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 for attending to the remaining issue. Indeed it is, as you observe, a pity we cannot access English translations of the original citations. However, thank you for addressing this point and I am now happy to recommend that we accept this work.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jafri Abdullah, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Out of the 3 specific papers that the reviewer could not access, we still could not access one (Li, 2015). It appears that these papers will not appears in a Google search as they are written in the Chinese language, and so it becomes difficult/impossible for English-speaking readers to access those sources without the links the authors have provided in their table.
This needs to be addressed by the authors, ideally by providing an alternative English language citation.
That issue apart, thank you for your careful attention to the revisions. Once this issue is resolved I will accept the paper.
I have conducted a check on the authors replies to the comments in my original review (see additional comments below).
I have conducted a check on the authors replies to the comments in my original review (see additional comments below).
I have conducted a check on the authors replies to the comments in my original review (see additional comments below).
The authors have amended the text and addressed the issues I raised in a clear an concise way. I appreciate their efforts.
I am unclear as to the issue over 'raw data and public release, but the authors comment that that statement allows them to release that data they have a match PeerJ's requirements
All three reviewers, while positive in general, raised issues that you should carefully and rigorously address. This will require considerable re-writing and further analysis. Their comments are explicit and must be addressed fully and carefully, with your cover letter explaining how you have modified your manuscript in accordance with their suggestions. Two have provided files for you to consider.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial 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. #]
Please see attached review
Please see attached review
Please see attached review
Please see attached review
There are some minor grammatical issues that could be addressed (see below).
My opinion is that a lot of terminology used in the introduction section will need some additional explanation (for example, I'm not sure the readership will understand "self-efficacy ... and lexical bundles")
Examples of corrections could be:
p1: lines 21-23 - line 23 indicates plural but the previous sentences mention only 1 questionnaire: clarification required.
p1: the conclusions don't flow from the results - what does 'engaged in the context' mean?
p2: line 35 - is this English writing or EAW?
p2: line 42 - "English writing task", maybe - "an English..."?
p2: lines 56-58: explain what is meant by linear and roundabout text structure.
p3: line 81: "(the) argumentative type"
p3; line 93 - what test scores?
p4: lines 177 - 180: clarify this text as it indicates the CTDI-CV is both reliable and 'not acceptable'.
p7: lines 270-271 - check the formatting
p8: line 293: check the grammar.
p11: lines 434 - 439: check the grammar.
There are no issues I could identify with the design.
Two issues need to be clarified/resolved:
For table 4: why are the standard deviations larger than the means? Does this suggest that the data is non-parametric and so mean & sd should not be used?
p11: lines 450-451 (and subsequent paragraph) - why does a correlation/prediction indicate cause? It's not obvious what the "clear messages" are for improving EAW in school beyond that EAW and CTD are correlated. Is this evidence that improving critical thinking will improve EAW?
I'm not sure I agree with the subject sections (cognitive disorders and psychiatry)
The authors should clarify what is meant by the phrase "No public the data excluding raw data set" in the IRD jpg means, and confirm that in including the raw data table in the PeerJ supplemental data conforms to this requirement.
There are some issues that need resolving with the references:
A google search on the title of the Pan and Wu reference (2019) indicates that there are no hits. A google search on the title of the Lin reference (2016) indicates that there are no hits. A google search on the title of the Li reference (2015) indicates that there are no hits. Can this be explained? I stopped checking after I searched for these 3 references. Later I did find other references OK. Can a list be generated of all the references and their availability?
Primarily, I have to disclose that almost all of my detailed comments are shown in the manuscript (using tack change). In line with report writing, the manuscript is mostly written in a clear and unambiguous manner. However, it needs revision for minor language usage errors. Besides, the introductory and background section of the manuscript also tries to show the research context. The literature is also well-referenced and relevant. Nonetheless, it would be more comprehensive if relevant studies from Africa are incorporated.
The structure of the manuscript also conforms to PeerJ standards and discipline norms. In addition, the supplementary files like tables are also relevant to the study. However, the data presented in Table 1 is not relevant. Hence, as I stated in the manuscript through the “track change”, the participants’ background information is collected for this study but not linked with the major research variable, critical thinking. Why is it? Thus, years of study and other demographic factors should be examined and reported in this study. If not, the demographic data should be removed from the paper because it is incorporated into the study for nothing.
As far as my knowledge is concerned, this article manuscript is original primary research that is within the scope of the journal. Besides, the research questions are well articulated, linked to the research title, and relevant to fill the knowledge gap related to critical thinking and argumentative writing. The methods section of the manuscript described the methodology aspects of the study with sufficient details. The study used relevant data-gathering instruments and data analysis methods with appropriate ethical standards. However, as I stated in the manuscript with “track change”, minor revision is needed to the methods section to make it clearer and reader-friendly. For instance, it would be better if the samples, sampling technique, and population are explained in the methods section.
The findings of the paper are valid because they are interlinked with the research questions, and they showed the results of the collected data. Besides, the necessary procedure is also followed in the study which indicates that the findings are valid. The conclusions of the study are also stated in a good manner and linked to the research questions.
By and large, the entire part of the paper needs revision. As I stated in the manuscript (using track change), the manuscript should be revised to clarify the theory of the study, complete citations, elaborate methods, fix reporting errors, and enhance the language usage including grammar, diction, choppy sentences, vague ideas, etc.
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.