, I feel more interpretation could be performed to do the data justice. Use of qualitative tools can assist you here.

Authors >>> text has been revised.

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

 Dear authors

You did a great deal of jpb to correspond the high quality journal and the necessary requirements in formal writing and research description.

However, after checking and correcting the manuscript, it became more difficult to understand the writing because the authors kept the old version and added the new one.

E.g. The sample for the study constituted people working at the management / administrative level in vocational educationVET and the ministry of education. Results indicated that suitable strategies need tomust be created planned for sustainability and accessibility in vocational educationVET. (In just this sentence you have made a few grammar mistakes).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for pointing it out. We have read the manuscript again and have made edits in the whole document.

Please see the attachment for detailed revisions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have read this paper second time.

According to the response of author, I saw the revised version has better than the first version.

The paper, now, is suitable to be published on the journal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for your contribution

 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors

We do really hope that your next contribution to any journal will not have any gapholes and lacks. 

It is sometimes better to consider thoroughly before writing and sending the manuscript to any Q journal, not to say anything to a Q1 journal.