Values, Competences and Sustainability in Public Security and IT Higher Education
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1- The abstract is too long and method-based. Please try to shorten it and focus on the results and main findings of the research rather than the method.
2- The introduction section needs to be restructured. The main objective and research question of the research should be highlighted more clearly.
3- Section 2 “Theoretical Background: Sustainability in Higher Education and Its Principles” is very poor and needs a better presentation of the literature. The authors have failed to provide a concise theoretical background of the target literature in this section. A major revision for this section is needed. In this regard, the authors should present their hypotheses in this section (not in the material and method section).
4- The discussion section does not provide any critical discussion on the results. It sounds like a simple reporting of the findings. In this section, the authors should better highlight their research contribution compared to the existing studies. Besides, opportunities and challenges for further developments in the future should be accurately presented as potential directions for further research in the future.
5- And last but not least, there are many typos and grammatical errors in the manuscript. Please do proofreading before any further development.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your detailed review. Your comments and suggestions are extremely valuable to us. We are confident that they will certainly help to increase the scientific quality of our article.
We will try to gradually fulfil all of your suggestions so that you are as satisfied as possible.
Please, see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to review the article entitled: Values, competences and sustainability in higher education of public security and IT.
In general terms, I found it a good article. However, I would like to make a series of small remarks.
The introduction should end with a paragraph that explains to the reader the structure of the rest of the article.
Due to the referencing system, which does not show the author's name in the text, in certain occasions the authors must put their name in the text. See for example this paragraph: [5] and [30] focused on tasks and practices... It would make reading much easier if the name of the authors were indicated.
I recommend reading the following articles:
Aledo-Ruiz, M. D., Martínez-Caro, E., & Santos-Jaén, J. M. (2022). The influence of corporate social responsibility on students' emotional appeal in the HEIs: The mediating effect of reputation and corporate image. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(3), 578-592.
Ansoglenang, G., Awugah, S. A., & Thompson, J. D. (2018). Conceptual tools for building higher education institutions corporate image and reputation. American Journal of Educational Research and Reviews, 3, 28-28.
Conclusions should reflect the limitations of the article and future lines of research.
Once these considerations are taken into account, the article can be published.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your detailed and positive review. Your comments and suggestions are extremely valuable to us. We are confident that they will certainly help to increase the scientific quality of our article.
We will try to gradually fulfil all of your suggestions so that you are as satisfied as possible.
Please, see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for addressing my comments and concerns. I can now recommend the paper for publication.
