Sustainable Digital Communication in Higher Education—A Checklist for Page Loading Speed Optimisation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This theme is interesting and you have an innovative contribution and very interesting empirical dates. 

The references is appropriate and focus on the issues of the article. 

The conclusion and discussion underline the implication for educational field. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #1

Thank you for your valuable feedback. It is highly appreciated!

We have made all the revisions and we trust the present format of the article now meets with your requirements and standards of quality.

Please see the attachment.

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In my opinion, this article isn't in accordance with the goals of this Journal. It's better to submit to Journals in business administration, advertising, and even higher education.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #2

Thank you for your valuable feedback.

We have made all the revisions and we trust the present format of the article now meets with your requirements and standards of quality.

Please see the attachment.

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper, entitled Improving digital communication in higher education - a 2 checklist for loading page speed optimizations, looks at the analysis of academic web pages speed loading times and the points universities need to pay attention to in order to increase digital performance and improve the candidate experience.

The paper is well written and interesting with useful implications for higher education.

The main problem with the article is something the authors mentioned in the abstract - the connection between the topic and sustainable development (mentioned in the abstract) and then in Chapter 5 ("Discussion") is not sufficiently linked to the main topic/idea of the paper. If the authors mention this link, they should provide stronger evidence of it. This should be done by adding additional literature (in the literature review) and then in the discussion.

Also, the first part of Chapter 5 (Discussion) is actually a conclusion and should be there. This means that last part of the paper should be rewritten (It should be clear what is discussion and what is conclusion). Hypothesis should also be clearer stated. 

All in all, the authors have made interesting analysis of academic web sites and used interesting methodology - try to rewrite last part in order to connect it with the problem that you have stated. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #3

Thank you for your valuable feedback. It is highly appreciated!

We have made all the revisions and we trust the present format of the article now meets with your requirements and standards of quality.

Please see the attachment.

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The issue faced is tangentially related to the scope of the journal.

The importance of the decision to enter an undergraduate program in an educational institution is a transcendental decision and not a transitory one, so other factors should be more relevant than the one presented by the authors. There is insufficient justification of the importance given by the authors to page loading speed as a relevant factor in the situation presented.

In the initial part of the document, it seems to refer to the main pages of the sites of the educational institutions as the scope of the work, which referred to simple exploration tasks; however, in the methodology section, it is stated that the objective is to identify the technological features of the online enrollment process. I consider that these are 2 different types of tasks and at different times, since this assumes that the candidate already intends to join the institution. If so, the document loses coherence. Please discuss and explain this situation.

Are there other reference works that apply this approach to this type of decisions, which are not only of perception, but define life actions for a long period of time?

There is a good analysis of the pages, but the weakness of the article is related to the justification of the study and the relevance of the topic in the applicant's decision for a university.

There is no validation with real users, which would allow to know if the hypothesis is valid.

There is a mixture of 2 styles of references, for example: [] (Demir & Parraci,2021; Yang et al., 2019).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #4

Thank you for your valuable feedback. It is highly appreciated!

We have made all the revisions and we trust the present format of the article now meets with your requirements and standards of quality.

Please see the attachment.

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

Thanks a lot for revisions. I get the relationship between digital communications in university and sustainability, but the question of this research and its results is profound and specialized. As far as I understand, this manuscript is not related to the goals of this journal.

Sincerely,

 

Author Response

Thank you for your opinion.

Reviewer 3 Report

Congratulations to the authors for making such a great improvement of the paper. Good luck with further research. 

Author Response

Thank you! We appreciate!

Reviewer 4 Report

The new version makes changes in response to reviewers' comments.

Two aspects are still weak:
- The issue faced is tangentially related to the scope of the journal.
- The relevance of the page loading speed and the decision to join a university.

Overall the work has improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf