Sustainability Literacy and Financial Literacy of Young People in the Baltic States

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First of all, the paper is very negligently written. There are many false friends, punctuation and grammar are deficient throughout, and numerous sentences that are awkward in English. It should be “economic development” not “economical development” because “economical” is equivalent to frugal. Similarly, there should be “principles” not “principals” (p. 1). Texts that are not clearly written make reading very difficult and do not allow the argument to shine through.

 

Second, the authors delve directly into the definition of terms, without taking the time to explain the gap in literature. The research statement on p. 3, with its two goals, is too vague to make sense or explain what is the contribution of this manuscript to knowledge. What do we know so far about sustainability literacy and financial literacy? Why do we need to select two Baltic countries? The fact they are understudied is not good enough from a theoretical and methodological point of view to warrant publication. Ultimately, what does this paper aim to contribute to literature? And to which literature, more specifically?

 

The discussion of the definition of literacy goes into a lot of detail that I’d say is unnecessary, but fails to explains which definition is preferred by the authors of this particular manuscript. Which definition is the basis for the argument presented here? Is a combination of the definitions reviewed here but proposed by others? Moreover, all this discussion centers on financial literacy. What about sustainability literacy? Aren’t there a multitude of definitions available? Why one or another has been chosen for this analysis, and on which basis?

 

Methodologically, the manuscript is incomplete. We are told the number of questions in each category, but we are not given the questions to understand their wording. We are not told the reasons why some dimensions use four questions and others just two. The analysis is reduced to some percentages that are compared across countries. No real discussion is included about the limitations of this argument derived from. The operationalization of variables, the sample selection, the wording of questions, or the collection and interpretation of data.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for you valuable remarks. We have tried to do the best for improving the article. Please see atached our answer. 

Best Regards,

Autors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of “Sustainability literacy and financial literacy of young people in the Baltic States”

 By Dainora Gedvilaitė, Tadas Gudaitis, Giedrė Lapinskienė, Justinas Brazaitis and Jurgis Žižys 

The article analyses interlinkages between sustainability literacy and financial literacy. The authors conducted survey in the Baltic States targeting young people between age of 15 and 30. 

The abstract states clear aim: “research is identification and comparison of sustainability literacy and financial 17 literacy levels of young people aged 15-30 in the Baltic states”. 

However, in the introduction (lines 85-87) the aim changes to: “The aim of our work is to analyse and assess sustainability literacy and financial literacy of young people in the Baltic States and to provide some insights and recommendations on how to improve the level of sustainability literacy and financial literacy in the Baltic States”.

What is the real aim of the paper? Please clarify it in the abstract and into introduction.

 

Methods and materials supposed to be improved due to ambiguities to the reader. 

 

How the measurement scale has been chosen? What is the background for this choice. Furthermore, the authors do not provide when the survey was conducted. 

Has the validity and reliability been estimated? Is the data reliable?

In addition, usually in such type of research at leas descriptive statistics is provided. Thus, in this case, it is necessary to estimate validity, reliability of the data, provide descriptive statistics. Thus, the authors may make deeper and clearer analysis and insights. Since, now it is more based on assumptions rather than results of conducted survey. 

 

Line 292: “Some correlation could be observed between financial literacy of young people and 292 sustainable financial behavior” However, there is no estimated correlation in the article. Even more, it is not described as a part of methods. 

Question to the authors. Have you estimated the correlation? If not please rewrite this paragraph. In general, please avoid phrases which cause ambiguity and misleading.

Furthermore, discussion requires the comparison of own results with the results of other researchers in the field of study. 

Conclusions should include theoretical and managerial implications of the paper. Novelty. Limitations and future research.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for you valuable remarks. We have tried to do the best for improving the article. Please see atached our answer. 

Best Regards,

Autors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, thank you for your response and improvements for your paper. 

However, you have not done major changes in your paper which refers to the empirical part and my comments on methodology and research. 

In previous review I have recommended (and asked) to check validity and reliability of the data. I have not received the answer if the validity and reliability have been estimated which seems that it was not. In your paper you state that you received "completed surveys" 391 valid questionnaires form Lithuania, 392 valid questionnaires fro Latvia and 400 from Estonia. However, the word "VALID" itself does not mean validity and reliability of the data. Validity and reliability of the data supposed to be estimated statistically.   

In addition, the other comment that you did not pay attention was about the providing  descriptive statistics. It is really difficult to make insights from the data you have provided. It is only "pies". Even more, these graph looks like print screen from some survey platform. 

Still there is no answer why specific scale for the research has been chosen.

Please use SCOPUS or Clarivate Analytics data base for the articles on estimating validity and reliability.  

The article faces with the major problem its empirical part. In other words, lack of statistical evalution. The authors even do not develop any hypothesis which is typical in such type of research. 

Thus, please pay attention on the comments. Statistical evaluation is necessary

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for your valuable comments. We have estimated validity and reliability. We also redraw the graphs.

Kind Regards,

Authors

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, thank you for your answers and effort you have put in improving the paper. 

In addition, genders are classified as male, female, and others (not a man and a woman) 

Kind regards

Your reviewer.