Trends in Brazil’s Forestry Education—Part 2: Mismatch between Training and Forest Sector Demands

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Your paper entitled "Trends in Brazil's Forestry Education. Part 2: mismatching between forestry curriculum and demands of forest sector" is very interesting and of a great practical importance in order to training future forest managers as the Brazil's forests conservation is of a global impact.

I have some recommendations as follows:

1) Line 44, page 2: May be you meant "profession" not "professional" here?

2) It will be better to add a subsection 2.5. Statistical evaluation and to explain there the software used, etc.

3) Line 118, page 3: Please, add a reference number of your first study here

4) Line 220, page 8: The sentence "How to increase adherence between stakeholders and the university ..." should start on a next row.

5) Lines 226-227, page 8: Please, add a reference for this statement "A high value is given for research activities in the admission process and during the carrier evaluation in universities in Brazil"

6) Line 249, page 8: Please, add a reference for this program "In 2020, a government-supported agricultural residency program was carried out ..." and for the mentioned projects also.

7) Lines 262-265, pages 8 and 9: Please, correct where needed: " The idea of the project is to teach forest education to children of public schools, at the same time it aims to build the capacity of  undergraduate students of forestry at the University of São Paulo"

8) Line 265, page 9: May be you meant "Another group of possibilities are the “junior companies” many of which are regulated ....

9) Lines 266-267, page 9: This part of the sentence is also hard to understand " ... and allow students to make projects connected to the program for any citizen or company that does not require a higher level of expertise."

10) Lines 271-279, page 9: Please, add some references here (Where are you getting these data from?)

11) Line 277, page 9: May be it will be better to add some info about Açaí (few words in brackets)

12) Reference list: Please, check again the Instructions for authors and correct where needed.

The authors' name should be separated by ; 

There is no "and" before the last author's name

Please, use "." before the title, not ","

Some examples:

[1], [2] - Book title should be in italic

[3] - The publisher name is not fully represented: Unasylva 2013/1, Volume 64 No 240: 3-11 

[10] Your first article is published already, so add the info

and so on

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear respected authors,

 

1. The Abstract section needs to be revised. The hypotheses and the statistical analysis methods should be explained in this section. In addition, it is recommended to avoid using "we" in a scientific article. (Line 17, for instance.)
2. The keywords should be selected based on the importance and frequent usage of phrases in the study. According to this point of view, some keywords like "social responsibility", and "sector professionals" should be revised or eliminated from the keyword list.
3. The first sentence of the Introduction section should be divided into at least two sentences, or instead of using, other conjunctions should be used.
4. The literature review, which has been merged with the Introduction, should be extended, and the literature gap should be clear.
5. The acronyms and abbreviations must be defined once. In lines 60 and 73, "IPEF" has been defined twice, and the second one is redundant.
6. In the Materials and Methods section, the content of the questionnaires, whether standard, obtained from the literature, or created by the authors for this special study, should be mentioned. In addition, the Null and Alternative hypotheses should be mentioned clearly in this section. Moreover, the name of the institutions and the number of samples and population members should be stated.
7. The validation and verification of the questionnaire should be checked or explained when they are used to confirm or obtain a scientific conclusion.
8. It is recommended to unify using Fig. or Figure in the whole text.
9. What is the aim of defining "ESG" when it has not been used in the text at all?
10. It is suggested to talk about the limitations of the research and the further studies in a single paragraph at the end of the conclusion section.

The English level of the manuscript should be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article focuses on whether Brazil’s forestry education meet the social demand, which is may not a special question in forestry field or within a nation. As a general problem, there are still somewhere to improve. The review comments are as follows:

1.    It is widely discussed on media, but how to explain and analysis this phenomenon from an academic perspective? The article is lack of literature review in second part to illustrate the relationship between this article and the existed research. And point out what problem is not solved in existed research such as lack of a case study in Brazil or else.

2.    The authors conducted four surveys to quantify the gap between the forestry education and social needs, but what is the relationship among four surveys? It is needed to construct a framework to show the logic of these four surveys.

3.    The descriptive statistical analysis of survey sample is lack. As a research based on surveys, it is essential to introduce your sample information such as sample quantity, sampling method, age, answer range and etc. All the above work are needed to help reviewers judge the reliability and representativeness of the survey.

4.    What does your study aim at? In the abstract part, it is written that ‘are forest engineering graduates in Brazil being properly trained to meet forest sector’s demands? In order to answer this question,…’（in line 10-11）. In the introduction part, the question seems changed to “are the skills of forest engineers the ones that professionals and market companies consider important?’ (in line 56-57).

5.    Introduce the background more clearly. The topic shows ‘forest education’(in line 2), the introduction shows ‘the number of programs and graduates’(in line 48), the discussion shows ‘is the university adequately training future forest engineers for the forest sector’(in line 188).  Until after reading the discussion part, I realize that the forest education refers to the university education. But it is confused what is the relationship between the program (in line 48) and university education? To avoid this misunderstanding, more background information need to be given in the introduction part.

6.    Consider what the university study give to the graduated students. If the university only trains for working skills, what is the difference between university and specialized technical school?

7.    Eliminate language errors and express your opinion in more authentic English.

 

Eliminate language errors and express your opinion in more authentic English.  Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript's content has been modified according to what the reviewer recommended. According to the reviewer's point of view, the manuscript is worth being published in the respected journal.

Reviewer 3 Report

Revised version has a great representativeness of forest-based, and made big progress in Originality. Overall, it measured up for publication.

Minor editing of English language required