Career Path Decisions and Sustainable Options
, Yasuo Hoshino 3, Akbar Azam 1 and Ahmad Shabbar Kazmi 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Although the topic is interesting for today's society, the article in its present form does not meet the standards of a high-quality journal. So, several suggestions for improvement are listed below:
- - Perform a relevant bibliometric analysis in order to draw a relevant conclusion and to put forward a proposition that could be considered by the research and professional community
- - Spell check the entire manuscript
- - Check the punctuation
- - Check the reference system
- - Figures are mentioned but not included in the manuscript
- - Check the reference system once more.
Good luck!
Kind regards,
the Reviewer
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Title: Try to indicate the kind of study.
Abstract: Its structure is adequate but I suggest that its beginning could change, avoiding to refer to “This paper”.
Key words: I wonder to what extent “sustainable options” (from title) is represented in the current keywords. With this regard, try to avoid repeating concepts from title, using exactly the same words.
Introduction: The first time authors use IT term, they could write it completely, not only with initials. In line 36, review “a series of guided career steps.”. Clarify which is the real objective of the paper. Many times authors refer to what the paper “tries” or “its main challenge”. This section needs a deeper justification based on references. Several sentences are important to contextualize the paper but they are not based on any previous knowledge. In lines 93 and 98, reference style must be reviewed. Review line 158 (occupation / ns). I do not find quote number 53 or, at least, fitting this journal guidelines.
Material and methods: Describe with more detail the “search of articles” carried out (line 289). There are a few sentences that begin with extra initial spaces. For instance, in line 358. Review the whole paper with this regard.
Results: I wonder to what extent is appropriate only one subsection. If the section (Results) must be splitted, I guess that more than one subsection is, therefore, required.
References: Review whether it fits journal’s guidelines. For instance, in line 600, V should be changed into V.
Author Response
Please see the attachement
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The text is well written and constitutes an interesting contribution to the scientific community. The objectives are well stated. The methodology is in accordance with a study of these characteristics. The results are interesting and the conclusions provide relevant issues. The references are current and the writing style is clear.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Line 31: What os the meaning of IT? At the first time when you use and acronym, su should include the meaning.
Line 289: you should include where did you search information. An also the descriptors to search information.
The methodology and methodological design are also lacking. It is not clear from the information in this section.
Line 392: the results are insufficient and are only based on a design. It would be recommended to at least include some diagnostic evaluation or some other source of real information, for the context in which this design is proposed. The purpose is to further complete the information provided by this research to the educational scientific field.
Line 470: the conclusions must provide a clear and concise response to the objectives set out in this research. In addition, they must be supported by the bibliography collected in the theoretical framework.
Line 489: it is indicated that the study is based on a meta-analysis, but there is insufficient information in the methodological section to justify that the study is based on this approach. Therefore, it is recommended that the present study be improved by developing the methodological section again under a PRISMA design.
It is also recommended to include a discussion of the results.
The information contained in the figures is not clear within the body of the paper
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Congratulations, the article is coherent and clear now. There are still some commas and spaces that should be added or removed, but I am sure that they will be taken care of by the editorial team. Generally speaking, the article is comprehendable from the first reading. I would have added the number of articles and databases that you have analysed, and the period of time in which the research was conducted as I think that these would have added value to your research, but if the editor(s) of the issue do not mind it, then the article is publishable in its present form, after the final spelling, punctuation and formatting check is done.
Kind regards,
The Reviewer
Reviewer 4 Report
Good job
