Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is a detailed article that aims to evaluate and promote Artur's project (ATP) which is a solution-based approach to deal with the injustice faced by students of families with socioeconomic challenges. It is extensive and full of information. I recommend it to be revised before being published. Here is my full report

Abstract

 

 

The abstract is very clear just a few tips to make it even better:

 

 

1- The first three lines of the Abstract, when you move from saying experience significant educational inequalities to saying immediately, facing chronic absenteeism, ........injustices.

 

 

adding the word "including" before facing chronic absenteeism will make the list more understandable.

 

 

 

2- when you say in line 7 of the abstract "The Arthur Project (TAP) provides...." this statement can be shortened and rewritten. First: move the "giving them greater control of their growth and aspirations through intensive" to the following sentence when you list the benefits of the program.

 

Second: tell directly how TAP addresses these challenges. "The Arthur Project (TAP) addresses these challenges by providing intensive, in-school, therapeutic mentoring and whole-family support.

 

 

 

3- In line 10 of the abstract when you say " The program strengthens..." can be rewritten as: "TAP program empowers students to have greater control of their growth and aspirations, strengthens students’ resilience, perseverance, self-actualization, and confidence through a strengths-based, antioppression design.

 

4- line 11: delete the beginning "A strengths-based, antioppression design is " as it was part of the previous sentence and immediately start with what the program does: "The program teaches essential life skills such as problem-solving, communication, and academic engagement.

 

 

Introductions

 

 

Please obtain a plagiarism report and paraphrase or quote areas like:

 

 

1.2. The Arthur Project Theory of Change

 

 

Lines 158-163 (The best logic models have an intentional …gram, and if they deviate from the course, they do so purposely.)

 

 

Line 179-188 : (As intended, the theory of change will illustrate how the program design … numerous program components.)

 

 

Also to avoid plagiarism rewrite these entire segments 243 – 268: (the program the knowledge that not only do they matter to their ……………………………..access to quality education, and are less likely to have opportunities for upward economic mobility [5])

 

 

 

 

Method

 

 

The first few sections are descriptive of the program as you mentioned as one of the goals of the paper, however when you write the method you don't show us that you are having a part that is descriptive of the Arthur project excursion in the schools you have studied. show us the structure of your method (i.e descriptive information, data collection,.

 

 

-You start by explaining the evaluator's justification of methods which was clear but again can be rewritten for better flow.  For example, I don't think stating the benefit of a Focus group here as a fact is appropriate in a method section versus an introduction. I would suggest saying something like the focus group was used to......

 

 

 

 

section 2.1 Participating Schools and Families :

 

 

1- instead of just having two bullet points start with an introductory statement that tells us what these designations are. For example, This study included schools and families from communities facing significant socioeconomic challenges divided into two specific designations:

 

 

2- You are not telling us about the selection criteria. How were the schools selected for participating in this study? For example, did you include all Title I status in this study?

 

 

Have you focused on a specific geographical location within the state?

 

 

3- Will you include some baseline demographical explanation about schools participating in this study.

 

 

 

 

Section 2.2:

 

 

You say in line 295: TAP identifies 6th-, 7th-, and 8th-grade students. Why? 6th graders are technically considered primary school so explain why you target them. I like how you provided a detailed explanation in the introduction about challenges and percentages facing specific grades and also info about Arthur's project in New York state. However, the explanation either here or somewhere before about the grades that are considered middle school in NY would be beneficial, and why targeting 6th to 7th instead of 7th to 9th?

 

 

 

Section 2.3:

 

1- Thank you for the clear description of the mentor's selection criteria.

 

 

I appreciate your focusing on leading the intern groups with experts who ensure their professionalism and high quality. Moreover, I have some concerns with mentioning Dr. Jessica Greenwalt's name in line 308, whom I admire for her great contribution to the field. My concerns can be seen from two different angles: First: her relationship to the paper:  If Dr. Greenwalt is not listed as an author, the authors need to provide evidence to clarify her role and ensure the accuracy of any information related to her contributions. Additionally, obtaining permission from her would be necessary in either case to ensure transparency and ethical practices. The second angle is the importance of mentioning a specific person's name when describing that person's role in a project with a version of expanding the project. Here we need to be cautious of the logical fallacy known as deference to authority, where an opinion is considered correct simply because it comes from a person of authority or fame. Mentioning Dr. Greenwalt's name in the context of the TAP program may raise concerns about potential perceptions that the paper is endorsing her business or relying on her authority to influence the evaluation of the work. This could undermine the scientific objectivity and rigor of the paper. Additionally, it may inadvertently suggest that the program's success is contingent upon the presence of a specific individual, making it seem less applicable in other contexts where a similar figure may not be available. Therefore, anonymizing her qualifications could help mitigate these potential biases.

 

 

You can revise the section to focus on the roles and qualifications of the mentors and the supervisory structure without naming specific individuals.

 

 

 

 

2- this point I am saying now applies to all the method sections. Please review it. When you tell us about the mentors you included in the program you evaluated you elaborate by telling us about the benefits of mentoring and the components of evaluation and supervision, This is good, but it's written in an informative way that fits the introduction. In the method, you should tell us how these points are insured in your mentors rather than why mentoring is generally important. This is more of an introduction. Here is an example from line 311:

 

 

(Research supports mentoring programs, like TAP, that maximize both the relationship quality and instrumental activities, such as goal setting [33]. These programs are more likely to increase the positive academic, behavioral, and social-emotional outcomes for youth [34]. The goal of developmental activities focuses on forging strong and trusting bonds as a means of youth development [33, 35], and task-focused or instrumental mentoring often focuses on goal attainment or specific skills. As the mentor helps the mentee to meet certain shorter-term goals and provides advice, counsel, and suggestions about the instrumental skill, they are also fostering lon...) This section should be in the introduction as it sets the stage for the importance of mentoring in TAP, not here as you are not reinventing tap you are describing it. Does this make sense?

 

 

3- This section from line311 -323 : (Research supports mentoring programs, like TAP, that maximize both the relation……… and social-emotional outcomes [34, 38].) appears to be using these and other parts from Karen Miner-Romanoff's paper Educational attainment for at-risk high school students: closing the gap

 

 (maximize both the relationship quality and instrumental activities, such as goal-setting. The activities are likely to increase the positive academic, behavioral, and social-emotional outcomes for youth (DuBois et al. 2002; Kezar et al. 2020; Lyons et al. 2019; Wilson-Ahlstrom et al. 2014).)

 

 

Very carefully rewrite this section line311 -323

 

 

 

 

 

2.3.1. Therapeutic Mentoring

 

 

1- This section contains a lot of areas that are at risk of plagiarism due to paraphrasing and improper quotation.  

 

 

First:

 

 

This entire section from line 333-343 ( Specifically, therapeutic mentors offer more structured activities than ……….., schools and communities [41].)

 

 

This is mainly copied from Ariel Ervin article Mentoring Program Feature: The Arthur Project with slim to no paraphrasing, nor quotation:

 

 

(Specifically, therapeutic mentors offer more structured activities than more informal programs. The program builds on the youths’ assets to develop communication and critical life skills, enhance conflict resolution, and build confidence related to the youths’ goals and individualized tailored growth plans)

 

 

As an example, changing the word the program to the mentor is not enough to qualify as paraphrasing this quotation with citation.

 

Second: the entire last paragraph of the same section is also copied from the same reference 373 -380 (TAP also provides support for mentor advocacy, which focuses on mentor activities ……. broadens social ties and networks that may lead to future connections.)

 

Please fix to avoid plagiarism/self-plagiarism?  

 

Moreover, the references are not listed despite being extensively used in the method section.

 

 

2.3.2.2 Mattering

 

 

Another risk of plagiarism/self-plagiarism? from Ariel Ervin's article Mentoring Program Feature: The Arthur Project with slim to no paraphrasing, without citation nor quotation:

 

 

541 -545 (Individual sessions also focus on relationship “brokering” …….. Providing support)

 

 

Section 2.3.2 included Finn’s social justice approach to social work, which you cited as [57]. This is a good and fair mention of the source but to ensure accuracy and avoid plagiarism please use a question mark when listing the eight steps 1 to 8 copied from the book.

 

 

when I finished subsections of sections 2.3.2 Mentor Training and Activities Mentors after I read the anti-racist framework in line 456, I thought about other solution-based approaches that are related. For instance, I asked how that is related to the ICF coaching approach. How are your discussion groups related to P4C discussion groups? I thought I would be looking for it to be written somewhere in the discussion. I will comment on this more in the discussion section.

 

 

2.4. Surveys and Forums 

 

 

Here I see you transitioning from describing your program as done in schools you evaluate to measuring the effect. so here is what I meant to make clear in general comment 1 in the introduction. 

 

 

2.7.1. Quantitative  

 

 

Describe exactly what statistical software and methods you used in detail.

 

 

2.7.2. Qualitative

 

 

This section from 772-885 (Assessments that measure cognitive outcomes based upon actions, knowledge, and …………. grit) is another location copied from the paper Bigs in Blue: Police Officer Mentoring for middle-school Students—Building trust and Understanding through structured Programming by Karen Miner-Romanoff New York University, USA   (Although assessments that measure cognitive outcomes based upon actions, knowledge, and understanding are less likely to conflate domains, noncognitive assessments often capture more than one domain at a time, and it is important to triangulate overlapping domains. For example, persistence and self-efficacy can intersect, just as self-assertiveness can overlap with self-efficacy.)

 

 

 

 

Here 7789-791 : (These non-cognitive or social-emotional skills 789 often combine personal traits, attitudes, and motivations that can be learned and developed through a lifetime and are often correlated with academic and personal success [97].) you find another cross-referencing from the same paper Bigs in Blue: Police officer mentoring for middle-school students—Building trust and understanding through structured programming by Karen Miner-Romanoff New York University, USA

 

 

 

 

Rewrite and paraphrase properly.

 

 

Results:

 

 

Nicely written and graphs are well presented with good quality.

 

 

 

 

3.8. Limitations

 

 

I love how this section is objectively written! Bravo!

 

 

This supports the need to compare what this method provides in relation to other methods as mentioned above

Discussion

 

 

4. Discussion: Recommendations and Conclusions

 

 

Your discussion section provides a comprehensive overview of the impact and potential of Arthur Project (TAP) here are potential areas for improvement of the discussion writing:

 

 

1-      Clarify and discuss evaluation goals.

 

 

2-      You mention areas needing additional data but you don’t elaborate on what these data are, adding specific examples might be useful.

 

 

3-      Talk about further justification of using social work students as mentors but you don’t further justify why this approach is more effective compared to other mentoring models.

 

 

4-      Since the program benefits from community members, more details in community and stakeholders' feedback would be beneficial.

 

 

5-      Consider how TAP overlaps with the principles of ICF coaching, particularly in the areas of relationship-building, goal-setting, and personal development. This is important as coaching is becoming more and more desired since it ensures the client (students here) control of their journey which is a goal you mention as early as your abstract.

 

 

 Check these references and see if you can include some or other you may find in your discussion:

 

 

A)      Evaluation of a Resiliency-Focused Health Coaching Intervention for Middle School Students: Building Resilience for Healthy Kids Program https://doi.org/10.1177/08901171209591

 

 

B)      Evidence-Based Life Coaching for Senior High School Students https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119656913.ch13

 

 

C)     This is a higher education study, but it may contain important info for comparison: Academic Coaching and its Relationship to Student Performance, Retention, and Credit Completion https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10755-021-09554-w

 

 

6-       There are several notable overlaps between TAP and P4C in the areas of critical thinking, fostering social and emotional development, and creating a learning environment.

 

 

               Check out this paper it gathers lots of good references on P4C that you may find useful in your discussion Scie-losophy" a teaching and learning framework for the reconciliation of the P4C and the scientific method  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37881625/

 

 

 

4.3. Additional Recommendations and Future Plans

 

 

Rewrite point number 12. 1489-1498 (Emerging Leaders Institute: To strengthen connections and build leadership, TAP …… speaking up, social justice and “leadership.”) to avoid plagiarism from Ariel Ervin article Mentoring Program Feature: The Arthur Project

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English writing is good since this is a long article the writing needs to be revised for structure and flow of information. 

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity to revised and resubmit. We believe the recommendations have made our work even stronger. Please see a detailed response to every comment attached. All suggestions have been adopted and the manuscript revised accordingly. Please also note that we are submitting our track changes in addition to the edited and clean manuscript for further detail. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research is amazing! This topic is much-needed and so important!

I think it would be helpful and interesting to describe the pairing of the mentees with their mentors, in terms of race and gender. There is research that people are more open when talking to people who are similar to them in terms of demographic characteristics, and I'm curious if this is true here.

I think that it's important to mention limitations of focus group research. For instance, in these types of settings, I know that some less outgoing participants might be tempted to be more silent and not share their thoughts, making the discussion focus around the ideas or more outspoken participants. Also, some students might feel pressure to agree with others when they actually might have other experiences. I think these sorts of concerns might especially apply to high school students. I don't think this is a problem with your research, but I think you might want to acknowledge these issues in your limitations section.

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and have revised the limitations section regarding focus groups accordingly. We are including both our track changes and our revised and clean manuscript for further detail. Thank you also for your recommendation on the race and gender pairing of the mentor and mentee matches. We did not collect that data for this evaluation but will include it on our next data collection. 

Thank you,

The Authors