Categorical Evaluation of Scientific Research Efficiency in Chinese Universities: Basic and Applied Research
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study offer a categorical evaluation of scientific research efficiency. there are some suggestion for this study:1. how to define the idea of scientific research efficiency? you need to offer a clear definition; 2. why you choose those sample? you need to make a clear statement; 3. The literature review need to add more recent 3three years publications;4. the proofreading need to conduct in this study.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for your valuable comments on the article. Based on your comment and request, we have revised the original manuscript. Here, we have responded to each of your questions. Please review them.
After revisions, we believe the content of this manuscript has been improved a lot, and the revised contents are under the scope of your esteemed journal, Sustainability. Thank you again for your time and effort!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Title
The title of the paper is too long and it suggests that this paper is about an auditing 32 public Chinese Universities’ research activities. Please select a title that is relevant to the paper. What is the sustainability issue in this paper? Why would readers of Sustainability journal be interested reading this paper?
Abstract
What is the relevance of this topic to sustainability? It is not clear from the abstract.
- Introduction
Clear
- Literature review
OK
- Research design
Figure 1 is well-presented.
- Indicator’s classification construction
Please correct the title of this chapter. Data are from 2015-2017. It would be interesting to see more up-to-date data because of the COVID-19 impacts of research efficiency.
- Empirical analysis results
- Empirical analysis results (should it be Conclusion???)
Please check the titles of sections 5 and 6 as they are the same.
Please correct also the format of this text before Author Contributions:
-------have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for your valuable comments on the article. Based on your comments and requests, we have revised the original manuscript. Here, we have responded to each of your questions. Please review them.
After revisions, we believe the content of this manuscript has been improved a lot, and the revised contents are under the scope of your esteemed journal, Sustainability. Thank you again for your time and effort!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This study examined scientific research efficiency at 32 “Double First-Class” universities directly under the Ministry of Education in China, and explored the heterogeneity in research productivity at institutions classified under different categories. The authors find that scientific research efficiency depends on the type of university and disciplinary strengths.
While the topical area is of interest to a broad class of readers, the present study can be improved further: 1) The study lacks an overarching theoretical framework linking heterogeneity in research productivity to “Double First-Class” university programs. For instance, is this heterogeneity meant by design, and what explains the broader rationale in doing so. Why would you expect heterogeneity and why not? The lack of a theoretical framework makes it hard for this study to go beyond descriptive analyses that simply present facts. A well-designed study should identify a theory that helps readers understand the relationship between "variables" (and in your case: institutional classification and research productivity).
2) As mentioned previously, the analyses in this present study is mostly descriptive, can you help readers infer about what these descriptive information imply about relationships between "variables" (and in your case: institutional classification and research productivity)?
3) None of the figures have standard error bars, nor do tables contain information on inferential statistics, so it's hard to tell whether there is any meaningful statistical difference between categories.
4) The study adopts a macro-perspective on the “Double First-Class” initiative, perhaps in the discussion the authors should add references from recent literature examining the more micro-aspects of the World Class University scheme in China. This way, readers can make meaning of your results at the more granular level. For details, see Kim, D., et al. (2018). Building world class universities in China: exploring faculty’s perceptions, interpretations of and struggles with global forces in higher education. Compare: A journal of comparative and international education, 48(1), 92-109.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for your valuable comments on the article. Based on your comments and requests, we have revised the original manuscript. Here, we have responded to each of your questions. Please review them.
After revisions, we believe the content of this manuscript has been improved a lot, and the revised contents are under the scope of your esteemed journal, Sustainability. Thank you again for your time and effort!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept
