Experiences from a School–University Partnership Climate and Sustainability Education Project in England: The Value of Citizen Science and Practical STEM Approaches

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks to the editors for the opportunity to comment on the submitted article: „Experiences from a school-university partnership climate and sustainability education project in England: the value of citizen science and practical STEM approaches“

I find the paper interesting and well-written. The paper is well-organizing and exposes clearly the research developed. However, I have a question/suggestion related to the abstract - Clearly define the aim of the study already in the abstract. I recommend adding to the abstract the basic methods that were used in the elaboration of the topic.

The used literary sources are appropriate and professional (possibly can be supplemented).

The submitted text can be considered as a professional study and I recommend it for publication after modifications.

Author Response

Many thanks for reviewing our manuscript and for your helpful feedback. We have made two substantial changes in response to the feedback as follows:

1. Ethics: We have clarified the details of the ethical consent and process set out in 3.3
2. Methods: We have added substantive new sections and references to the Methods section (Section 3.0) to provide further detail regarding the rigour of the methods and to more clearly frame this project as case study & practitioner-based enquiry.

We have also added further detail on the authors, project funding, data availability and consent in an ethics statement at the end of the article, before the references. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I enjoyed reading your paper which is well written and clearly structured. My main concerns are that the paper lacks descriptions of relevant research methodologies, research strategies as well as research quality standards.

What you have described is a great STEM teaching project that would fit perfectly into a science teacher journal - one with a clear teaching focus.

The 'research' that you have described covers only the STEM-related research activities that were part of the project, not how you conducted research with the teachers/stakeholders and students - that's what we need to hear. Did you use interviews - if yes, what type? Questionnaires? Who conducted the interviews and/or implemented the surveys? etc. What research quality standards were used, e.g., validity/reliability or trustworthiness/authenticity? 

Furthermore, I have ethical concerns - the paper mentions real names of the school and people involved - if this paper had come through university ethics clearance, I am certain that anonymity through the use of pseudonyms would have been a recommendation plus there would need to be evidence of informed consent - I could not detect any mention of this essential ethical considerations.

I therefore recommend to either revise the paper with a clear research focus or submit to a different more teaching-focused journal.

Author Response

Many thanks for reviewing our manuscript and for your helpful feedback. We have made two substantial changes in response to the feedback as follows:

1. Ethics: We have clarified the details of the ethical consent and process set out in 3.3
2. Methods: We have added substantive new sections and references to the Methods section (Section 3.0) to provide further detail regarding the rigour of the methods and to more clearly frame this project as case study & practitioner-based enquiry.

We have also added further detail on the authors, project funding, data availability and consent in an ethics statement at the end of the article, before the references. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper explores the experiences of stakeholders involved climate and sustainability education project which provides important clues on how citizen science and hands-on activities can be a vehicle for transformative science education towards sustainable development. As such, this paper is meaningful to researchers and practitioners in science education, citizen science, climate science education, and policymakers and leaders interested towards sustainable development.

The introduction clearly covers the scope, the problem, and the research objectives which allows readers to clearly understand the goal of the study. Researchers may also consider providing literature on what has been studied so far in regards to citizen science and climate change. This would allow the authors to establish novelty and research gap.

Methods are clear and repeatable. It is also appropriate for the research conducted. Although no discussion on the method used to collect data. Was interview, FGD, survey conducted? This needs to be clearly established as the results seems to provide that interview was conducted. If yes, authors need to discuss this in detail in the methods especially on how the questions were framed. Although there was a discussion that informal discussion during lunchtime was conducted, this is not scientific nor rigorous. This is a major concern as it affects the validity of the results. It would also be good if assent were also taken from the participants or depending on the research ethics policy.

Author Response

Many thanks for reviewing our manuscript and for your helpful feedback. We have made two substantial changes in response to the feedback as follows:

1. Ethics: We have clarified the details of the ethical consent and process set out in 3.3
2. Methods: We have added substantive new sections and references to the Methods section (Section 3.0) to provide further detail regarding the rigour of the methods and to more clearly frame this project as case study & practitioner-based enquiry.

We have also added further detail on the author contributions, project funding, data availability and consent in an ethics statement at the end of the article, before the references. 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for taking the suggestions onboard and for improving the article. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper can be accepted.