Methodology to Analyze the Effectiveness of ESD in a Higher Degree in Education. A Case Study
, Lucía Alcántara Rubio 1 and Dolores Limón-Domínguez 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is very well done. The strength is the detailed description of the methods; this is very well done.
Major recommendation: the questions must be presented in the manuscript before the mention of Q1, Q2, etc. This is especially relevant in the abstract.
The abstract needs reworked. Two glaring issues that need foxed: define ESD before using the acronym and avoid any mention of Q4, Q5, etc.
Minor revisions:
far too many significant figures used in Table 1 define all acronyms as they are used (ESD, SDG)Author Response
- Reviewer comments
The paper is very well done. The strength is the detailed description of the methods; this is very well done.
- Authors answer
We thank the reviewer for his/her comments. The review has contributed to improve the paper.
- Reviewer comments
Major recommendation: the questions must be presented in the manuscript before the mention of Q1, Q2, etc. This is especially relevant in the abstract.
- Authors answer
We have included the statements of the questions in the abstract, as suggested by the reviewer. That has increased the number of words in the abstract above what journal standards recommend. We hope this is not a problem.
- Reviewer comments
The abstract needs reworked. Two glaring issues that need foxed: define ESD before using the acronym and avoid any mention of Q4, Q5, etc.
- Authors answer
We have specified the meaning of the acronym ESD in the abstract. With respect to eliminating the references to the questions, we consider that eliminating the references to Q4, Q5 and Q6 would unnecessarily complicate the reading of the abstract, once the questions have been included the first time they are referenced, as the reviewer previously suggests.
- Reviewer comments
Minor revisions:
far too many significant figures used in Table 1 define all acronyms as they are used (ESD, SDG)
- Authors answer
We are aware that Table 1 contains a lot of information, but we consider it important to validate the results presented in this paper. On the other hand, although ESD and SDG are two widely known terms in the field of sustainability, we have defined SDG the first time it is used (in the introduction). ESD was already defined, also in the introduction, second paragraph.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the possibility to read your manuscript.
Some comments/suggestions:
seems necessary a Abstract reformulation in: "The survey consists of 18 questions, and has been answered by 104 first-year students and 86 fourth-year students belonging to the Bachelor Degree . . . subject learning guides do not reflect the work done by the students throughout their studies.". I suggest the abstract structure: objective, methods, conclusion and, if possible, implications; it's necessary "sustainability map; sustainability presence map" as keywords; before Methods, it would be important to deepen the relationship between skills and sustainability in order to better justify the importance of the manuscript; not culminate a subchapter with a figure. For example: 3.1 Results of the first research question; there's no text in: Ln 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395?; separate results and their analysis of conclusions. For example: Ln 603-637; Format the manuscript by the journals norms (For example: "Author Contributions").Author Response
- Reviewer comments
seems necessary a Abstract reformulation in: "The survey consists of 18 questions, and has been answered by 104 first-year students and 86 fourth-year students belonging to the Bachelor Degree . . . subject learning guides do not reflect the work done by the students throughout their studies.". I suggest the abstract structure: objective, methods, conclusion and, if possible, implications;
- Authors answer
The abstract follows a structure similar to that suggested by the reviewer: Objective (lines 12-15), methodology (lines 15-20), results (20-30) and implications (30-33). However, we have rewritten some parts of the abstract so that it is understood more clearly.
- Reviewer comments
it's necessary "sustainability map; sustainability presence map" as keywords;
- Authors answer
We do not understand this comment very well, because both terms were already included among the keywords of the paper, on line 30
- Reviewer comments
before Methods, it would be important to deepen the relationship between skills and sustainability in order to better justify the importance of the manuscript;
- Authors answer
We have improved the introduction to try deepen in the relationship between skills and sustainability in order to better justify the importance of the manuscript
- Reviewer comments
not culminate a subchapter with a figure. For example: 3.1 Results of the first research question;
- Authors answer
We have included a paragraph after Figure 9 to prevent what the reviewer says.
- Reviewer comments
there's no text in: Ln 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395?;
- Authors answer
This has been a layout error that we have already corrected
- Reviewer comments
separate results and their analysis of conclusions. For example: Ln 603-637;
- Authors answer
We do not understand this comment very well, since the lines mentioned by the reviewer belong to different paragraphs. The methodological part is described in the first paragraph, and the results in the second. However, we have reviewed the entire paper to verify that methodology and results are not mixed.
- Reviewer comments
Format the manuscript by the journals norms (For example: "Authors Contributions").
- Authors answer
We have reformatted the document following the norms of the journal in the sections in which the norms were not respected.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
After my reading, I consider that the authors have clarified the manuscript and that it has quality to be published.
