Sustainability as an Emerging Paradigm in Universities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

At first I would like to thank the authors for the opportunity of reading and commenting their work.

At first I would highlight that the analisys of the Academic approach to Sustainability is quite an underivable task as it has so many perspectives and impossible to ail in a single paper. 

My first question has to do with the fact that the authors propose a "Theoretical approach", however, no conceptual framework is built and consistently proved. I feel that this is a case study. 

Then, the authors mention "Sustainability in Universities" - it is vague -  as they refer to the introduction of rankings. And perhaps this section need to debate more than examples. 

Figure 1 states fundamental principles - however this is vague and not original. This kind of papers need an additional contribution. 

Then it is mentioned the introduction of Sustainability in the curriculum. This relates to the first mission, however the other University missions are overlooked. Still, in Fig.2 the other missions are presented, leaving the former section incomplete. 

The methodological summary does not add much value, readers need more sophisticatedanalysis rather than the purely descriptive.

The connection to the rankings is descriptive and does not connect to the reality or even to the theory. 

Finally the conclusions do not bring information about the state of the art or even what should be the model to develop a Sustainability framework as well as the advantages involved. 

Best of luck with the research.

 

 

 

 

There are several typos, the formatting does not follow the standards of the Journal. The document needs professional proofreading. The text is often hard to follow and many expressions are still incorrect.

 

 

This is not a theoretical approach, it is a case study. There cannot 

Author Response

Good afternoon,

Dear Reviewer No. 1

Thank you very much for your valuable input and here are the changes made according to your indications.

1. My first question has to do with the fact that the authors propose a "theoretical approach", however, no conceptual framework is consistently constructed and tested. I feel that this is a case study.

We reviewed this very valuable observation and have modified the title as follows: "Sustainability as an emerging paradigm in universities."

 

2. Then, the authors mention "Sustainability in universities", it is vague, as they refer to the introduction of rankings. And perhaps this section needs discussion rather than examples.

We have expanded on the justification and included a table where we talk about the evolution of sustainability in higher education.

 

3. Figure 1 sets out the fundamental principles; however, this is vague and not original. This type of work needs an additional contribution. The information is provided to support the work developed.

 

4. Then the introduction of Sustainability into the curriculum is mentioned. This is related to the first mission; however, the other missions of the University are overlooked. Still, in Figure 2 the other missions are presented, leaving the previous section incomplete.

 

The following text has been included:

Strategies for Change in Education.

 

1. Depth: everything that constitutes a life-enriching aspect should be preserved, protected and fostered in education.
2. Length: sustainable change and improvement have continuity over time. Sustainable educational leadership will pass through a painstaking process, from one leader to a new one.
3. Breadth: spread through the leaders found in the educational environment, knowing the degree of leadership exercised and determining the degree desired to be achieved.
4. Fairness: sharing knowledge and resources with the local community does not mean improving at the expense of harming schools or students.
5. Diversity: consolidated organizations promote diversity and avoid standardization.
6. Resources: sustainable change and improvement have sufficient resources, recognize and reward talent, ensure that workers take care of themselves, do not waste money and do not waste people.
7. Conservation: they preserve and renew the objectives that have been established over the years. It is a type of change that seeks to preserve the best of the past to create a better future.

 

5. Finally, the conclusions do not provide information on the state of the art or even what should be the model for developing a sustainability framework as well as the advantages involved.

It is worth noting that our objective is not to point to a specific model for sustainability in universities or to develop one. However, we have taken into account this valuable input to include the following conclusion.

Finally, sustainability becomes an essential element for universities, especially for the efforts that are generated to strengthen teaching, address human needs, conserve, and improve the natural resource base, using technology, and risk management for the efficient use of resources.

Reviewer 2 Report

This article is the same that was reviewed by me last August. The authors made some improvements in the methodology and the conclusions sections to eliminate the weak points that justify the rejection. The modifications done in the methodology section worked better than the improvements done in the conclusions. In fact, in my opinion, the improvements done in the methodology make the section more clear. Concerning the conclusions, i think that needs an introduction of a paragraph with an answer exclusively related to the research question or change your research question.

All the tables should use the same template (compare table 1 with table 2, for example). The use of a small font size will also benefit the presentation of table 1.

Thank you very much for the improvements.

All the best with your article.

Author Response

Good afternoon,

Dear Reviewer No. 2.

A cordial greeting, we thank you for your valuable contributions and we indicate below the changes made according to your indications.

 

1. Strengthen the conclusions.

 

       We have included the following conclusion:

 

Finally, sustainability becomes an essential element for universities, especially for the efforts that are generated to strengthen teaching, address human needs, conserve, and improve the natural resource base, using technology, and risk management for the efficient use of resources.

 

2. All tables should use the same template (compare table 1 with table 2, for example). The use of a small font size will also benefit the presentation of table 1.

 

All charts were reviewed and adjusted for size and font.

Reviewer 3 Report

Well-structured article and very interesting reflections on the topic "HEIs and sustainability".
Suggestions for further improving the article quality:
1. In the paragraph on the literature reconstruction on the theme of sustainability and its multidimensionality, I suggest an explicit reference to the triple bottom line theoretical model (for a literature review on this model Alhaddi, H. (2015). Triple bottom line and sustainability: A literature review. Business and Management Studies, 1 (2), 6-10);
2. It is suggested to simplify sentences, sometimes repetitive;
3. In addition, paragraphs often begin with the same reflections, extensively covered in the introduction. It is suggested to reduce redundancies in the text;
4. It is also suggested to pay attention to the typing errors in the text (eg in the last page "For future research lines Its crucial").

Regards.

Author Response

Good afternoon,

Dear Reviewer No. 3

Thank you very much for your valuable contributions and here are the changes made according to your indications.

1. In the paragraph on the reconstruction of the literature on the topic of sustainability and its multidimensionality, I suggest an explicit reference to the theoretical model of the triple bottom line (for a literature review on this model Alhaddi, H. (2015). Triple bottom line and sustainability: A review of the literature. Management and Business Studies, 1 (2), 6-10).

According to his valuable contributions, we consider pertinent to include the following section of the suggested reference: "It allows the integration of different aspects in decisions that ensure the quality of the environment and human welfare, it is a tool that transcends to promote innovation and sustainability of the environment along with the economic and social spheres."

2. It is suggested to simplify sentences, sometimes repetitive; a new reading was made to the whole article.

 

3. In addition, paragraphs often begin with the same reflections, which are covered extensively in the introduction. It is suggested to reduce redundancies in the text.

The entire article was reread.

4. It is also suggested to pay attention to typographical errors in the text

(e.g., on the last page) ".

The entire article was reread to correct the errors.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Many thanks to the authors for providing me the opportunity of reading and commenting their work. 

I believe that the present version has more quality than the former, however, it still does not meet the standards of the Journals. 

There is too much going on in the different graphs and tables presented and no theoretical foundations tie to the perspectives presented. 

A solid reflection on the literature review and the research question is required to move from a report (which is merely descriptive) to an article. 

Best of luck with your research!

Author Response

Many thanks to your comments.

We review all the version and I believe that the present version has more quality than the former, however, it still does not meet the standards of the Journals.

Thanks for your comments the new version is now on the format of the journal. Figures and Tables was reviewed

There is too much going on in the different graphs and tables presented and no theoretical foundations tie to the perspectives presented.

A solid reflection on the literature review and the research question is required to move from a report (which is merely descriptive) to an article. 

Answer, we conducted a literature review dedicated to rankings this is on the new Table 2, a new methodology is carried out. Now is more clear the proposal of the work.

Best of luck with your research!

In our concern the new version is now on the standards of the journal !

best regards

Adriana Correa

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to thank the authors for the opportunity of reading and commenting their work.

Some improvements were made to grant the new version new quality standards, however, I feel that the present version of the paper is not ready for the standards of Sustainability. 

I suggest that you focus on which research question you want to answer with your research? What has been previously made in the field? What is your contribution to the literature? What are the societal changes expected from your insights?

In my view there is a need for a fresh re-start. The present version has far too many corrections making it very hard to understand the clear picture. 

I feel that perhaps you could start from scratch and build a new structure answering the questions previouly made and import the relevant sections from the present work. 

Drawing a clearer picture is fundamental to pass your message. Consider that the reader needs to fully understand the importance of Sustainability use and diffusion in the Academia but also the impact of this new approach to the society. 

Best of luck!

Author Response

The article entitled to Manuscript ID Sustainability-1410474 Sustainability, which aims to review the perspective of the adoption of sustainability in universities from two dimensions: firstly, from the educational and research process, and secondly, from their global positioning in terms of the performance of their university campus. Sustainability has become a process that allows the use of resources, contributing to economic growth and environmental care. In this sense, for Universities, it becomes a fundamental element as part of their teaching, since it is required as a development strategy that benefits all generations. Therefore, it is of vital importance to develop policies that encourage universities to generate sustainability strategies in their academic and institutional processes in general, as well as in the global systems of university evaluation to assess sustainability in its proper measure both in academics, research and institutional performance.

The paper begins by presenting a conceptual framework of the role of the university in a sustainable society; the second part identifies the sustainability of the curriculum; and then describes the methodology used to perform a bibliometric analysis of scientific articles on sustainability and the collection of data from eight (8) global university rankings related to Ibero-American higher education institutions, in order to describe the performance of universities in the adoption, implementation and evaluation of sustainability. 

Sustentabily is one of the leading journals for academics and professionals involved in the research of all aspects of sustainability, sustainability becomes an essential element for universities, especially for the efforts generated to strengthen teaching, meet human needs, conserve and enhance the natural resource base, use technology and risk management for the efficient use of resources; therefore, we consider of relevance the manuscript submitted for this journal.

 we  want to send you a clean version of the article to the platform of the
journal, that is to say without control of changes, since as the  reviewer indicates, we have made several adjustments and it is not  easy to read it, in an annex we will indicate the adjustments made and where they are located in the document, all this so that we can  successfully complete the review and acceptance of the work which we have worked with great care and thanks to your valuable contributions we have improved it. The English language was reviewed.

 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Many thanks for the opportunity of reading and commenting the article.

The topic is very interesting, however, I feel that the research is still in a very embryonic phase.

The organization, the presentation and the tables still need development to be ready for publication ( there are titles in Castellano); Also the figures need deep arrangements. The formatting does not follow the standards of the journal. 

Concerning contents, in my opinion the weaker parts are: the literature review (there is not one); and the conclusions (there is no debate about the findings as well as the implications of the research being pursued). Also, in a future version, I believe that it would be of interest to discuss the policy implications /recommendations and also what is the value added of your research.

Best of luck with your paper!

Author Response

Please see attachment with the new article

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors investigate the performance of universities in adopting the sustainability aspects in their curricula. Several improvements are needed before it can be considered for publication. My comments are as follows:

• The structure of the Abstract is inappropriate. I suggest answering the following aspects: general context, the novelty of the work, methodology used, main results, conclusion and implications of the findings.
• Remove the question from the abstract and turn it into the problem statement.
• In the abstract, the abbreviation THE need to be expressed in the full version of the words.
• Limit the keywords to a maximum of five.
• Each paragraph should contain an introduction, body and conclusion. Thus, the authors are strongly advised to rewrite the whole manuscript by merging and/or editing paragraphs to express a specific purpose for a single paragraph and also the whole sections.
• It is recommended to present the methodology in a distinct section, including the characteristics and description of the material, and the type of statistical analysis used.

Author Response

Please see the attachment with the new article

Respected reviewers.

 

We would like to thank you for all the valuable contributions you have made to this paper, we have read them and included all the improvements requested. Below is a list of the observations made and the actions taken.

 

Observation by the Judges	Action taken
The organization, presentation and tables still need further development to be ready for publication (there are titles in Spanish); also, the figures need further work. The formatting does not follow the journal's standards.	Corrections were made to the tables and the quality of the graphs was improved.
In terms of content, in my opinion the weakest parts are: the literature review (there is none); and the conclusions (there is no discussion of the findings or the implications of the research being conducted). Also, in a future version, I think it would be of interest to discuss the policy implications / recommendations and also what is the added value of your research.	We conducted a review of the existing literature on universities, sustainability, and curriculum.  In the conclusions section, we proposed the following lines of research: Developing new methodologies to measure Latin American universities in terms of sustainability and developing policies that encourage universities to develop sustainability strategies.
The structure of the abstract is inappropriate. I suggest answering the following aspects: general context, novelty of the work, methodology used, main results, conclusion and implications of the findings.	the summary was reconstructed according to the structure indicated by reviewers .
Remove the question from the summary and turn it into the problem statement.	The question was adjusted to read: How have higher education institutions implemented and evaluated sustainability at the academic and institutional level?
In short, the abbreviation THE should be expressed in the full version of the words.	The entire document was reviewed and the adjustment requested in the summary was made.
Limit keywords to a maximum of five.	The following keywords were left; University; sustainability; world rankings; quality; curriculum.
Each paragraph should contain an introduction, a body and a conclusion. Therefore, authors are strongly encouraged to rewrite the entire manuscript by merging and/or editing paragraphs to express a specific purpose for a single paragraph and also for all sections.	The document was structured according to this request.
It is recommended to present the methodology in a separate section, including the characteristics and description of the material, and the type of statistical analysis used.	Methodology session 3. was included where it is explained in detail.
The study is basically a literature review and a bibliometric analysis. A research question was drafted which I do not think is appropriate for the study presented. It should be reparase and adapte to the study.	The conclusions were strengthened, allowing the research question to be answered.
In terms of results, this could include, for example, analyses on:	Two graphs related to the most published areas and topics, and the journals with the highest visibility in this area were added.
"Evolution of publications by country and field";
"Evolution of the top 10 journals";
"Most cited articles by author and/or keyword".
Suggestions for future research should be added.
The research question, in my opinion, was not answered. The conclusions talk about rankings and performance, and the whole study revolves around bibliometric analysis.	Conclusions were strengthened and improved

Best regards.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article has an interesting research topic. At the citation level, it references some of the prominent authors and sustainability indexes.

In my opinion, the article should have a section for the description of materials and methods. This section should describe in detail how the research was carried out.

The study is basically a literature review and a bibliometric analysis. A research question was drafted that I do not think is appropriate for the study presented. It should be reformulated and adapted to the study.

Regarding the results, could be included, for example, analyses on:

"Evolution of publications by country and field";

"Evolution of the top 10 journals";

"Most cited articles per author and/or keyword".

Suggestions for future research should be added. 

About the research question, in my opinion, no answer was obtained. The conclusions talk about rankings and performance, and the whole study is developed around the bibliometric analysis.

Author Response

Respected reviewers.

 

We would like to thank you for all the valuable contributions you have made to this paper, we have read them and included all the improvements requested. Below is a list of the observations made and the actions taken.

 

Observation by the Judges	Action taken
The organization, presentation and tables still need further development to be ready for publication (there are titles in Spanish); also, the figures need further work. The formatting does not follow the journal's standards.	Corrections were made to the tables and the quality of the graphs was improved.
In terms of content, in my opinion the weakest parts are: the literature review (there is none); and the conclusions (there is no discussion of the findings or the implications of the research being conducted). Also, in a future version, I think it would be of interest to discuss the policy implications / recommendations and also what is the added value of your research.	We conducted a review of the existing literature on universities, sustainability, and curriculum.  In the conclusions section, we proposed the following lines of research: Developing new methodologies to measure Latin American universities in terms of sustainability and developing policies that encourage universities to develop sustainability strategies.
The structure of the abstract is inappropriate. I suggest answering the following aspects: general context, novelty of the work, methodology used, main results, conclusion and implications of the findings.	the summary was reconstructed according to the structure indicated by reviewers .
Remove the question from the summary and turn it into the problem statement.	The question was adjusted to read: How have higher education institutions implemented and evaluated sustainability at the academic and institutional level?
In short, the abbreviation THE should be expressed in the full version of the words.	The entire document was reviewed and the adjustment requested in the summary was made.
Limit keywords to a maximum of five.	The following keywords were left; University; sustainability; world rankings; quality; curriculum.
Each paragraph should contain an introduction, a body and a conclusion. Therefore, authors are strongly encouraged to rewrite the entire manuscript by merging and/or editing paragraphs to express a specific purpose for a single paragraph and also for all sections.	The document was structured according to this request.
It is recommended to present the methodology in a separate section, including the characteristics and description of the material, and the type of statistical analysis used.	Methodology session 3. was included where it is explained in detail.
The study is basically a literature review and a bibliometric analysis. A research question was drafted which I do not think is appropriate for the study presented. It should be reparase and adapte to the study.	The conclusions were strengthened, allowing the research question to be answered.
In terms of results, this could include, for example, analyses on:	Two graphs related to the most published areas and topics, and the journals with the highest visibility in this area were added.
"Evolution of publications by country and field";
"Evolution of the top 10 journals";
"Most cited articles by author and/or keyword".
Suggestions for future research should be added.
The research question, in my opinion, was not answered. The conclusions talk about rankings and performance, and the whole study revolves around bibliometric analysis.	Conclusions were strengthened and improved

Please see the attachment

Best regards

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for bringing your work. I am sorry but I could not address how far my comments were included on the new version of your paper. 

No changes were highlghted, no answers were provided. The coverletter is an unformatted and sloppy paper. 

I respect your point of view, but I am not about to make any more comments if you do not bother to consider them. 

Best of luck with your paper. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed some of my comments and the manuscript has been improved slightly. However, to consider it for publication, there are some major issues that need to be amended. my comments are as follows:

- The authors should provide separate tables to respond to the reviewers (table of corrections), then it would be much easier for the reviewer to track the changes made by the authors.

- The abstract still needs significant improvement; please refer to my earlier comment and remove the question from abstract line 5, state how this study contributes to the adoption, implementation and evaluation of sustainability at the academic level.

- Also, refer to my comment regarding the very short paragraphs that must be merged and improved. revise it throughout the whole manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

I want to start by thanking you for the improvements. However, in my opinion, some points still need to be improved.
Although the article is better structured, the improvements made are not properly justified, considering my comments.
The methodology is still not correctly explained. This paragraph "The review is outlined from two conceptual aspects:
of the educational process, and its overall positioning as a
consequence of the implementation of sustainability on its university
campuses." The link between the two concepts does not seem clear in the text nor easy to understand. 
The conclusions remain unclear on the research question.
There are still some spelling/formatting errors. For example, in the conclusions "Its" should be "its".
When they used the word "Bibliometrix®", they did not always use the "®". For consistency, they should always use it.