Prospective Study on Geosciences On-Line Education: UNESCO Global Geoparks in Spain and Portugal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.       Introduction: More explanation is needed why the authors chose to analyze the webpages of UGGps in Spain and Portugal for the study of geosciences on-line education. There would be other approaches for the study. Emphasize the uniqueness of the authors’ approach.

2.       Methodology: the webpage analysis process is not clear. It would be helpful to show some examples of the process to draw the graphs of Fig. 1 – 5.

 

3.       Reference: Make referencing style in line with the MDPI style.

Author Response

Dear referee,

Thank you very much for your review and significant comments and remarks regarding the article. We have tried to follow all your indications and I’m attaching bellow all the changes we have made:

First of all, we have completely revised the paper, both in structure and in language, as indicated in the evaluation, and we have corrected some words, phrases, figures (See figures 1-4 in the final version) and table titles that were not well expressed in the final version of the manuscript.

Regarding the introduction, it has been carefully revised and expanded (6 additional lines) to facilitate its understanding and emphasize the importance and uniqueness of the study carried out during the investigation. We have chosen these study examples due to the countries of residence of the authors, Spain and Portugal, and the existence of the UNESCO Chair on Geoparks, Sustainable Regional Development and Healthy Lifestyles at UTAD, Vila Real. Said chair, is related to the educational activity of the UGGPs, and is an interesting point where a large part of the interests and activities of these territories converge.

In the methodology section, an example of how the quantification of the values ​​and their representation in the figures have been carried out has been added in order to clarify the process of obtaining, analyzing, representing and studying the data for the research paper.

Finally, the reference section was presented in free format, since the journal itself, in its regulations, indicates that this possibility exists as long as it maintains a coherent style and structure: “Your references may be in any style, provided that you use the consistent formatting throughout.” Nevertheless, if the secretariat of the journal thinks that a certain format is needed for the final manuscript, we will change it as soon as possible.

Thank you very much four your indications which have helped us to enrich and improve the original manuscript,

Best regards,

Enrique

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Line 191 -  it would be positive to include the name of other authors that have have already mentioned that "the UGGps are open-air laboratories".  

Table 2 - Needs to be reviewed regarding the Declaration Year of Azores. It is 2013, and not 2010 (see UNESCO website). The title of the table is also incorrect, since what it is stated is the Global Geopark Network designated Year, and not their declaration as UNESCO Global Geoparks (for all UGGps the year was 2015, when the IGGP was adopted by UNESCO). So, it is a contradiction.

Line 227 - "Portugal has 5 UGGps" it should be "Portugal has five UGGps"

Line 372 - "UGGps pet" could be changed into " UGGps pet/mascot" it would cover better what the UGGps mention in their reports (more mascots than "pets"). The same should apply to Table 3, point 5.

Line 495 - it would be useful just to mentioned the targets and indicators of SDG 4, since it is not mentioned in any part of the text, so that the general public could be at least informed about what is behind SDG 4, and not just its title.

Line 511 - "Acting as laboratories and classrooms in the open air" - more authors have used this sentence. Therefore, it would be positive to add the name of some authors in this part.

Line 539 and 540 - It seems that the authors are already reaching a conclusion. So, probably it would be more suitable to have this line in Part 8 - Conclusions.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear referee,

Thank you very much for your review and advice regarding the article submitted to the journal. I’m attaching bellow all the changes I have made with respect to your indications:

• Line 191 - it would be positive to include the name of other authors that have have already mentioned that "the UGGps are open-air laboratories" and Line 511 - "Acting as laboratories and classrooms in the open air" - more authors have used this sentence. Therefore, it would be positive to add the name of some authors in this part.

We have added a citation for the authors who have discussed this topic and have used those definitions in both lines.

• Table 2 - Needs to be reviewed regarding the Declaration Year of Azores. It is 2013, and not 2010 (see UNESCO website). The title of the table is also incorrect, since what it is stated is the Global Geopark Network designated Year, and not their declaration as UNESCO Global Geoparks (for all UGGps the year was 2015, when the IGGP was adopted by UNESCO). So, it is a contradiction.

We have corrected the date that you indicate, 2010 to 2013, and I have updated the titles of the tables regarding your comments. Also, reviewing the table, we have corrected the order of the dates, since although the title mentioned that they were arranged in chronological order, they were not in the final version of the manuscript.

• Line 227 - "Portugal has 5 UGGps" it should be "Portugal has five UGGps"

Corrected.

• Line 372 - "UGGps pet" could be changed into " UGGps pet/mascot" it would cover better what the UGGps mention in their reports (more mascots than "pets"). The same should apply to Table 3, point 5.

Replaced “UGGps pet” with “UGGps pet/mascot” throughout the paper.

• Line 495 - it would be useful just to mentioned the targets and indicators of SDG 4, since it is not mentioned in any part of the text, so that the general public could be at least informed about what is behind SDG 4, and not just its title.

Regarding this modification, we have added an additional table matching the format of the journal that shows the targets and indicators of the SDG4.

• Line 539 and 540 - It seems that the authors are already reaching a conclusion. So, probably it would be more suitable to have this line in Part 8 - Conclusions.

             We have moved that line to the conclusion.

Thank you very much four your indications wich have helped us to enrich and improv the original manuscript,

Best regards,

Enrique

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf