All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thank you again for choosing to submit your work to PeerJ, and I look forward to seeing the final published version.
In lines 123-159, there are several minor instances of non-standard English grammar. I have highlighted them in the annotated .pdf, and I would suggest making these minor wording changes before submission of the final version. I believe the paper will be suitable for publication after those amendments
I appreciate your patience with the process, given the difficulty and prolonged process around findings suitable reviewers. Although both reviewers reported favourably on the manuscript, there were several points which were identified as ways to improve upon the current version.
Reviewer 1 has suggested that you cite specific references. You are welcome to add it/them if you believe they are relevant. However, you are not required to include these citations, and if you do not include them, this will not influence my decision.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
The work is of great interest due to its thematic approach, but it has to improve some aspects of a structural and bibliographical nature. In this sense, on the one hand, it is necessary to make the reason for the selected methodological proposal more clear, direct and precise.
It would be opportune to allude more comfortably to the context and to the transformations derived from the era marked by the impact of the planetary crisis of the coronavirus.
In addition, it is recommended to incorporate other studies that have mapped the curricular offer and needs of other areas, such as these three:
Cervi, L.; Simelio, N.; Tejedor, S. (2020). Analysis of Journalism and Communication Studies in Europe's Top Ranked Universities: Competencies, Aims and Course. Journalism Practice (Published online first. 24 May 2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2020.1762505
Merisotis, Jamie P. 2010. “On the Ranking of Higher Education Institutions.” Higher Education in Europe 27 (4): 361–363. doi:10.1080/0379772022000071832. [Taylor & Francis Online],
Moed, Henk E. 2016. “A Critical Comparative Analysis of Five World University Rankings.” Scientometrics 110: 967–990. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2212-y. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar].
Tejedor, S.; Cervi, L.; Escoda, A.; Parola, A.; Tusa, F. (2021). Higher Education response in time of coronavirus: perceptions of teachers and students, and open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7, 43, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010043
Sánchez-García, P., & Tejedor, S. (2022). Technical-digital teaching in Journalism studies in Spain: towards a generic and specialized hybrid training in languages and formats. Information Professional, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2022.ene.05
UNESCO. 2007. Model Curricula for Journalism Education. París: UNESCO. [Google Scholar]
It would be highly relevant to identify the study's weaknesses, on the one hand; and the possible lines of future development of the same, on the other.
Regarding the conclusions, the dialogue between the study findings and the authors mentioned in the first part of the manuscript should be enriched.
As noted above, it is necessary to better clarify the reason for the selected methodological approach, justify the techniques and tools, and allude to existing precedents.
The findings would have to be the object of a clearer systematization from the argumentative point of view in order to be able to offer ways of direct application and/or possible future developments at the investigative level.
The work presents an approach of interest as long as the indicated aspects are improved, especially in relation to the methodology and the background -direct and indirect- that connect with the selected topic and the corresponding object of study.
The English used is basic, correct.
It has used extensive bibliographical and statistical sources, which adequately respond to the topic of the article.
The article includes an introduction to the topic discussed and its background with a good review of what was previously published; with precise references to relevant previous literature.
The structure of the article conforms to the format and criteria used in scientific articles.
The presentation is "autonomous", it constitutes a "publication unit" that includes all the relevant results that were intended to be analyzed.
The subdivision of the content is carried out into coherent and appropriate sections.
This is a research that uses primary sources and analyzes the results obtained in accordance with the formulated objectives.
The account made clearly responds to a research question whose answer is relevant and significant. The choice of the type of studies is relevant, not only for each individual person but also for society that requires professionals in the health field. It is a response to the circumstances experienced in recent years.
The research has been carried out with the appropriate instruments and with scientific rigor. And taking into account the current ethical standards regarding the protection of personal data.
The methods used in this research are well described, which can be applied to other research with similar objectives.
'No comment'. Nothing to add.
The conclusions are consistent with the statistical data found. And they can have an impact on some groups, they represent an advance in our knowledge of the subject and are of interest to a broad public.
Conclusions are well expressed, linked to the original research question, and limited to supporting results.
The conclusions are well stated, connected to the initial research question, and supported by the results.
'No comment'. Nothing to add.
The analysis carried out in this article about the changes experienced in the demand for undergraduate studies related to in Spain during 2015-2021, provide an illuminating and interesting study in the context of some of the health circumstances experienced in recent years.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.