Progressing towards Global Citizenship and a Sustainable Nation: Pillars of Climate Change Education and Actions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

the essay is well argued; there are appropriate bibliographic references. The issue is relevant for research

Author Response

Dear Editor:

Thank you very much for your suggestions towards improvement of the manuscript. 

Thank you

Reviewer 2 Report

This review article is interesting and fits the scope of the journal. I have a favorable view of this article. However, there are some suggestions and comments on this article.

1. More detail of the resources should be provided in the resource section. I suggest moving some explanation in the limitation section to this section, such as time span
2. The number of sections must be provided
3. The success of this article depends on the keywords used in this study. In Table 1, there are three groups of keywords: climate change, global competence, and education. As I understand correctly, the search engines of Scopus and WOS will search the publication from the title and keywords of the papers. I am concern that some of the keywords are not appropriate. For example

("global competency" OR "global competencies “OR "global competencies cognitive" OR "knowledge*" OR "cognitive skill*" OR "social-emotional*" OR "global competencies affective*" OR "critical thinking*" OR "problem solving" OR "taking action*" OR "proficiency with new technology" OR "respect*" OR "responsible*" OR "empathy" OR "self-discipline*" OR "aware*" OR "curious")

It seems that some words may not be classified for global competence, such as respect, cognitive shill, responsible etc. I may miss something here, but this section needs to be clarified.

4. The total of 406 articles are obtained from Scopus and WOS. I am curious that there might be some available papers in both databases. Thus, the same papers may be obtained. Have the authors aware of this problem
5. There are some typos available throughout this manuscript, such as “Figure 3: Publicatio”. Please carefully check all typos.
6. Could the authors provide a reason for focusing on secondary school? Why not territory school or University?

Author Response

Dear Editor:

Thank you very much for the suggestions towards improvement of the manuscript. Kindly see the attachment for further revision.

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript reports on a systematic review of the literature on climate change education, that has been submitted to the journal SUSTAINABILITY. I was very interested to review this article, as scholarship in education needs more published systematic reviews. However, although the authors have worked hard to follow appropriate methods for such a review, this manuscript requires significant improvement before it will be a publishable review.

1) Language editing. This article is full of errors in English and needs a complete, professional, language edit. 

2) Title. I think the authors mean to say “Progressing towards Global Citizenship and Sustainable Nations: Pillars of Climate Change Education and Actions”

3) Abstract. The abstract has 249 words (which is long for an abstract, they are typically 150-200 words). It should be rewritten to improve its clarity and directness.

4) Introduction. The introduction is difficult to follow due to errors in English, but the authors should consider the following to improve this section in addition to language editing:

1. It needs to be shorter and more to the point, taking the reader on a logical path explaining the importance of this work.
2. Combine “Introduction” with “Climate change education and global citizenship”, using subheadings if necessary, and taking care to be succinct, to not repeat points, and to follow a logical flow that concludes with the research questions.
3. Remove all phrases formatted in the following way “according to [20], the SDG’s”, and replace them with the simple statement “The SDG’s… [20]”. If the phrase “according to” or “supported by” must be used (these and similar structures appear many times in the manuscript), then the last name of the author must be stated.
4. The use of the following words and phrases must be reduced: besides, moreover, on the other hand, however, hence, in addition, furthermore… etc. 

5) Methods. This will be easier to follow once the English has been improved. I also recommend that the authors review some published systematic reviews to see how the methods are presented and copy the format, specifically improving the clarity of their presentation of inclusion criteria, and the PRISMA flow chart. Also note that duplicates should be removed before title and abstract screening, the number of unique items (after duplicate removal) should be shown on the PRISMA flow chart, and the screening stages should be called “Title and abstract screening” and “Full text screening”. 

6) Results. The first graphs should be simplified, and the results reported simply by region (not country) and year. References to items should not be included when each category is described in text, but rather be attached to the table that summarizes articles by categories. This table needs to be reformatted to have all columns left aligned and adequately spaced to improve readability (and could be included as an appendix). Figures 4-7 should be reformatted and resized to fit within text, and tables 4 & 5 should be reformatted to have the first column left aligned, and the check marks more obvious (a “X” perhaps).

7) Discussion/Implications. This section is difficult to evaluate without the previous edits being made but does not clearly communicate the importance or novelty of this work, nor the implications to practice. 

8) Limitations and recommendations. This section does not include any recommendations for future research (and it should) and does not recognize all the limitations of this work. For example, limiting items to those published in English and published open access, are serious limitations that should be discussed. 

9) Conclusion. Will be able to be improved once the other edits have been made.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for your suggestions as well as comments towards improvement of the manuscript. Please see the attachment. 

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

This is my second review of this manuscript reporting on a systematic review of the literature on climate change education, that has been submitted to the journal SUSTAINABILITY. The authors have worked hard to follow appropriate methods for such a review, and to incorporate many of the edits that were suggested during the first review. However, there are still aspects of this manuscript the need improvement before it will be a publishable review.

• Language editing. This paper has been excellently edited for language. Congratulations and well done!
• The length and succinctness of the abstract has been greatly improved, but it is missing punctuation in several places
• The introduction is much improved. However, it is still somewhat too long, and has almost 100 references. It should be shortened, and the number of references reduced to the most important and relevant.
• The first graph still needs to be simplified, and the results reported simply by region (not country) and year. It should also be smaller and placed in text immediately after the paragraph discussing it. Remove all refence to individual countries in this description – it is irrelevant and sufficient to just mention the regions.
• I think my suggestions for the correct formatting of tables were not clear in my fist review (my apologies). All tables should include reference to the articles author and reference number (i.e., Smith, et al., (2019) [55]), and all columns should be left aligned. Tables 4 and 5 should have a clearer check mark (i.e., an X or a solid dot) and should also appear in text as close as possible to their first mention. Table 4 does not appear to be mentioned in text and either needs to be mentioned or removed.
• Figures 4-7 should be simplified, reformatted, and resized to fit within text, once again as close to first mention as possible. The authors should consider removing the graphic formatting of these figures, and just using either simplified diagrams, or tables, so as to reduce their size and make it possible to have the correctly positioned in text and remove the empty white spaces.
• This section does not provide the implications of the study, but rather states the conclusions of the study. The implications should state why this study is important, what should be done with the findings of this study, and how practice and decision making can be impacted by this study
• Length of the manuscript. Overall, 37 pages is simply too long, but should be improved with the reformatting and repositioning of the figures, the shortening of the introduction, and the selection of only the most relevant references.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer.

Thank you for the suggestions and comments towards improvement of the manuscript. Attached is the correction list and actions taken.

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf