Perceptions of Environmental Protection of University Students: A Look through Digital Competences in Mexico

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

please see attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Suggested changes were worked on

 

Changes are shown in yellow.

The manuscript presented for review touches on a fascinating, meaningful, and timely topic in environmental protection. I evaluate the idea of the authors positively and agree that pro- environmental attitudes should be formed from an early age. Therefore, such research among students is essential and necessary from the point of view of science.

Unfortunately, severe shortcomings and gaps in the research part, in my opinion, do not allow the manuscript to be accepted for publication in its current form:

1. On page 5 (lines 173-174), the authors write about the use of a 5-degree Likert scale. Unfortunately, in the construction of the survey questionnaire and the calculations, it turns out this is not a 5-point Likert Scale, as the middle item "neither agree nor disagree" was missing. This serious methodological flaw undercuts the meaning of the surveys conducted.

R= Comments are considered and a Likert scale is adjusted to 5 levels.

2. The title of the manuscript suggests that the research applies to all students. However, this is not the case, as the authors limited the study to selected universities.

R= The title was modified according to the recommendations.

3. The analysis of the quantitative data obtained from the surveys is limited only to the percentage distribution. There is no indication of any correlations, e.g., gender, age, or field of study.

R= We worked on an ordinal qualitative data analysis of measures of central tendency (mean and standard deviation), of the Likert scale. In addition to including a hypothesis test.

4. There is a lack of satistical analysis, an indication of at least the median, etc. The authors limited themselves to calculating the coefficient of concordance, which, yes, is important, but I do not see the purpose of showing it in the form of a picture (page 6)

R= We worked on an ordinal qualitative data analysis of measures of central tendency (mean and standard deviation), of the Likert scale. In addition to including a hypothesis test. In addition, according to the recommendation, the figure on page 6 is eliminated.

5. As minor faults, one can point out the far too small number of literature items and the incorrect format of its index.

R= The literature articles in the study were expanded.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This study is devoted to the study of ways to preserve the environment by university students. This topic is significant for sustainability. The article contains the results of an empirical study that matter. However, the authors should significantly improve the article. The goal is not clearly expressed in the abstract. A sentence that contains a goal contains additional ideas that need to be turned into a separate sentence. No information on when the study was conducted. The list of keywords can be expanded. You need to enter the section "Limitations". Table 4 refers to Table 2. Is Table 2 needed? Discussions of the results should be presented in the Discussion section. It is possible to draw parallels with similar practices in other countries. It is necessary to clearly express the hypothesis from which the authors proceed and note that it is working, since in the Discussion section (line 299) there is the phrase "In contrast to the hypothesis from we ..." Which hypothesis exactly? Lines 120-123. Digital competencies are mentioned and a link to the source is given. This study is independent. The reader does not have to read another article to understand what the authors meant. A paragraph cannot consist of a single sentence. This rule also applies to those paragraphs from one sentence, even if it consists of 5 lines. It is necessary to break the thought into several, which will make the ideas more understandable. Such paragraphs appear in the text more than once or several times. It is necessary to issue references and citations in the text in accordance with the norms of the journal "Sustainability". The purpose of this article and the conducted research have a scientific value. But the authors need to show that this study has an international aspect. This article needs a significant expansion of the theoretical background. Therefore, an appeal to international experience in solving issues of environmental education and environmental behavior will significantly enrich the article. To enrich their work in these areas, the authors, for example, can refer to the following works: Balundė, Audra, Goda Perlaviciute and Inga Truskauskaite-Kuneviciene. “Sustainability in Youth: Environmental Considerations in Adolescence and Their Relationship to Pro-environmental Behavior.” Frontiers in Psychology 11 (2020): https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.582920 Shutaleva, A., Martyushev, N., Nikonova, Z., Savchenko, I., Abramova, S., Lubimova, V., & Novgorodtseva, A. (2022). Environmental behavior of youth and sustainable development. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(1), [250]. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010250 Shutaleva, A., Nikonova, Z., Savchenko, I., & Martyushev, N. (2020). Environmental education for sustainable development in Russia. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(18), [7742]. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187742

Author Response

Suggested changes were worked on

 

Changes are shown in yellow.

The manuscript presented for review touches on a fascinating, meaningful, and timely topic in environmental protection. I evaluate the idea of the authors positively and agree that pro- environmental attitudes should be formed from an early age. Therefore, such research among students is essential and necessary from the point of view of science.

Unfortunately, severe shortcomings and gaps in the research part, in my opinion, do not allow the manuscript to be accepted for publication in its current form:

1. On page 5 (lines 173-174), the authors write about the use of a 5-degree Likert scale. Unfortunately, in the construction of the survey questionnaire and the calculations, it turns out this is not a 5-point Likert Scale, as the middle item "neither agree nor disagree" was missing. This serious methodological flaw undercuts the meaning of the surveys conducted.

R= Comments are considered and a Likert scale is adjusted to 5 levels.

2. The title of the manuscript suggests that the research applies to all students. However, this is not the case, as the authors limited the study to selected universities.

R= The title was modified according to the recommendations.

3. The analysis of the quantitative data obtained from the surveys is limited only to the percentage distribution. There is no indication of any correlations, e.g., gender, age, or field of study.

R= We worked on an ordinal qualitative data analysis of measures of central tendency (mean and standard deviation), of the Likert scale. In addition to including a hypothesis test.

4. There is a lack of satistical analysis, an indication of at least the median, etc. The authors limited themselves to calculating the coefficient of concordance, which, yes, is important, but I do not see the purpose of showing it in the form of a picture (page 6)

R= We worked on an ordinal qualitative data analysis of measures of central tendency (mean and standard deviation), of the Likert scale. In addition to including a hypothesis test. In addition, according to the recommendation, the figure on page 6 is eliminated.

5. As minor faults, one can point out the far too small number of literature items and the incorrect format of its index.

R= The literature articles in the study were expanded.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This study can be improved by justijying some points:

- the problematic of this study can be improved,

- the literature about digital competentes, ESD,...

-  the measuring instrument, why did you use four points of Likert and not five or seven?

- the analysis method can be improved also.

Author Response

Suggested changes were worked on

 

Changes are shown in yellow.

 

This study can be improved by justijying some points:

 

Work was carried out on the suggested recommendations

 

- the problematic of this study can be improved,

R= The problem was improved in this study

 

- the literature about digital competentes, ESD,...

R= The literature on digital competencies was reinforced

 

-  the measuring instrument, why did you use four points of Likert and not five or seven?

R= Comments are considered and a Likert scale is adjusted to 5 levels.

 

- the analysis method can be improved also.

R= We worked on an ordinal qualitative data analysis of measures of central tendency (mean and standard deviation), of the Likert scale. In addition to including a hypothesis test.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors took into account most of the comments and solidly revised the manuscript

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have significantly improved the article. However, authors should pay attention to the structure of the text, as a paragraph should be more than one sentence. Therefore, it is better to look at where the meaning allows you to combine sentences into one paragraph. Also on page 6 you need to enter the notation used in Table 2 in the description of the table. I note that the topic is of great relevance today and the list of literature can be expanded. At the same time, this study presents the results of the study and the discussion of these results at an acceptable level for a scientific article.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Following major revisions, it's ok for me.