Sustainability Survey: Promoting Solutions to Real-World Problems

1. Sustainability: An Overview

The concept of sustainable development, defined by the 1987 Brundtland Report [1] as meeting the needs of current generations without compromising the needs of future generations to meet theirs, is something far removed from selfishness, a way of living to pass on to future generations the idea that dreams can be realized [2].

The theme was portrayed at first as a brand, as a way to attract consumers. Not everyone was aware of the damage humans were doing to nature. In recent years, there has been an increase in awareness. In particular, the pandemic period has resulted not only in a staggering number of deaths globally, but it has also increased awareness of sustainable issues [3]. Sustainability covers multiple aspects of resource use and society [4].

New challenges are also proposed at the education level [5,6], where it is required to develop degree programs that can be dynamic. However, in this path, it should not be forgotten that sustainability is based on knowledge of fundamentals and basic subjects. Instead, it is required to implement practical courses in which the actual sustainability of processes, products, and services is assessed. This field will allow for novelty in different jobs by looking at the role that will be played by the different stakeholders (consumers, general society, local communities, value chain actors, and workers).

The theme of a community is essential in this transition process, in which all parties are called upon to collaborate [7]. The concepts of green economy, circular economy, and bioeconomy are all relevant, being geared towards quantifying the environmental, economic and social benefits of new ways of operating over current ones [8,9,10].

In response to the unprecedented challenges, MDPI established Sustainability as “an international, cross-disciplinary, scholarly, peer-reviewed and open access journal of environmental, cultural, economic, and social sustainability of human beings”. “It provides an advanced forum for studies related to sustainability and sustainable development, and is published semimonthly online”.

The growth of Sustainability has been extraordinary over the past few years and its publication number has increased from 78 in 2009 to 14,050 in 2021. The current figure shows that the number of publications in 2022 is about 64% of the number in the previous year, for a period in which only about 67% of the entire calendar year has elapsed (Figure 1). The distribution of authors shows that about 26% are listed as from China, followed by the United States and Spain (both about 9%)—Figure 2. The list of the five authors with the highest number of published papers is as follows: (i) Marc A. Rosen (Ontario Tech University, Canada); (ii) Heesup Han (Sejong University, South Korea); (iii) Sangbing Tsai (Wuyi University, China); (iv) Luca Salvati (Università degli Studi di Macerata; Italy); and (v) Seung-Hoon Yoo (Seoul National University of Science and Technology, South Korea).

In the past year of 2021, the Sustainability editorial team extended the journal’s trajectory into the following interdisciplinarity sections: “Green Building”, “Soil Conservation and Sustainability”, “Sustainable Forestry”, “Waste and Recycling”, “Sustainable Oceans”, “Sustainable Water Management”, “Pollution Prevention, Mitigation and Sustainability”, and, most recently, “Bioeconomy of Sustainability” (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/sections/bioeconomy_sustainability).

As a leading journal of this field, Sustainability is indexed within Scopus, SCIE and SSCI (Web of Science), GEOBASE, Inspec, AGRIS, RePEc, CAPlus/SciFinder, and many other databases (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability). According to the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) for 2021 published by Clarivate, Sustainability’s Impact Factor (IF) increased to 3.251 in WoS, which ranks the journal as Q2 in the fields of Environmental Sciences and Environmental Studies. Concurrently, its CiteScore in Scopus has continued to increase to 3.9 (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/stats) and ranks as Q1 in SCImago (https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21100240100&tip=sid) and Scopus (https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/21100240100). In the coming year, we expect Sustainability’s impact to extend further, in the fields of energy, environment, and resources.

2. Sustainability Marketing Survey

A framework on Sustainability’s first 10 years showed that the top five keywords were sustainability, management, China, model, and performance [11]. We can see that a recent analysis on Scopus shows changes and the following top five keywords are recorded in the overall period: sustainability, China, sustainable development, perception, and questionnaire survey. This suggests that the questionnaire survey is a well-established method that can play a key role in perceiving different points of view. From this perspective, the concept of sustainable hand supports the ecological transition [12]. A questionnaire survey is one of the methods that can be used [13].

The intent of this Editorial is to ask the Editors of Sustainability about their perceptions regarding some points of analysis/discussion. The questionnaire was built by a collaboration between the Academic Editors and the Managing Editors, who represent a strength of Sustainability. The goal is to make the process effective and efficient; having at the center of the agenda the authors and the ideas, they want to propose with their work.

The questionnaire consists of 12 questions and was sent via an email, in which the purpose of the questionnaire was explained. All responses are handled in aggregate and in an anonymous format. Invitations were sent out during February–March 2022. The preliminary questionnaire was sent to two fellow Editors to capture insights and made enhancements.

3. Survey Results and Discussion

The number of respondents who answered was 144. The demographic analysis shows that they mainly work in university/academic institutions located in Italy (about 31%) and this is likely influenced by the e-mail address from which the invitations were sent (Italian Academic Editor)—Figure 3. Similarly, although this number may not be significant in numerical terms, it is significant considering the figure of the stakeholders to whom this survey was addressed. They were in fact only Editorial Board Members of Sustainability and the data in Figure 3 show very high profiles in scientific terms. In fact, the number of respondents with an h-index of at least 20 is about 62%.

Respondents are evaluated not only in their capacity as Editors, but also as authors and reviewers. As far as their role as authors is concerned, it emerges that they typically publish between 5 and 10 papers per year. Moreover, a significant sample (about 29%) publishes more than 10 papers per year—Figure 4. The analysis of the comparison with the number of papers published in Sustainability shows a large share of authors who, despite being Editorial Board Members of the journal, do not currently publish any paper (about 44%). It is also relevant to show that about 45% publish between 1 and 3 papers.

Some points of reflection follow. The number of papers published in a year depends on many factors, such as the number of hours devoted to teaching, the number of hours devoted to the other activities (e.g., student reception), the number of collaborators and the size of the network. It emerges how having a good number of papers published in the main databases (e.g., Scopus) is a necessary requirement to have a good image at the international level and how at the same time we can also develop new indicators for individual researchers. For example, we can think of an indicator that considers the number of published papers increased by the weight of the CiteScore associated with the proposed journal and decreased by the number of co-authors.

The next step was to consider the factors that are evaluated by the authors when choosing a journal—

Table 1. Which of the following factors do you consider the most when choosing which journal to publish your research (on a scale of 1 to 10)?

Factor	Median	Mean	Standard Deviation
Open Access	6	5.56	2.45
Publication Fee	7	6.54	2.43
Journal Ranking in Major Indexation Database	8	7.79	1.76
Journal Reputation	8	7.76	1.56
Rigorous Editorial and Peer-Review Policy	8	7.30	1.81
Efficiency of the Editorial Process and Average Processing Time	8	7.28	1.88

. It emerges that the most relevant average value (7.79 out of 10) is associated with the Journal Ranking in Major Indexation Database factor, with a slightly higher weight than Journal Reputation (7.76). This indicates that a certain automatism is triggered among the authors who care about consolidating their choices. Just as companies are committed to maintaining a certain value through their brand, the same happens in the management of a journal. Therefore, the commitment of those who manage a journal is to maintain over time the performance that allows it to be attractive. At the same time, they should also be able to take advantage of news from the challenges, launching new journals or new sections. Some topics receive more attention. The strong competition between journals and their publishers is a vital element for research, because it widens publication opportunities for authors. We should never forget that there is a point of synthesis between all publishers and authors and it is represented by being professionals. The common goal is to publish articles, to spread knowledge in order to solve current problems, to identify future solutions and to propose adequate methodologies. It is also interesting to highlight the small gap with the next two criteria selected by the interviewees: Rigorous Editorial and Peer-Review Policy (7.30) and Efficiency of the Editorial Process and Average Processing Time (7.28). It is worth emphasizing how very important response time has become, while clearly maintaining the qualitative aspects. This is the direct consequence of a dynamism, in which there is a need to propose topics in step with the times, in which the very long wait times of journals risk compromising the novelty of the work. The journal is therefore called to pay attention to this aspect, which has acquired greater relevance. Finally, open access does not appear to be much considered, with 5.56 having the least relevant average value among all factors, and publication fee having a value of 6.54. This figure could be influenced by the sample examined, in which there are more economic opportunities. There is a need to have facilitation programs for researchers from economically poor countries.

Another relevant aspect for all authors is not only to publish a work, but also to see their effort rewarded by the citations they receive. Again, there are some papers that are much more successful than others works. There is, therefore, a different distribution and an indicator, such as H-index, is able to capture this difference. An additional question in the questionnaire aimed to ask how often we check citations—Figure 5. In total, 38% of respondents check them on a monthly basis, while 36% check them on an annual basis. Thus, the results highlight that not much attention is paid to this aspect. However, the result may be related to the panel considered (Editorial Board Members with medium-high H-index).

It is observed that 27% of the answers suggest that open access journals increase the number of citations compared to subscriptions journals, while 33% think in exactly the opposite way. It should be noted that 40% remained neutral—Figure 6. However, this aspect should be taken into consideration since it comes from Editorial Board Members of Sustainability, which is a totally open access and not a hybrid journal. It should also be noted that these hybrid journals tend to show the highest number of views and downloads for open access papers. However, the data can be read in this way: the number of articles published open access is significantly lower than the overall number in general, and the phenomenon of open access is expanding in recent years and, therefore, the number of high citations is often associated with work published in previous years. This is a degree of perception that has probably yet to mature in the opinion of the interviewees.

A further question aimed to assess what aspects prompt you to be an academic editor in an open access journal. No clear indication emerges. In fact, none of the proposed factors reaches the value of 7. Gain more experiences/insights on academic publishing and editing takes the average value of 6.69 assuming the first position of the ranking—

Table 2. What prompt you the most for working as an academic editor of an open access journal (on a scale of 1 to 10)?

Factor	Median	Mean	Standard Deviation
Discount/Waiver on APC for publications	6	5.91	2.54
Enlarge your scholarly network	7	6.65	1.84
Gain more experiences/insights on academic publishing & editing	7	6.69	2.00
Promote your research project by being a Topic/Special Issue Editor	7	6.48	2.12
Travel grants for conferences or other academic occasions	4	4.27	2.55

. This aspect evidently provides visibility not only at the level of one’s own university but also internationally. This aspect is reflected in the second factor, enlarge your scholarly network, which is not far off at 6.65 and which allows one to expand one’s knowledge, to establish new forms of collaboration. A requirement that is increasingly sought after in a world of research that aims to be multidisciplinary but also inter-connected. Projects financed with public funds require mandatory open access but also the promotion of their activities through Special Issues (6.48). The topic is an MDPI initiative that involves several journals and is a new frontier of research. However, we should not forget that aggregation processes are not always successful if they are not aligned with each other. However, the idea of promoting one’s own research project through a Special Issue seems to be a winner. The discount does not reach a sufficient level (5.91). A possible motivation is to be found in the discount opportunities that MDPI editors are aware of (e.g., each completed review entitles to a discount). It seems appropriate to point out that these choices are not made by the Academic Editors, but by the Managing/Assistant Editors who provide ongoing support to the process. Although this variable is not relevant according to our survey, it could be decisive in a future scenario in which the free-of-charge or discount percentages associated with certain characteristics (e.g., scientific impact of the authors) are reduced. Finally, travel grants get a very low average score (4.27).

The results in

Table 3. Which of the following approaches do you think is the best for disseminating your research (on a scale of 1 to 4)?

Factors	Median	Mean	Standard Deviation
Social Media (LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, etc.)	2	2.32	0.94
Conferences, webinars or other academic gatherings	3	2.85	0.87
Editing a Special Issue/Topic	2	2.32	0.94

show the only data that could be read as inconsistent by the respondents. In fact, the factor is assigned a weight of 2.32 (out of 4), which in percentage terms, compared to the maximum value, is lower than what is proposed in Table 2. It therefore emerges that being included in a Special Issue compared to a regular issue may be less relevant. This aspect is confirmed if the work is published independently from the deadline of the Special Issue (an aspect that most journals are adapting to). It turns out to have the same average value of 2.32 associated with social media. This aspect is in contrast to the social phenomenon that sometimes creates a world parallel to the real one. These channels of dissemination have the advantage of making those who are far away close, and of offering the opportunity to exchange information in an unofficial way. However, they must be used in a correct way, without excessive persuasion that would debunk its inspiring motive. Social channels are created to promote work with different approaches and to look not only at the academic side but also at other subjects. This can provide a beneficial model for a university that wants to dialogue with institutions, businesses, and citizens. We believe, therefore, that the panel of interviewees underestimates this factor and we believe that a different result would have been achieved if the means of diffusion of the survey had been via social means, such as LinkedIn, rather than an email. The factor considered most appropriate for the dissemination of the research is conferences, webinars, or other academic gatherings, with a score of 2.85. This can also be seen by assessing the profile of many researchers who see their publications split between articles published in journals and articles published in conferences. Indexed conferences, e.g., in Scopus, tend to be very attractive and in some cases are linked to some journals. Webinars developed with the pandemic effect are a complementary resource to conferences.

Finally, the last overview is where we promote (without specifying for what purpose) our work published in Sustainability. In total, 38.7% (almost every time+usually) of those interviewed tended to promote the work published in Sustainability many times, an aspect that highlights the good quality of the journal—Figure 7. It also emerges that about 40.9% do so occasionally. Obviously, these data could be read as biased because they are associated with editorial components of Sustainability. However, often these are colleagues who collaborate with more ‘publishers’ and this obviously belies a similar reflection. The growth of the Impact Factor (in 2015 it was 1.343 while in 2021 it was 3.889) clearly indicates that the papers published on Sustainability find a citation placement that has more than doubled over the last 5 years.

Respondents were also asked when they are reviewers whether they suggest papers published in Sustainability, assessing whether this happens in general or only for their own papers—

Table 4. (a) How often do you recommend papers published in Sustainability as a reviewer? And (b) How often do you recommend your papers published in Sustainability as a reviewer?

Factors	(a)	(b)
Always	9.9%	7.1%
Usually	19.0%	13.5%
Sometimes	58.5%	56.7%
I prefer to recommend my papers published in other journals	3.5%	3.6%
Other	12.0%	21.3%

. Another finding is that about 30% (always + usually) suggest works cited in Sustainability and this percentage is reduced to about 21% if they are their own works. The issue of citations is certainly a long-standing one, as it can be read with multiple views. This survey shows that respondents generally tend to promote works published in Sustainability in a wide variety of areas, but when they are reviewers there is a sharp reduction. An excessive number of suggested papers in a review is very valuable when it comes to papers related to the topic under review. Good practice is always to allow reviewers to be free in their suggestions, as their expertise significantly improves a paper. It is advisable to propose a brief description of why that paper is important in the reviewed work rather than a simple bullet point.

4. Conclusion Remarks

This editorial emphasizes the importance of the survey questionnaire, which takes time to compile, should be short-lived in order to keep the attention of the respondents, and requires a strong contribution from the respondents, who so often willingly provide their input. However, the most complex part arises when the results are collected, where an overview has to be given. This aspect becomes even more critical if contradictory results emerge, a sign that the survey has been hastily compiled by the respondents or has not been well prepared. This survey does not seem to present this problem. It is able to bring out several insights. The most relevant is that we do not want to look for a vision of science in which someone is perfectly right and others are certainly wrong. Some numbers are proposed and an attempt is made to give them meaning. Expansion of the panel of interviewees, new questions, monitoring over time are certainly future directions to follow.

The idea that emerges is that without an ecological transition, there is no future. The name of this journal, Sustainability, encompasses a thousand meanings ranging from multidisciplinary, the aggregation of resources and skills, to management visions that solve real problems, from the identification of strategies whose benefits will occur over time.

Climate change is an objective problem that may not be seen by those who prefer not to look because they have direct economic interests. It is time for young people who have embarked on educational or professional paths in the workplace to think that their dreams can be realized if they apply themselves.

It is necessary for politicians to be forward-looking, to have the courage to make choices. It is the time to dream not for one’s own interests, but for ideal ones in which sustainability is implemented in practice. It is the time for a large sustainable community, which dialogues, remedies the problems it generates and works hard to identify alternatives that promote the green economy, the bioeconomy, and the circular economy.