Towards Sustainability: The Involvement of the Elderly in the Educational Activities of NGOs in Lithuania
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Author,
The topic of the manuscript is so interesting, also, the study might support literature to increase the quality of educational activities of NGOs. I would like to share my recommendation.
to enhance the introduction of the manuscript,
to share research quesitons in the manuscript,
to extend the methodogy (for example you might share information about data collection tool and its validity- reliability.)
Best regards...
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Firstly, the author wants to thank your contribution to our paper. I appreciate you taking the time out to share your experience with me.
I would like to inform you that the English editing of the article has been made (English editing -39127). A detailed answer is provided in the appendix (Response to Reviewer 1)
With respect
Author
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The content of the submitted article corresponds to the focus of the journal. Specific comments:
Specific comments:
- The main comment is on research. Is the whole research really based on a focus group of six women and two men? It is clear that people involved in NGOs aimed at educating the elderly have knowledge of the target group, but the representativeness of the sample is not clear. How many NGOs are involved in educating the elderly in Lithuania? From how many organizations (NGOs) were participants in the focus group? Is this selection representative? Do the opinions of the participants differ according to gender, age or type of education? The author should answer these and other questions in the methodological part.
- Tables 1 to 6 have the same content as Appendix A. Further, in the text below the tables, the information from Tables 1 to 6 is essentially overwritten. The information is unnecessarily duplicated. On the contrary, there is a lack of information on differences in responses according to statistical characteristics: gender, age, type of education.
- Tables 1 through 6 and Appendix A have incorrect number formatting. The integer should be followed by a dot and should not be followed by a space.
- The description of how the focus group works is relatively long and unnecessary, a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of this method would be more interesting.
- There is a lack of comparison with other research in other countries, if any.
- Given that this is a relatively narrow research in Lithuania, it would be appropriate to include the name of the country in the title of the article, so it is confusing.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Firstly, the author wants to thank your contribution to our paper. I appreciate you taking the time out to share your experience with me.
I would like to inform you that the English editing of the article has been made (English editing -39127). A detailed answer is provided in the appendix (Response to Reviewer 2)
With respect
Author
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a study on a relevant topic that needs our attention. The paper is conceptually sound with rich data. My suggestions are along the lines of clarifications that would strengthen the paper:
Line 35-38 please provide data for the claim about the ageing population in Lithuania;
Line 72 please remove the "results of this study" (if the author is referring to their study) from the introduction;
Line 96-97 please clarify: do you mean the entire country of specific regions of Lithuania;
Line 101-102 Awkward sentence. Suggestion: state the definition of a focus group method;
Line 120 Awkward sentence. "The selection of decisions." Does the author mean "sampling decisions"?
Line 124 Awkward sentence. "Representative representatives";
Stages of the focus group discussion: This reads as if data analysis occurred during the meetings. It was done afterwards, correct? Suggestion: provide a separate subheading "Focus group interview analysis."
Line 134 Unclear meaning: "Individual subjective evaluation and ranking of the empirical speakers." --> What was ranked and evaluated and who did the ranking and evaluation - the participants or the author?
Line 147 "The concept of experts is used, which indicates the recognized status of the research participants." Please explain. What is "the concept of experts" and what does it mean in the context of this study?
Line 145-146 "The research participants (researchers and representatives) were accepted as equal opinion-makers and the creators of new theoretical constructs. But then line 149-150 ..." the participants of the focus group, the researchers without recalling their opinions and views, made 39 remarks... " Please clarify how the researchers could active opinion-makers without recalling their opinions?
How many focus group interviews were organized? How long did the session last? Was it recorded and transcribed?
Line 161-164 need to be stated earlier. Suggestion: provide separate subheadings in the Methods section: Sample, data collection, data analysis. Most of the information is here, but separating methodological "steps" will provide clarity.
Line 173 In what ways, other than stated, this study contributed to social justice? This is apparent throughout the paper and needs to be stated. If people feel neglected as if they don't count any more, this study provided a venue for the elderly to express their opinions and be heard.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Firstly, the author wants to thank your contribution to our paper. I appreciate you taking the time out to share your experience with me.
I would like to inform you that the English editing of the article has been made (English editing -39127). A detailed answer is provided in the appendix (Response to Reviewer 3)
With respect
Author
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
- The author sufficiently incorporated all my comments.
- I also recommend proofreading by a native speaker, the text contains stylistic errors.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your remarks and comments that helped me improve my manuscript.
Sincerely,
Author
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for attending to the revisions.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your remarks and comments that helped me improve my manuscript.
Sincerely,
Author
