Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The issue of problem solving is and will always be relevant, the article provides an interesting and stimulating view of the issue.

-The first half of the article up to 9 pages is very extensive. It might be worth shortening this part and pay more attention to the proposed methodology. Also, the description of known techniques (5Whys, Pareto) could be more concise.

-In part 6, entitled Case Study, the author writes that it is based on his research, but its parameters are not described. We do not know anything about the number of respondents or the method of implementation of the mentioned research and the achieved results, which significantly reduces the credibility of the presented results and considerations. I consider that this information needs to be supplemented.

-It would be worthwhile to say more specific information for which problems is the mentioned methodology successful and for which ones are not.

-It would be interesting to state how the author wants to carry out broader research to verify in detail the offered methodology.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for the important comments that you sent to us. We considerer all of them and implemented the changes requested. Please check below the answers and in attachment the new version of the manuscript.

All the best.

The authors

Reviewer 1

The issue of problem solving is and will always be relevant, the article provides an interesting and stimulating view of the issue.

-The first half of the article up to 9 pages is very extensive. It might be worth shortening this part and pay more attention to the proposed methodology. Also, the description of known techniques (5Whys, Pareto) could be more concise.

LFP:

Thank you for your review. We agree and therefore have removed the 2.2 section and summarized and restructured the description of techniques developed by other authors, trying to limit their to what is important for our line of thought.

-In part 6, entitled Case Study, the author writes that it is based on his research, but its parameters are not described. We do not know anything about the number of respondents or the method of implementation of the mentioned research and the achieved results, which significantly reduces the credibility of the presented results and considerations. I consider that this information needs to be supplemented.

LFP:

Thank you for pointing this out. We have added some information regarding the case study that we used part in the methodology section and part on the case study section.

-It would be worthwhile to say more specific information for which problems is the mentioned methodology successful and for which ones are not.

LFP:

Thank you for your suggestion. We have only one case study which serves as an example of how to implement the proposed framework. However, more testing is necessary in order to be able to understand which problems this methodology is not suitable for. At this moment is was designed for management problems in the business context, it still has to be tested for social and economic problems. Nevertheless, we emphasized this in the limitations section.

-It would be interesting to state how the author wants to carry out broader research to verify in detail the offered methodology.

LFP:

Thank you for your remark. We agree and tried to specify the future lines of research with a bit more detail. The present framework was designed for management and business problems, it not only needs to be validated with more cases in these contexts but also should be assessed its application to other contexts such as economic, social or others.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you to the journal for the review possibility of the article and compliments to the authors for the efforts they have made to write the paper.

This article is very interesting, dealing with issues related to problem solving methodology to address business and management problems.

I have few remarks and some I consider to be major(methodology and sustainability).

The major aspect is the connection between the paper´s topic and the topic of sustainability. You need to explain the theoretical connections between the paper´s topic and the topic of sustainability. Equipped personnel with problem solving skills lead to company profit and may lead also to company sustainability. In order to emphasize sustainability and value creation through decision making do consider to discuss introducing the triple bottom line model (planet-people-profit) suggested by Elkington(Elkington, J. Triple bottom-line reporting: Looking for balance. Aust. CPA 1999, 69, 18–22.). In order to become sustainable through emphasizing value creation/ serving the other and addressing present needs one should be concerned in negotiation for problem solving and sustainable management actions. So to promote the competitive advantage of people (and through the skills you discuss you actually follow this – the skills that people gain will contribute to this line=people), care that profit is also concern with sustainable results, when as mentioned in the present study scientific management practices will enhance the efficiency of the solutions encountered ...and may increase employee commitment, which ultimately enhances employee retention leading to sustainability. You should start considering sustainability in the introduction, continue in the theoretical background to address this previously researched connections also within the last section-discussions (implications…). Previous studies, also on negotiations, relate negotiations and human resource management or management practices to sustainability, having as common features the association with positive results for employees, developing organizational sustainability through skilled human resource, the efficiency of the solutions encountered ...and may increase employee commitment, which ultimately enhances employee retention... One study that came now when I searched is a recent one https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/2071-1050/12/22/9443 , but there are numerous other studies.

Regarding other aspects:

In the introduction:

• What do the authors mean by pragmatic?? model(line 42)? This constructs needs further explanations or simply considered it proposed model resulted without the term pragmatic- it might be conceptual? If the model is described as a practical one and it was not tested the study is not valid..

Other aspects:

• The source in figure one is not visible (line 58)
• Figure 6 has terms that were not translated/adapted: pressupostos, mediatismo, concorrencia.
• I do not agree that the present work produced a scientific toolbox of business research methods (line 573) but rather gathered these from previous studies and proposed directions/ a framework to approach problem solving, while considering three main topics: problem solving, business research methods and statistical methods. The results were divided in two topics, problem formulation and solution formulation ....
• When the case study method is used it better follow a multiple case study, designed to be both valid and reliable (Goffin, K., Åhlström, P., Bianchi, M. and Richtnér, A. (2019) ‘State‐of‐the‐art: The quality of case study research in innovation management’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 0(0), pp. 1–30.). Eisenhardt (1989) : 4-10 cases suffice to establish replication and the selection of the case study companies need to follow both sampling logic and theoretical sampling. A single case considered might not be reliable and also it is missing case study research methodological elements that maybe needs testing to establish replication. As mentioned the model needs testing.

The ideas from discussions should be presented also in the theoretical background and introduction- better explaining the gap in the introduction, line 542-546: The Pereira Problem Solving methodology addresses this gap, providing a complete and detail script that can be tailored to each problem and context. Its application can improve the quality of the solutions proposed for different business problems. It is an intuitive tool, easy to employ, that helps organizations effectively implement scientific management practices and in conclusion emphasize the contribution of the paper to the identified gap and the incremental practical aspects brought in the present research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for the important comments that you sent to us. We considerer all of them and implemented the changes requested. Please check below the answers and in attachment the new version of the manuscript.

All the best.

The authors

Thank you to the journal for the review possibility of the article and compliments to the authors for the efforts they have made to write the paper.

This article is very interesting, dealing with issues related to problem solving methodology to address business and management problems.

I have few remarks and some I consider to be major(methodology and sustainability).

The major aspect is the connection between the paper´s topic and the topic of sustainability. You need to explain the theoretical connections between the paper´s topic and the topic of sustainability. Equipped personnel with problem solving skills lead to company profit and may lead also to company sustainability. In order to emphasize sustainability and value creation through decision making do consider to discuss introducing the triple bottom line model (planet-people-profit) suggested by Elkington (Elkington, J. Triple bottom-line reporting: Looking for balance. Aust. CPA 1999, 69, 18–22.).

In order to become sustainable through emphasizing value creation/ serving the other and addressing present needs one should be concerned in negotiation for problem solving and sustainable management actions. So to promote the competitive advantage of people (and through the skills you discuss you actually follow this – the skills that people gain will contribute to this line=people), care that profit is also concern with sustainable results, when as mentioned in the present study scientific management practices will enhance the efficiency of the solutions encountered ...and may increase employee commitment, which ultimately enhances employee retention leading to sustainability. You should start considering sustainability in the introduction, continue in the theoretical background to address this previously researched connections also within the last section-discussions (implications…). Previous studies, also on negotiations, relate negotiations and human resource management or management practices to sustainability, having as common features the association with positive results for employees, developing organizational sustainability through skilled human resource, the efficiency of the solutions encountered ...and may increase employee commitment, which ultimately enhances employee retention... One study that came now when I searched is a recent one https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/2071-1050/12/22/9443 , but there are numerous other studies.

LFP:

Thank you for your suggestion, we find it very pertinent. We have included some references and made the connection between the problem-solving skills, the skills necessary for future managers and sustainable development.

Regarding other aspects:

In the introduction:

What do the authors mean by pragmatic?? model(line 42)? This constructs needs further explanations or simply considered it proposed model resulted without the term pragmatic- it might be conceptual? If the model is described as a practical one and it was not tested the study is not valid..

LFP:

Thank you for pointing it out, we have adjusted all the terms used.

Other aspects:

The source in figure one is not visible (line 58)

Figure 6 has terms that were not translated/adapted: pressupostos, mediatismo, concorrencia.

LFP:

Thank you for noticing, we have fixed the image and translated all the terms.

I do not agree that the present work produced a scientific toolbox of business research methods (line 573) but rather gathered these from previous studies and proposed directions/ a framework to approach problem solving, while considering three main topics: problem solving, business research methods and statistical methods. The results were divided in two topics, problem formulation and solution formulation ....

LFP:

We agree with your comment and have modified the sentence and the other mentions of toolbox in order to accomodate your suggestion.

When the case study method is used it better follow a multiple case study, designed to be both valid and reliable (Goffin, K., Åhlström, P., Bianchi, M. and Richtnér, A. (2019) ‘State‐of‐the‐art: The quality of case study research in innovation management’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 0(0), pp. 1–30.). Eisenhardt (1989) : 4-10 cases suffice to establish replication and the selection of the case study companies need to follow both sampling logic and theoretical sampling. A single case considered might not be reliable and also it is missing case study research methodological elements that maybe needs testing to establish replication. As mentioned the model needs testing.

LFP:

Thank you for your insights on the paper. We agree with you; however, we only have one case study of application of the proposed framework. We have changed the way it is presented in order to make it more clear that it is a first example and we reinforced the need of further testing in the limitations section.

The ideas from discussions should be presented also in the theoretical background and introduction- better explaining the gap in the introduction, line 542-546: The Pereira Problem Solving methodology addresses this gap, providing a complete and detail script that can be tailored to each problem and context. Its application can improve the quality of the solutions proposed for different business problems. It is an intuitive tool, easy to employ, that helps organizations effectively implement scientific management practices and in conclusion emphasize the contribution of the paper to the identified gap and the incremental practical aspects brought in the present research.

LFP:

Thank you for the interesting point, we agree with it. Scientific management is defined by a set of very wide principles and on the other hand, the models and formulas suggested to perform the analysis are very narrow and specific. We aimed to make the connection between this two levels and we have changed the introduction in order to make it more clear what gap are we referring to.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Regarding the point 2.1, it is achieved by taking over the report cited in reference 1, and taking over some figures from the same source. Point 2.2 is built on the same way of working, by explaining a figure, (fig.3) taken from the reference marked with no. 5, and continues with another integral takeover (fig.4) with reference to another source (ref.9), the authors' contribution being a minor one in the content of these sections. Maybe that taking over the information from other official reports or works (eg Fig.1,2, 3, 4) can be avoided, if the authors will paraphrase the information taken with the indication of the initial reference or can create their own representations where can be included the same information.

Some quotations are used in the paper, but the authors do not have references to them (eg. Lines 18, 186, 231, 263-264, 270). The paper contains a number of 21 figures, of which only 8 are notified as belonging to the authors, another 2 figures are taken entirely from reference 13 (fig. 8, 20) which has a similar theme, and another 6 figures are noted by the authors, they are adapted according to the original references (respectively fig. 6,7,9,14,15,16) and whose necessity can be reanalyzed by the authors, possibly with references in the text of the paper about this information that are now presented in the mentioned figures.

The paper contains numerous passages that present summaries of the authors on other works, respectively reference 18 is resumed by authors with their own description (lines 327-347) or the example presented by the authors in the text at line 359-370 that can be restructured,  summary of reference nr. 26 is presented between rows 424-437, or reference 13 is described in point 6 of the paper. All these forms of summary of some references used, can influence the originality of the work, and they can be reanalyzed and restructured into shorter paraphrases, to express the context of the citation. We note that some of the figures used by the authors do not detail through broader explanations or arguments, the content of the representation and its necessity in the paper (Eg. Fig. 10, 13,14,17 etc.).

All these elements lead to the decision of a major revision of the paper, to be in according to the publication requirements of the journal, reflecting an appropriate scientific character.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for the important comments that you sent to us. We considerer all of them and implemented the changes requested. Please check below the answers and in attachment the new version of the manuscript.

All the best.

The authors

Regarding the point 2.1, it is achieved by taking over the report cited in reference 1, and taking over some figures from the same source. Point 2.2 is built on the same way of working, by explaining a figure, (fig.3) taken from the reference marked with no. 5, and continues with another integral takeover (fig.4) with reference to another source (ref.9), the authors' contribution being a minor one in the content of these sections. Maybe that taking over the information from other official reports or works (eg Fig.1,2, 3, 4) can be avoided, if the authors will paraphrase the information taken with the indication of the initial reference or can create their own representations where can be included the same information.

LFP:

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with your comment, therefore we removed completely the section 2.2 since its relationship to the paper was less relevant.

Some quotations are used in the paper, but the authors do not have references to them (eg. Lines 18, 186, 231, 263-264, 270). The paper contains a number of 21 figures, of which only 8 are notified as belonging to the authors, another 2 figures are taken entirely from reference 13 (fig. 8, 20) which has a similar theme, and another 6 figures are noted by the authors, they are adapted according to the original references (respectively fig. 6,7,9,14,15,16) and whose necessity can be reanalyzed by the authors, possibly with references in the text of the paper about this information that are now presented in the mentioned figures.

LFP:

Thank you for this suggestion which we agree with. We have removed all quotes and all images that were not adding information to the paper. We reviewed the remaining images in order to ensure that they are linked to the text and properly contextualized.

The paper contains numerous passages that present summaries of the authors on other works, respectively reference 18 is resumed by authors with their own description (lines 327-347) or the example presented by the authors in the text at line 359-370 that can be restructured, summary of reference nr. 26 is presented between rows 424-437, or reference 13 is described in point 6 of the paper. All these forms of summary of some references used, can influence the originality of the work, and they can be reanalyzed and restructured into shorter paraphrases, to express the context of the citation. We note that some of the figures used by the authors do not detail through broader explanations or arguments, the content of the representation and its necessity in the paper (Eg. Fig. 10, 13,14,17 etc.).

LFP:

We agree with your remarks and thank you for them. We have reviewed all the mentioned passages in order to  restructure them and take only the essential for our line of thought.

All these elements lead to the decision of a major revision of the paper, to be in according to the publication requirements of the journal, reflecting an appropriate scientific character.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Abstract and Purpose

This manuscript has an interesting and unique title.  The abstract is very similar to a recent publication:

Pereira, L. F., & Santos, J. P. (2020). Pereira problem solving. International Journal of Learning and Change, 12(3), 274-283.

Here is a comparison of the abstracts:

(Pereira & Santos, 2020): One of the current challenges in organisations is related to decision-making in adverse, uncertain and complex environments.

Manuscript: Decision making in unpredictable, unfavorable and multifaceted conditions is one of the main challenges organizations face nowadays.

(Pereira & Santos, 2020): The proposed model ‘Pereira problem solving’ ensures a better understanding of the problems and an identification of the best solutions.

Manuscript: Pereira Problem Solving methodology presented provides a complete and thorough guide to address business and management problems. It is an intuitive and easy-to-use instrument that helps organizations adopt scientific management practices and will enhance the efficiency 12 of the solutions encountered.

• The manuscript does not offer anything new that was not published already!
• The discussion, conclusions, and implication section lacks a comprehensive overview of the purpose of the paper, conclusions and the implications of the problems solving model
• Rejected!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for the important comments that you sent to us. We considerer all of them and implemented the changes requested. Please check below the answers and in attachment the new version of the manuscript.

All the best.

The authors

This manuscript has an interesting and unique title.  The abstract is very similar to a recent publication:

Pereira, L. F., & Santos, J. P. (2020). Pereira problem solving. International Journal of Learning and Change, 12(3), 274-283.

Here is a comparison of the abstracts:

(Pereira & Santos, 2020): One of the current challenges in organisations is related to decision-making in adverse, uncertain and complex environments.

Manuscript: Decision making in unpredictable, unfavorable and multifaceted conditions is one of the main challenges organizations face nowadays.

(Pereira & Santos, 2020): The proposed model ‘Pereira problem solving’ ensures a better understanding of the problems and an identification of the best solutions.

Manuscript: Pereira Problem Solving methodology presented provides a complete and thorough guide to address business and management problems. It is an intuitive and easy-to-use instrument that helps organizations adopt scientific management practices and will enhance the efficiency 12 of the solutions encountered.

The manuscript does not offer anything new that was not published already!

The discussion, conclusions, and implication section lacks a comprehensive overview of the purpose of the paper, conclusions and the implications of the problems solving model

Rejected!

LFP:

Thank you for your perspective on the paper. Despite the similarities in the abstracts (which we already changed in order to better differentiate them), the papers are substantial different in their nature. Pereira & Santos, 2020 was a laboratorial experiment in order to gather a first understanding of the methodology potential. On the other hand, the present paper describes the framework to address organizational problems through a scientific approach in a detailed manner to establish a new methodology that can be reproduced. This paper aims to be a reference for managers assisting them to make fast decisions in complex scenarios based on scientific principles. Furthermore, the relevance of this paper is reinforced by the importance of problem solving skills stated by WEF in 2020.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the revised version of the manuscript, it is a significant improvement. I still have some concerns regarding methodology. When using a case study of research methodology, scientists select several examples of a certain phenomenon to be studied and then deeply investigate the characteristics of those examples (cases) on different cases, not only one illustrative example – it has to be explained why it is illustrative, how the phenomenon varies under different circumstances and must represent alternative perspectives.

Author Response

Thank you for the revised version of the manuscript, it is a significant improvement. I still have some concerns regarding methodology. When using a case study of research methodology, scientists select several examples of a certain phenomenon to be studied and then deeply investigate the characteristics of those examples (cases) on different cases, not only one illustrative example – it has to be explained why it is illustrative, how the phenomenon varies under different circumstances and must represent alternative perspectives.

R: Thank you for the supportive comment. In relation to the illustrative case study, we agree with the reviewer concerns. As such, we provide additional arguments for the illustrative nature of the case study and clarify the reasons for its use in the article. Please see section 6, first paragraph.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

If the authors gave up the previous section marked with 2.2, then does the actualy numbering for  2.1 section still make sense?
We maintain the recommendation for authors to review the need to take over figures from other works (eg fig. 11 does not result if it is taken in full or is an adaptation of the authors).
We consider that all the corrections signaled on the initial work have been made, and the paper that can be published after a minor revision.

Author Response

If the authors gave up the previous section marked with 2.2, then does the actualy numbering for  2.1 section still make sense?

R: We agree with the reviewer. It does not make sense to use just one section. As such we eliminated the subsection title.

We maintain the recommendation for authors to review the need to take over figures from other works (eg fig. 11 does not result if it is taken in full or is an adaptation of the authors).

R: We agree with the reviewer. Our intention is to illustrate the text with visual insights. However we agree with the reviewer in relation to use of third parties’ diagrams. As such, we eliminated figure 1 and 11, but kept the rest since they were created by the authors and provide a value added insight. Hope you agree with us.

We consider that all the corrections signaled on the initial work have been made, and the paper that can be published after a minor revision

R: Thank you for the contribution to improve our work and for the constructive comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper, although it still sounds very interesting but still major flaws in communicating. The authors spend the whole introduction establishing the importance of problem-solving. I think the importance of this skill is well known! Over and over, problem-solving, effective communication and teamwork have been among highly required skills. When we talk about the theoretical background, we should be discussing the theatrical background in the cognitive aspects of problem-solving. The paper should establish the theory of problem-solving theory, not in proving that problem solving is an important skill to acquire!

Other problems:

Abstract:

• Pereira Problem Solving methodology presented provides a complete and thorough guide to address business and management problems.
• When and where in the paper we provided such assurance? There is no external validity and reliability established to back this claim.
• It is an intuitive and easy-to use instrument that helps organizations adopt scientific management practices and will enhance the efficiency of the solutions encountered.
• “Intuitive?” Is this a scientific method or an intuitive method? If this an intuitive method, then we should talk about intuition and theories related to cognitive psychology. The most important part of the problem-solving process will be the intuition of the problem solver. So, where did the authors describe the characteristics of the problem solver? In fact, the characteristics of the problem solver should be one of the major variables.

In your response:

• This paper aims to be a reference for managers assisting them to make fast decisions in complex scenarios based on scientific principles. Furthermore, the relevance of this paper is reinforced by the importance of problem solving skills stated by WEF in 2020.
• For managers to make a fast, intuitive decision, they will need to be part of your variables and a major part of the process. WEF 2020 might be the latest source, but the importance of problem-solving as one of the employable skills has been discussed. See (Anderson, 1989; Voss et al., 1983).
• Anderson, J. R. (1989). The analogical origins of errors in problem solving. Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon, 343-371.
• Voss, J. F., Greene, T. R., Post, T. A., & Penner, B. C. (1983). Problem-solving skills in the social sciences. In Psychology of learning and motivation(Vol. 17, pp. 165-213). Academic Press.

Discussion and implementation

• The discussion and implementation part is extremely shallow and short. This paper aims at establishing a new framework. Nevertheless, we do not get a solid implication and conclusion from the authors.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

This paper, although it still sounds very interesting but still major flaws in communicating. The authors spend the whole introduction establishing the importance of problem-solving. I think the importance of this skill is well known! Over and over, problem-solving, effective communication and teamwork have been among highly required skills. When we talk about the theoretical background, we should be discussing the theatrical background in the cognitive aspects of problem-solving. The paper should establish the theory of problem-solving theory, not in proving that problem solving is an important skill to acquire!

R: Thank you for pointing this out. Our aim was to establish a base for the development of the model along the next sections, providing theoretical insights along the mode presentation. However, we agree that this can be too short. As such we extended the LR for better theoretical framework. Please see the two first paragraphs and the highlighted paragraphs in this section.

Other problems:

Abstract:

Pereira Problem Solving methodology presented provides a complete and thorough guide to address business and management problems. When and where in the paper we provided such assurance? There is no external validity and reliability established to back this claim.

It is an intuitive and easy-to use instrument that helps organizations adopt scientific management practices and will enhance the efficiency of the solutions encountered. “Intuitive?” Is this a scientific method or an intuitive method? If this an intuitive method, then we should talk about intuition and theories related to cognitive psychology. The most important part of the problem-solving process will be the intuition of the problem solver. So, where did the authors describe the characteristics of the problem solver? In fact, the characteristics of the problem solver should be one of the major variables.

R: We agree that claiming that the model is complete may be too ambitious. As such we eliminated this word from the description in the abstract. We also agree with the reviewer that the term ‘intuitive’ can be misleading as it is an essential characteristic of the problem solver. As such we changed the word for ‘integrative’ which we believe is more adequate to the proposed model. We also agree that intuition is a main characteristic for problem solving, adding the decision maker perspective to our analytical model. Accordingly we recognize this issue in page 2, 3^rd and 4^th paragraph and on page 13, 4^th paragraph.

In your response:

This paper aims to be a reference for managers assisting them to make fast decisions in complex scenarios based on scientific principles. Furthermore, the relevance of this paper is reinforced by the importance of problem solving skills stated by WEF in 2020.

For managers to make a fast, intuitive decision, they will need to be part of your variables and a major part of the process. WEF 2020 might be the latest source, but the importance of problem-solving as one of the employable skills has been discussed. See (Anderson, 1989; Voss et al., 1983).

Anderson, J. R. (1989). The analogical origins of errors in problem solving. Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon, 343-371.

Voss, J. F., Greene, T. R., Post, T. A., & Penner, B. C. (1983). Problem-solving skills in the social sciences. In Psychology of learning and motivation(Vol. 17, pp. 165-213). Academic Press

R: Thank you for the insights and suggested references. They are very insightful and are now integrated in the text. Please see page 3, 2^nd paragraph.

Discussion and implementation

The discussion and implementation part is extremely shallow and short. This paper aims at establishing a new framework. Nevertheless, we do not get a solid implication and conclusion from the authors.

R: Thank you for pointing this out. We revised both sections to provide a better description of the findings.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Section 2 should introduce different models and show the debate why, where, how, and to what extent each model compares to the others theoretically.

I am going to repeat the last part of my previous review, one more time:

The manuscript does not offer anything new that was not published already! Unless the author(s) can make their case in the discussion, conclusions, and especially the implication sections. Currently, the study lacks a comprehensive overview of the purpose of the paper, conclusions, and the implications of the problems solving model.

I suggest the author(s) revise the discussion, conclusion, implications, and section 2 to illustrate the advantages of different models. Compare and contrast your model with the models that will introduce in section 2. 

Author Response

-