It is interesting research. I only think that the sample of 42 students is not enough. It should be at least 100 students to see the credible results. Furthermore, it is hard to call the group diverse when the first-grade group had only 8 males and 14 females, and the fourth grade- only 1 male and 19 females. The research should involve more students of both genders. I think the SWOT analysis was used properly and showed the changes that took place when students progressed from the first grade to the fourth grade.

It was interesting to see how the authors used a SWOT analysis to support their qualitative research. I have to admit, it took me a second read to realize that first grade equates to first-year students 😊. For the sample size, it should be larger, especially when two researchers are conducting the study.  I believe the study would have had more validity if the researchers were able to survey the same group of students from year 1 to their responses in year 4, since the sample groups are very different in composition. It appears that the project curriculum requirements were the same for each group. Overall, I appreciate their findings on how important it is for teachers to help their students learn to be creative and think critically when working on science projects.

Really interesting study! The manuscript aligns with the focus of JIR and highlights an area of teacher education that could benefit many teacher education students.

I would like to see SWOT defined early in the article so the reader gains a clear grasp on a concept they may not be familiar with. As the readership for this specific journal is likely to be more familiar with American colleges, it might also be helpful to clarify grades vs year in college.

For relevancy and timeliness, I might update the literature review to include mostly recently published findings (within the past eight years). Grammatical, APA documentation, and APA formatting should be addressed. 

It would be helpful to explain how the sample from one university represented diversity because there is little information supporting the current diversity statement. Were demographic data collected that indicated a racially, ethnically, religiously, or otherwise diverse sample? If so, that information would be good to include to support the diversity point.

I like the idea of the qualitative approach and I found the explanation of data collection and analysis to be well done. It might be beneficial to add a quick statement that explains the contrast between how reliability and validity are ascertained in qualitative versus quantitative studies and how qualitative methodology differs from quantitative.

I enjoyed reading the article. It makes a good point about the importance of incorporating project based learning throughout the length of the teacher education program.  

This is a fascinating study and it is excellent on how the SWOT analysis was used. Very good data analysis section although I would have suggested using additional data collection tools. Relying only on documents combined with a small sample size does not allow for much triangulation of data. Considering the sample, possibly along with documents, could have included drawings/visuals and/or interviews. Including an interview after the collection of the document would be beneficial in gaining a greater and deeper understanding of the rationale for some of the comments even before data analysis. 

I found this to be a very interesting and informative research paper. I think its main focus of project studies for soon-to-be teachers of science is really important, valid, and relevant in the world of pedagogy. The use of the acronym SWOT for data analysis in terms of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats regarding project work for student teachers based on their surveyed responses was quite clever, I must say. However, I do also think that there is room for improvement in some areas.

For instance, a larger sample size and more diverse sample space would strengthen the data collection and give a more accurate picture in terms of what's really happening on the ground when it comes to student teacher opinions and outcomes for project studies overall. Moreover, I think defining exactly what "pre-service teacher" means would be helpful, especially for those who may not be entirely familiar with the term. You may also want to clarify what is meant by first grade and fourth grade undergraduate students, since in certain countries outside of Turkey, first and fourth grade are typically elementary school grade levels. I believe you probably meant to say first-year and fourth-year undergraduate students. A few minor grammatical issues can be resolved by a spelling and grammar check in the utilized word processor.

I think you provided some great suggestions and recommendations in the last section of the manuscript, prior to the reference page, for how teachers can learn and improve upon their abilities of managing and implementing projects for their pupils in the science classroom. In my view, project management skills are an essential asset for teachers to have and will encourage their students to appreciate the overall positive learning benefits of working on school projects not only in the subjects of science, but all offered subjects. It's clear to me that this research adds to our knowledge in the field of project-based learning and pedagogy. I wish you all the very best in this manuscript's potential to be published!

Contrary to some comments, I actually thought the presented data was very interesting! A SWOT analysis acts as a valuable tool to critique these mentioned topics. The revealed insights seem applicable to the practical applications discussed. Of course, one study might lead to more studies and analysis in the related research questions.

Some more cited current studies and research might further substantiate the suggested findings of this paper. Were any other previous studies completed on this similar topic in the last ten years? I would be curious to know.

A qualitative angle could potentially contribute more knowledge on these concepts. The content of this article is definitely related to the overall scope of JIR.   

The paper offers a comprehensive understanding of the posed topics. The authors do a fantastic job presenting the findings and addressing the benefits of the presented information.

I would like to mention first that  I love that this study focuses on using SWOT analysis as this is a strategy I use with my students who are teachers or student teachers.  I did notice a few grammatical errors so I would suggest having it reviewed. I do not feel that 42 students is an ample number to return valid and reliable results. Also there were only 9 males and 33 females which could also produce discrepancies in the results based on gender. I did not understand that these were pre-service teachers, yet were in 1st and 4th grade. I found that to be confusing and it needs to be defined so that all countries would understand this. There was mention of maximizing diversity, but this sampling does not seem diverse to me. You have 2 grades and mostly females. What other aspects of these students make it diverse? The SWOT analysis is done well and I appreciate the findings and recommendations. Science educators need to make sure that students are using critical thinking skills and using project-based learning. The pre-service science teachers are a great place to start!