The Role of the Civic University in Facilitating Inclusive and Transformative Pedagogical Approaches to the Sustainable Development Goals: A Systematic Literature Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors
It is a pleasure for me to review this article, for whose work I congratulate you. I trust that you receive my evaluations in the best possible way, and although I understand that these processes are not pleasant, I hope that it will serve to improve your daily work.
In my opinion, the most deficient aspect of this work is the methodology. Systematic literature reviews should have a clear and structured methodology. Since 2020, this type of research is mainly governed by the Prism 2020 Protocol, which you do not mention. For me, a review that does not follow this protocol has no standing to be published in an indexed journal.
In this sense, I do identify a certain structure in your work. I am going to provide you with information to improve and adapt it, because perhaps part of it can be reformulated...
The following articles may help you:
Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, 71.
Sánchez-Serrano, S.; Pedraza-Navarro, I.; Donoso-González, M. How to conduct a systematic review following the PRISMA protocol? Revista Bordón 2022, 74, 51-66.
Haddaway, N.R.; Page, M.J.; Pritchard, C.C.; McGuinness, L.A. PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Syst. Rev. 2022, 18, e1230.
The first thing to do is to review how a Systematic Literature Review works and how it is methodologically structured, arguing properly the steps taken in each section.
I invite you to review other reviews published in the journal such as:
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/13/11/1139
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/13/11/1116
These are the last two that appear with the terms: A Systematic Review of the Literature (Both follow the protocol and I found them well structured).
That said, which is the most important thing. I also invite you to review its title and summary. If it is a review the title should include something like: "A systematic review of the literature", in the body of the paper it is also important to give some details of the numbers or figures of articles in your final review.
This will help your work to be appreciated and understood by readers in the first place.
It is important to show an image similar to the one included in the section, but showing the PRISMA methodology, also visible in the articles.
The article in general would benefit from a more graphic presentation of the results and steps taken. But for that more concrete questions should be asked....
By this I mean, what research questions are asked and how do these relate to the results?
These questions can be formulated on the basis of the search objectives and the early stages of the review.
Besides, they will give you a better understanding of your text...
Ultimately, I think the article is not fit for publication, but I have provided you with the resources, ideas and reading to improve it.
I hope you receive my comments with goodwill
Best wishes and intentions, a volunteer reviewer.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. Our Cover Letter (attached below) contains our response.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the opportunity to read this article. I thoroughly enjoyed it and I am confident it will make a strong contribution to the journal.
General Comments
This is a comprehensive and detailed account of a systematic review into the literature relating to Education for Sustainable Development between community organisations and higher education institutions. The paper outlines the value of transformative learning in order to describe the possibility of developing governance tools for long term development of skills related to sustainable development. The paper provides a viable alternative to ‘green growth’ and rebalances the tripartite pillars of the most common ESD frameworks.
The review is a clear and comprehensive overview of the field, and describes a gap in the current research: the connection between transformative learning (defined as equitable, intersubjective and inductive) and existing literature on community engagement. This allows the combination of top-down and bottom up frameworks for ESD. The topic will be of interest to readers of the journal, and this article is a valuable contribution that should stimulate further research and writing about the topic. The authors have cited a wide range of relevant and up to date references, including Brockwell’s field-leading work.
My only concerns are with the methodology section. The authors adequately explain how the articles were selected according to the various inclusion/ exclusion criteria, but the discussion moves on without any description of how the remaining 37 articles were analysed for the purposes of developing the themes that are presented later in the article. It would be appropriate to include some commentary about whether one or both authors engaged in the analysis for the literature review
Specific Comments
- Figures 3 and 4 are the same.
- Suggest clearer reference to the figures throughout the paper.
- A clearer explanation about the triple planetary crisis might assist readers
- Some closer discussion about the closer collaboration between HEIs and community organisations might be of value: there might be a competing argument about the increasing neoliberalisation of HEIs and their lack of involvement with community organisations.
- There is a reference (line 276) to visual and kinaesthetic learning. This is an educational fad and I strongly recommend the authors remove it.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. Our Cover Letter (attached below) contains our responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFirst of all, let me congratulate you on the work you have done. I think it is a very interesting subject that you have tackled. However, I would like to make a few comments:
In the methodology section it is important that you include the objectives of the research that are going to be discussed and in the conclusions you will show whether this has been achieved. This may help the reader to understand the manuscript.
On the other hand, the section on limitations is more coherent if you put it at the end (next to future research) than where it is placed.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. Our Cover Letter (attached below) contains our responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe abstract could benefit from further clarification regarding the specific methodologies employed in the systematic literature review including selection criteria for the reviewed literaturewould enhance the abstract from the outset. It would also be beneficial to clarify that SDG 4 is Quality Education for clarity for the reader.
Overall, the paper provides a comprehensive overview of the impact and significance of transformative Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) initiatives within community-university collaborations. The linkage between the Doughnut model and the SDGs is a novel and insightful contribution, providing a framework for understanding the concept of a "safe and just space" for life on Earth.
Overall, this manuscript offers valuable insights into the potential of transformative ESD initiatives to contribute to global sustainability efforts. However, further elaboration on specific case studies or empirical evidence supporting the effectiveness of these approaches would strengthen the argument and enhance the scholarly contribution of the manuscript. Additionally, addressing any potential limitations or challenges associated with implementing transformative ESD initiatives would provide a more balanced perspective on the topic.
Note: page 11 line 414 - there is an error message where an in-text referencer has been ommitted.
Note: Doughnut Economics is reference a few times on page 5 but Kate Raworth's Doughnut Economics publication is not cited in text or listed in the bibliography. This is an important oversight that should be rectified.
Note: Page 15 line 598/599 Block capitals of title of publication is not necessary - just acroynm for publisher is required.
Very interesting paper, well done.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. Our Cover Letter (attached below) contains our responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have thoroughly reviewed the joint review file.
Valuing the effort made and in relation to the decisions and improvements made by the other reviewers, I consider that the quality of the article has improved.
Thank you
Author Response
Thank you very much for your review.
