Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting paper illustrating an important process within the university.

A few suggested comments for improving the paper. 

The text is sometimes difficult to follow due to the large amount of acronyms. 

You state this process could be useful for other universities as well, in order for this to happen the research process needs to be further explained, it come forward more like a descriptive review than a research process. If that is the case I think it becomes important to more clearly state what kind of paper this is, ie. What is the main purpose? Is it a review? Or is it research? And then in relation to the purpose more clearly explain the research/review process. Either or, it would be interesting if you included some of the obstacles you encountered during the process to make the paper more general and useful for other institutions. 

 

Author Response

We were pleased that our work was appreciated.

We would like to thank you your useful comments and suggestions. We have incorporated them to the revised manuscript and, we believe that its quality has been improved significantly. Please, find enclosed the revised manuscript in word format. All changes are highlighted in yellow.

Responses

• Having read the comment “The text is sometimes difficult to follow due to the large amount of acronyms” we have reduced the number of acronyms and abbreviated some of them such as Universidad del País Vasco / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU).
• We also agree with the comment that it is necessary to state more clearly what kind of paper is this. Thus, we have modified the tittle to make it clear that it is a case study “A holistic approach to integrate and evaluate Sustainable Development in Higher Education. The case study of the University of the Basque Country”. In addition, we have detailed more the research/review process and we have included three new paragraphs in section 1.1 in which we describe the difficulties pointed out by some other authors to implement UN 2030 Agenda in Higher Education and, we specified what is the contribution of this paper and its potential applications (See lines 106-150).
• With regard to the concerns about the obstacles encountered during the processes, as stated before, we inserted a reference to previous studies (see lines 121-140) and our own obstacles. Our difficulties are detailed in a new subsection devoted to the discussion of the main results (See lines 461-532). There, we insist on the idea that “The difficulty in our case is to ‘naturalize’ or normalize these changes so that the university community assumes that the UN 2030 Agenda and SDGs are not a temporary fashion (…)” and we explain what we are doing to achieve it, so it can be replicated (with adaptations) to other universities.

Finally, we have had the English reviewed by a mother tongue professional.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors are tackling a very important and up-to-date issue of sustainable development of universities. 

The paper is well structured and well written. The presented study is properly organized. Method is well chosen, and the presented results are relevant and interesting. The research process is well thought.

The paper is well structured and all the chapters have scientific value. It is well written and there is no necessity for language proof reading. The presented study was properly organized and presented in a concise and specific, but exhaustive way. The reader is lead through the study in a logical and properly explanatory way. The conducted analysis of university good practices reviewed through the 17 SDGs perspective is very interesting and the SDGs indicators were chosen properly.

The cited literature was also well chosen and is up-to-date. This article has proper scientific soundness and is very interesting, as it provides a complex overview of the topic and authors' own research.

I am only missing a stronger impact on the direction of future activities and recommendations.

Author Response

We were pleased that the paper was appreciated. We are really impressed by your feedback. Thanks.

We have incorporated your and other reviewer’s comments and suggestions to the revised manuscript. We believe that the paper is greatly strengthened after considering them and its quality has improved significantly. Please, find enclosed the revised manuscript in word format. All changes are highlighted in yellow.

You are right when you mention that “I am only missing a stronger impact on the direction of future activities and recommendations”. Therefore, we have inserted three new paragraphs in the introduction (see lines 106-150) to contextualize the area of research and that it is worth examining more closely. In addition, we have included a new subsection to discuss the results and their application (see lines 461-532). In this new subsection, we give some recommendations based on the idea that in order to implement UN 2030 Agenda “it is necessary to undertake medium-long term processes of strategic change and with the participation and support of different groups and interests”, we recognize the limitations of our work and, we provide some indications of the problems/difficulties that merit further examination.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents a case study of how the University of the Basque Country/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU) designed and articulated strategies and indicators to make the institution adhere to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). To address thee university's 2030 agenda from a more comprehensive and holistic approach, the methodological steps taken include mapping, mainstreaming, diagnosis and definition of indicators and, estimation of the indicators.

On one hand, the paper is very relevant and replicable as the steps and findings presented in this study can be applied to other institutions. On the other hand, the paper lacks an in-depth discussion of the main findings. Further, its academic contribution is also unclear. Therefore, I recommend the paper for a revision. Specific comments are as follows:

1. The Introduction section presented a good motivation and research background particularly on the role of universities in contributing to SDGs. However, the paper's academic contribution is not clear. This section, or a separate Literature Review, should also discuss how previous studies describe the methods used in other institutions or indicators used by universities. There are plenty of these in this journal. From these studies, the authors must identify the literature gap and present their proposed academic contribution.
2. In most studies, the Result section is separated from the Methodology. One of the reasons for these is its use for further research, as future researchers may use same or adopt the methodology and apply it in different context. As this study presented it as "progressive results", it is fine. However, there must be an in-depth discussion of the results. The discussion may answer the following. 
   1. What are the main findings; how do the findings agree/contradict with previous studies; what are the new insights that we can learn from this research that are not discussed in previous studies?
   2. What are the applications/implications of findings in a broader context? For instance, how can these be useful to other universities that already have their own set of agenda and indicators to achieve their goals; other universities that are still on the planning stage; to universities in developing countries that do not (yet) have agenda for SDGs; or to ministry/commission on higher education to require universities contribute to achieving the SDGs.
   3. How can you relate the method, result, or the whole study to the Special Issue "Evaluation and Indicators for Sustainability: Tools for Governance and Resilience"? This discussion seems missing particularly the 'tools for governance and resilience' part.
   4. What are the limitations of the study (or methodology); how did you address them; or how can future studies address these limitations?
3. In relation to [1] and [2], the references may be enriched by citing more peer-reviewed academic papers. Also, some online references only link to a web site rather than a page or document.
4. The paper needs English editing to check the format, punctuations, and minor mistakes.

Author Response

We would like to thank you for sparing the time to write so many detailed and useful comments.

We agree with the idea that the paper lacked an in-depth discussion and that the academic contribution was unclear. We have incorporated your suggestions to the revised manuscript (new tittle, new paragraphs in the introduction and a new subsection devoted to discussion) and, we believe that its quality has been improved significantly.

Please find enclosed the revised manuscript in word format. All changes are highlighted in yellow.

Our responses to each of your comments are detailed below.

• We agree with you that the the paper's academic contribution was not clear. Therefore, we have modified the tittle of the paper to state clearly that this is a case study: “A holistic approach to integrate and evaluate Sustainable Development in Higher Education. The case study of the University of the Basque Country”. In addition, the abstract has been modified to emphasize the contribution of this work. Moreover, we have inserted four new paragraphs in section 1.1. (see lines 106- 172) in which we describe results from previous studies and the obstacles that impede the implementation of an holistic approach to the development of SDGs in universities and . An intensive Literature Review has been done and we have extracted ideas and we cited nine new publications in our paper.

 

• With regard to the concerns about the lack of an in-depth discussion of the results, we have added a new subsection (2.5) at the end of section 2, in which we present the methodology and progressive results. We have modified the tittle of this subsection as well: “methodology, progressive results and discussion”. As recommended, we have included the following points, among others.
• [Reviewer] 1- What are the main findings; how do the findings agree/contradict with previous studies; what are the new insights that we can learn from this research that are not discussed in previous studies? What are the applications/implications of findings in a broader context?

1.  

“The study carried out by Paletta et al [25] highlighted that universities are complex, polycentric and multi-stakeholder organizations, for which sustainability can represent an opportunity to promote new institutional governance mechanisms, coherently orienting internal decision-making processes, allocation of resources and the incentive system for teaching and research. Putting these ideas into practice can lead to tensions and dysfunctions that could make very a real change difficult. Thus, it is necessary to undertake medium-long term processes of strategic change and with the participation and support of different groups and interests. The difficulty in our case is to ‘naturalize’ or normalize these changes so that the university community assumes that the UN 2030 Agenda and SDGs are not a temporary fashion, but rather a new ethic for our planet and our society. It is an ideological “disruption” that has being further exacerbated by the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic since March 2020. Changing the operating culture and mission of Higher Education Institutions putting them at the service of the common global challenges involves changes from the micro level to the macro, and destabilize many comfort zones.

Another opportunity is the operational definition and measurement of indicators that respond to the strategies proposed by each university to carry out its own development and appropriate UN 2030 Agenda. In this regard, the first step would be to ask ourselves what kind of indicators, why these indicators and what do we want these indicators for. In our case, the answers to these three questions were conditioned by our own reading of sustainability, that is, what does sustainability mean for the University of the Basque Country, which coincides with a great extent with Paletta et al. conclusions [25]. The University of the Basque Country is a young public institution (40 years of history), with a strong identification with its environment and with its hallmarks: the Basque language and the Basque culture. Its strategic commitment to the SDGs is not by chance, since these goals include many of the missions that the Basque society has entrusted to our institution. Our indicators and their monitorization become tools at the service of the EHUagenda 2030 itself and, at the same time, produces tangible results locally as well as equally tangible results to the specific targets of the international agenda. With this panel of indicators, we do not renounce reporting our achievements and contributions to international standardized systems. However, we are convinced that in addition to these international standardized systems, higher education institutions need their own indicators, which are adapted to the context and the needs of each of these.” (See lines 461-489)

[Reviewer] 2.- How can you relate the method, result, or the whole study to the Special Issue "Evaluation and Indicators for Sustainability: Tools for Governance and Resilience"? This discussion seems missing particularly the 'tools for governance and resilience' part.

“Indicators, if presented in systematic and clear terms, are not only the measurement of an outcome but also signals of the direction of change and, in addition, catalysts for achievement. In this special issue on "Evaluation and indicators for sustainability: governance and resilience?", we would dare to venture that, indeed, the monitoring of good indicators, of true indicators, are an effective way, along with others, to join forces towards the transformation of Higher Education in the direction of this new, and inevitable, philosophy that guides UN 2030 Agenda and SDGs. Our experience is that if the university endorses its indicators, it values them and the university community strives to obtain good results. As a result, they lead to the organization as a whole towards a change in culture. In contrast, if indicators are not endorsed and valued, the university turns the indicators into an additional administrative burden, which obviously has the opposite effect of the one desired. In short, from our point of view, universities, beyond being monitored and measured by external agencies (international rankings, quality assurance agencies and so on) must take control of their destiny and decide what they want to contribute, considering their situation and real possibilities.” (See lines 506-518)

[Reviewer] 3.- What are the limitations of the study (or methodology); how did you address them; or how can future studies address these limitations?

“Finally, some remarks should be made about the limitations of this study. As mentioned before, this is a case study and, thus, it describes a specific and space-time localized process. These is not a directly portable process or generalizable indicators and data that can lead to more robust syntheses. In order to advance the knowledge of integrated approaches to the development of sustainability at the university level, an increase in the number of real institutional experiences and their rigorous analysis would be necessary. This would enable the configuration of a minimum corpus of scientific knowledge. At this stage, qualitative research is essential and case studies are its best expression. A good number of local cases would give rise to studies of greater magnitude and comparability that allow us to observe common factors and trends. The second limitation is the short lifetime of the experience presented, which is only two years old. We pointed out that a strategic project like this needs a time perspective in the medium-long term. We have already carried out two outcome measures and progress was observed in some of the indicators, but there are also setbacks caused by the effects of the pandemic. Resilience is the concept that should guide many of the forecasts we make in the coming academic years.” (See lines 519-532)

• [reviewer] In relation to [1] and [2], the references may be enriched by citing more peer-reviewed academic papers. Also, some online references only link to a web site rather than a page or document.

We have made an intensive literature review and nine new references have been included in the paper (see references). Additionally, following your recommendations we have removed or modified the references to a link website.

• [reviewer] The paper needs English editing to check the format, punctuations, and minor mistakes.

The English has been revised by a professional mother tongue speaker. It was necessary, as we are not native English speakers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors made significant changes to improve the manuscript. Particularly, the revised paper identified the literature gap and presented its academic contribution as well as discussed the findings in a broader perspective and related them to the aims and scope of the special issue of Sustainability.

Author Response

We were pleased that our work was appreciated.

We would like to thank you your useful comments and suggestions. We incorporated them to the revised manuscript and, undoubtely, its quality improved significantly. You were certainly right when you say that it was neccesary a deeper literature review and a deeper discussion of the results.

Thanks a lot

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf