A Study of Sustainability Concepts for Developing Green Universities in Thailand

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

thank you for your manuscript. It presents an interesting topic which fits very well to this journal.

Please find below my comments and observations.

 

Abstract

I would recommend to reduce it; it seems too long and unattractive for the readers.

The following sentence seems redundant: “found that universities are organizations that play an important role in producing graduates.”

 

Introduction

The part from paragraph 5 starting with: “Overall, the results indicate…” should be eliminated as here are presented the results. This information is to be presented after the study.

Paragraph 6 seems not connected to the rest of the introduction. This should be eliminated or moved.

You should include short information about other studies dealing with similar topic or using same methodology. For example: Popescu, S. et al., Competitive Development Tools in Identifying Efficient Educational Interventions for Improving Pro-Environmental and Recycling Behavior, 2020

 

2. Materials and Methods

Figure 2 should be improved

How were established the sustainability indicators? They were all taken from the UI Green Metric Methodology?

How was the AHP method applied?

 

3. Results

3.3 Please mention here that the questionnaire included questions about all the Basic GU SI Sustainability Indicators from table 4

3.4.

You mention here 30 indicators, but in I can identify only 27. Could you please check?

The assessment results for 30 sustainability indicators in 36 universities...”

 

5. Conclusions

Which is the utility of this framework in comparison with UI Green Metric? Why should this be used and not the UI Green Metric?

Can this research methodology be applied to other countries for establishing sustainability criteria?

Have you found similar research in other countries maybe?

 

General

Format and font of the text should be revised.

English -  small corrections

 

Overall, the manuscript can be of interest for many scholars, but this form requires several improvements.

 

Best regards,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

small corrections

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

Thank you once again for response from the reviewer for submitting this manuscript. we have edited our responses to these three author review report. finished the author hopes to receive a reponse to the journal's publication soon.

Best regards.

Mr.Preecha Aregarot

KMUTT

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A high-quality research study with new and modified measures. The research topic is very relevant and so the findings will be ready by a wide audience of scholars, environmental interest groups, and citizens. The scholarship in this study is first class and the authors deserve recognition from their country and the world at large. A fine piece of research and well presented as an article.

Author Response

Dear Reviewr 2

Thank you once again for the response from the reviewer for submitting this manuscript. we have edited our response to these author review report. finished the author hopes to receive a response to the journal's publication soon.

 

Best regards,

Mr.Preecha Aregarot

KMUTT.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting paper full of many findings. However, I'd like to suggest a major revision if the editor decides to invite the authors to resubmit it. 

·        The abstract part needs to be rewritten. At present, too many descriptive sentences, the key points and important conclusions of the article need a clearer demonstration.

• The introduction part needs improvements in terms of a more comprehensive review of current research as well as a clearly stated research gap，and emphasizes the academic research significance of this article.
• Materials and Methods need a clearer demonstration to explain the reasons why this article chose the AHP compared with other methods.
• This article needs a clearer explanation of changes in indicators.  Current indicators are selected merely based on questionnaire results, which is not strong enough to justify the choices. Indicators need to be further justified with a comprehensive review and discussion with a broader research communities.
• Discussion needs to be rewritten as well. It is suggested to analyze the reasons for the different scores, and then prove the feasibility of the indicators.
• Conclusion needs to be rewrote as well. Please highlight your most important findings and connect them with broader research communities. 
• It is suggested to standardize the format and size of figures and tables in this article.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3

Thank you once again for the response from the reviewer for submitting this manuscript.we have edited our response to the these author review reports.finished the author hopes to receive a response to the journal's publication soon.

 

Best regards,

Mr.Preecha Aregarot

KMUTT. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would change the title as the paper is more about sustainability assessment criteria and indicators. "Sustainability concepts" is quite vague.

In the previous review I mentioned that the abstract could be shorter and now it is even longer. Please try to synthesize the important information and reduce it.

In your response, you wrote: "We did not add it because, there were references used. same methodology Already in the Introduction section". Please highlight for me the references you have in the text regarding similar studies which use same or similar methodology with your study. I haven't found any.

Please improve Figure 2.

In your response you wrote: "Only 6 aspects taken from the UI GreenMetric Methodology. In this study, 1 new aspect about indoor air quality was added.

See in revised manuscript pages 11-12." Please include this information in the paper. Pages 11-12 doesn't include this.

To my question "Have you found similar research in other countries maybe?" you responded "No. So far there is no similar research found in other countries." Please search again in the literature. At a very simple search I've found some papers dealing with similar topics. Similar doesn't mean to find an identical reasearch!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

no comments