Green Campus as a Part of Environmental Management of St. Petersburg State University
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of the research is particularly relevant taking into consideration modern trends related to the green economics, sustainable development, etc. The idea of the research is rather interesting.
Comments and recommendations:
It’s better to present SWOT-analysis as a matrix. It might be more illustrative.
The practical recommendations are poorly presented.
The Discussion section might be added to discuss the results achieved, their limitations and practical value.
The list of references is poor and contains a lot of Russian sources (they are not even translated into English). It should be expanded and revised properly.
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your message enclosing the reviewers’ comments. We have carefully reviewed the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Our responses are given in a point-by-point manner below. Changes to the manuscript are shown in yellow.
Point 1: It’s better to present SWOT-analysis as a matrix. It might be more illustrative.
Response 1: In our opinion, the presentation of the results in the presented format is more convenient for perception, because the SWOT analysis matrix would turn out to be too unwieldy.
Point 2: The practical recommendations are poorly presented.
Response 2: Information about the most effective methods of forming a green image of the university was added to the conclusion subsection.
Point 3: The Discussion section might be added to discuss the results achieved, their limitations and practical value.
Response 3: The subsection "Implications and Future Research" was added.
Point 4: The list of references is poor and contains a lot of Russian sources (they are not even translated into English). It should be expanded and revised properly.
Response 4: A paper was conducted for English-language literature on this topic, some of the links were changed and supplemented. The remaining links to Russian-language sources contain an abstract in English.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Your abstract seems well organized, but the results part in the abstract lacks data, not recommended to use text only.
General comment on the Introduction section: my main suggestion is to to make a deeper analysis of the most recent literature.
The research method is not very clear and needs further explanation, especially the specific calculation process.
The format of the paper needs to be further modified according to the template of the journal.
The research conclusion is too simple and lacks a discussion section.
I have no strong plagiarism checker and you should do that.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your message enclosing the reviewers’ comments. We have carefully reviewed the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Our responses are given in a point-by-point manner below. Changes to the manuscript are shown in yellow.
Point 1: Your abstract seems well organized, but the results part in the abstract lacks data, not recommended to use text only.
Response 1: A figure has been added to the «Results» subsection. The specific calculation process ispresented in Supplement 1 (tables and figures were added).
Point 2: General comment on the Introduction section: my main suggestion is to make a deeper analysis of the most recent literature.
Response 2: A search was conducted for English-language literature on this topic, some of the links were changed and supplemented.
Point 3: The research method is not very clear and needs further explanation, especially the specific calculation process.
Response 3: The specific calculation process is presented in Supplement 1 (was added).
Point 4: The format of the paper needs to be further modified according to the template of the journal.
Response 4: Section 3 was replaced with "Results", section 4 was added as "Discussion". A supplement with a short questionnaire has been added.
Point 5: The research conclusion is too simple and lacks a discussion section.
Response 5: Information about the most effective methods of forming a green image of the university was added to the conclusion subsection. The subsection "Implications and Future Research" was added.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article analyzes an interesting topic. Nevertheless, the in-depth analysis of the individual issues it approaches is pending. More specifically, in the introduction section, the bibliographic analysis and the analysis of the purpose are very concise. Also, although the methodology is presented, its application is not given in a satisfactory way.
Finally, the discussion section is almost absent, without opening any discussion on, for example, the applications of the particular methodological framework or its limitations.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your message enclosing the reviewers’ comments. We have carefully reviewed the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Our responses are given in a point-by-point manner below. Changes to the manuscript are shown in yellow.
Point 1: The article analyzes an interesting topic. Nevertheless, the in-depth analysis of the individual issues it approaches is pending. More specifically, in the introduction section, the bibliographic analysis and the analysis of the purpose are very concise. Also, although the methodology is presented, its
application is not given in a satisfactory way.
Response 1: Subsection «Introduction» has been expanded and supplemented.
Point 2: Finally, the discussion section is almost absent, without opening any discussion on, for example, the applications of the particular methodological framework or its limitations.
Response 2: The subsection "Implications and Future Research" was added.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This is a worthwhile paper about the evaluation of the “green image” of a campus in the digital environment, and the contribution of that image to the Green Campus concept for the university. In many ways this is a very useful paper and my view of it is very positive. Some aspects of the paper do require a bit more explanation, however, while others would benefit from a more explicit structure.
In my view, the authors should address the following points:
· The Abstract should more directly state what the paper adds to the literature. It would be useful to build on this point in the Introduction as well.
· The Introduction needs to more extensively define and discuss the concept of “green image”. What does this term mean? Why is it important in Green Campus initiatives more broadly? To what extent has this been discussed in prior literature and what does this paper add that is new?
· Section 2.1 would benefit from explaining, at the start, *why* this methodology was chosen.
· Sections 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 would benefit from explaining how each instrument was influenced by the six categories derived from the methodology.
· The text about analysing data, currently interspersed throughout section 3, should be moved into a ‘data analysis’ subsection at the end of section 2 in my view.
· Sections 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 would benefit from structuring the findings in each case more directly according to the six categories derived from the methodology.
· In my view we need a new Discussion section, which would become section 4. This section should (a) concisely draw together a summary picture of the findings (which have not been synthesised so far in section 3) and then identify how these findings have contributed to the literature outlined in section 1.
· The Conclusions section should address the limitations of the present work and set out what future research might build on this paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your message enclosing the reviewers’ comments. We have carefully reviewed the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Our responses are given in a point-by-point manner below. Changes to the manuscript are shown in yellow.
Point 1: The Abstract should more directly state what the paper adds to the literature. It would be useful to build on this point in the Introduction as well.
Response 1: A paper was conducted for English-language literature on this topic, some of the links were changed and supplemented. The remaining links to Russian-language sources contain an abstract in English.
Point 2: The Introduction needs to more extensively define and discuss the concept of “green image”. What does this term mean? Why is it important in Green Campus initiatives more broadly? To what extent has this been discussed in prior literature and what does this paper add that is new?
Response 2: This subsection has been expanded and supplemented.
Point 3: Section 2.1 would benefit from explaining, at the start, *why* this methodology was chosen.
Response 3: Information has been added to section 2.1: «The number of universities included in the UI rating and the diversity of evaluation criteria were the main factors in choosing this methodology»
Point 4: Sections 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 would benefit from explaining how each instrument was influenced by the six categories derived from the methodology.
Response 4: In our opinion, each method used complements each other, but it is virtually impossible to bring the results to a single style in 6 categories. In this regard, an analysis was carried out on the 4 methods used separately.
Point 5: The text about analysing data, currently interspersed throughout section 3, should be moved into a ‘data analysis’ subsection at the end of section 2 in my view.
Response 5: Section 3 was replaced with "Results", section 4 was added as "Discussion".
Point 6: Sections 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 would benefit from structuring the findings in each case more directly according to the six categories derived from the methodology.
Response 6: In our opinion, each method used complements each other, but it is virtually impossible to bring the results to a single style in 6 categories. In this regard, an analysis was carried out on the 4 methods used separately.
Point 7: In my view we need a new Discussion section, which would become section 4. This section should (a) concisely draw together a summary picture of the findings (which have not been synthesised so far in section 3) and then identify how these findings have contributed to the literature outlined in section 1.
Response 7: Section 3 was replaced with "Results", section 4 was added as "Discussion".
Point 8: The Conclusions section should address the limitations of the present work and set out what future research might build on this paper.
Response 8: The subsection "Implications and Future Research" was added.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been improved according to the reviewers’ comments
Minor editing of English language required
