Development of an Interdisciplinary Master of Forestry Program Focused on Forest Management in a Changing Climate

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Line 104-105; Please indicate in what context was this study set and cite the study- For all Germany? For all Europe? Who  conducted this study?

Line 190; It would be more inclusive and appropriate to use a broader term in this international journal please use " the multi-functional forest management model " instead of 'German model".

Identify the content of each of the 2 panels of Figure 5  5a "model".... 5b "simulated...."  This is needed to increase transparency and credibility of the content of each panel in figure 5 

Author Response

Point 1: Introduction Can be improved

Response 1:We reorganized the introduction chapter to better reflect how the challenging issues triggered the approach of establishing a pioneering, interdisciplinary Master of Forestry. We have emphasized the needs of a novel interdisciplinary approach in the introduction chapter
(lines 51-55)

Point 2: Methods Must be improved

Response 2: The chapter title was changed from `Material and methods´ to `Methodical approach´.

The new principle of structure follows a strategic implementation plan (SIP) addressing identified needs (subchapter 2.1), target group (subchapter 2.2), goal (subchapter 2.3) and objectives (subchapter 2.4).

We added a new subchapter 2.3 Goal - model of the training program (lines 85-114). Here we explain our approach for developing the Master program as a consecutive model, its interdisciplinary orientation, and its focus on so-called 21st century skills. We added articles by L. Darling-Hammond and others.

We amended the subchapter 2.4 Content objectives (lines 115-131). Here, we describe how it was built and constructed and how Natural Disturbances under Climate Change have to be reflected in the curricula and teaching programs. The objectives have now been clearly presented by adding a table (table 1; line 122-124).

Moreover, we harmonized the method chapter and the results chapter. Within this context, we removed the `Infrastructural changes´ subchapter (line 146-160), which had no response in the results chapter.

Point 3: Results must be improved

Response 3: The presentation of the results was improved according to your detail proposals.

Point 4: Line 104-105; Please indicate in what context was this study set and cite the study- For all Germany? For all Europe? Who  conducted this study?

Response 4: We have specified the context (line 164-172). This trajectory of an `early bird application´ by which students apply early to a single university - usually their first choice - is a general, globally applicable indicator. To substantiate that point, we added international citations from New York [18], from Littleton, Colorado [19] and Medford, Massachusetts [20].

Point 5: Line 190; It would be more inclusive and appropriate to use a broader term in this international journal please use " the multi-functional forest management model " instead of 'German model".

Response 5: Thank you. We made the change as suggested (line 257).

Point 6: Identify the content of each of the 2 panels of Figure 5  5a "model".... 5b "simulated...."  This is needed to increase transparency and credibility of the content of each panel in figure 5 

Response 6: We identified the panels and added the corresponding text below the figure (line 302-303) as follows:

(a) Insect-inspired six-legged robot with multi-sensor navigation frame; (b) Simulated hexapod in forestry environment.

Thank you for your offered useful feedback for improving the manuscript!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article presents an idea of shift in education at Master of Forestry studies. I do agree with the title and major call that Natural Disturbances under Climate Change are crucial and important ideas that has to be reflected in the curricula and teaching programs. There is no doubt about it.  I just don’t see support for the promised claim in the text that follows the title. I might not find this interdisciplinary master´s program, how it was build, constructed, where is the interdisciplinary approach hidden?

With some more detailed comments:

There is a unacceptable Lack of theoretical framework for building teaching programs, the authors are completely unaware of such framework (or at least they do not show it in the article). Some framework has to adopted in order for the paper to be scientific

• For example some work of Linda Darling-Hammond could be adopted, but you can choose of course some other authors – for now it is just presentation of the ideas, It is creativity not science. So I have to say it is not scientific the way you present it. I would strongly recommend to seek for advice from somebody with pedagogical background to provide such theory and discuss presented idea. Usually you have to adopt also some model of building program, you might start from values, or from competencies or from knowledge – it all depends on the model. Once you adopt a model, choose your starting point you are working on major goals etc.
• What you call content objectives are not objectives. You have also call them Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) - and it is a different concept in pedagogy – goals and objectives – like a difference between two concepts “forest” and “Ribo nigri-Alnetum”
• What you describes as methods are not scientific methods, these are just ideas and steps to follow like to do list. These are not the methods – you might for example find it in a mismatch between your methods and results
• Description of fig 2 is misleading it is not “Analysis of decision making of prospective students in the choice of a university” – you have not at all analyzed students decision making! It is just the percentage of students who has applied in certain date – it is not the analysis of decision making. Decision making itself is a psychological phenomena and you should also search for appropriate framework in order to be allowed to say so
• Additionally I don’t see the connection (at least explicitly presented) between the important ideas of changing world and students choosing your university – the link should be highlighted in methods and results
• English is not my mother language - but I have noticed some place where the text requires improvement.

Author Response

Point 1: Introduction Must be improved

Response 1: We reorganized the introduction chapter to better reflect how the challenging issues triggered the approach of establishing a pioneering, interdisciplinary Master of Forestry. We have emphasized the needs of a novel interdisciplinary approach in the introduction chapter (lines 51-55)

Point 2: Conclusions Must be improved

We harmonized the conclusions chapter with the results chapter (lines 321-333).

Point 3: The article presents an idea of shift in education at Master of Forestry studies. I do agree with the title and major call that Natural Disturbances under Climate Change are crucial and important ideas that has to be reflected in the curricula and teaching programs. There is no doubt about it.  I just don’t see support for the promised claim in the text that follows the title. I might not find this interdisciplinary master´s program, how it was build, constructed, where is the interdisciplinary approach hidden?

Response 3: First, we emphasized the needs of a novel interdisciplinary approach in the introduction chapter (see above; lines 51-55).

Second, we amended the whole method chapter. The new principle of structure follows a strategic implementation plan (SIP) addressing identified needs (subchapter 2.1), target group (subchapter 2.2), goal (subchapter 2.3) and objectives (subchapter 2.4)

We added a new subchapter 2.3 Goal - model of the training program (lines 85-114). Here we explain our approach for developing the Master program as a consecutive model, its interdisciplinary orientation, and its focus on so-called 21st century skills. We added articles by L. Darling-Hammond and others.

We amended the subchapter 2.4 Content objectives (lines 115-131). Here, we describe how it was built and constructed and how Natural Disturbances under Climate Change have to be reflected in the curricula and teaching programs.

With some more detailed comments:

There is a unacceptable Lack of theoretical framework for building teaching programs, the authors are completely unaware of such framework (or at least they do not show it in the article). Some framework has to adopted in order for the paper to be scientific

• Point 4: For example some work of Linda Darling-Hammond could be adopted, but you can choose of course some other authors – for now it is just presentation of the ideas, It is creativity not science. So I have to say it is not scientific the way you present it. I would strongly recommend to seek for advice from somebody with pedagogical background to provide such theory and discuss presented idea. Usually you have to adopt also some model of building program, you might start from values, or from competencies or from knowledge – it all depends on the model. Once you adopt a model, choose your starting point you are working on major goals etc.
• Response 4: We added a new subchapter 2.3 Goal - model of the training program (lines 85-114). Here we explain our approach for developing the Master program as a consecutive model, its interdisciplinary orientation, and its focus on so-called 21st century skills. We added articles by L. Darling-Hammond and others.

• Point 5: What you call content objectives are not objectives. You have also call them Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) - and it is a different concept in pedagogy – goals and objectives – like a difference between two concepts “forest” and “Ribo nigri-Alnetum”
• Response 5: We agree, that a proper terminology is concerned with the relationship between concepts. needs (subchapter 2.1), target group (subchapter 2.2), goal (subchapter 2.3) and objectives (subchapter 2.4). The objectives have now been clearly presented by adding a table (table 1; line 122-124).
• Point 6: What you describes as methods are not scientific methods, these are just ideas and steps to follow like to do list. These are not the methods – you might for example find it in a mismatch between your methods and results
• Response 6: The chapter title was changed from `Material and methods´ to `Methodical approach´. The new principle of structure follows a strategic implementation plan (SIP). Moreover, we harmonized the method chapter and the results chapter. Within this context, we removed the `Infrastructural changes´ subchapter (line 146-160), which had no response in the results chapter.

• Point 7: Description of fig 2 is misleading it is not “Analysis of decision making of prospective students in the choice of a university” – you have not at all analyzed students decision making! It is just the percentage of students who has applied in certain date – it is not the analysis of decision making. Decision making itself is a psychological phenomena and you should also search for appropriate framework in order to be allowed to say so
• Response 7: We have changed the text of the figure caption to “Analysis of students applying…”  (line 176-177). However, the trajectory of an `early bird application´ by which students apply early to a single university - usually their first choice - is a general, globally applicable indicator. We have specified the context (line 164-172). To substantiate that point, we added international citations from New York [18], from Littleton, Colorado [19] and Medford, Massachusetts [20] in the manuscript text.

• Point 8: Additionally I don’t see the connection (at least explicitly presented) between the important ideas of changing world and students choosing your university – the link should be highlighted in methods and results
• Response 8: We have clearified, that we plan to implement a consecutive model. A consecutive bachelor/ master study program only makes sense, when the subject area has sufficient credibility, reputation, attractiveness, and produces capable and ambitious graduates.  It allows teachers to build a strong, long-term relationship with students (lines 86-90).

• Point 9: English is not my mother language - but I have noticed some place where the text requires improvement.
• Response 9: The revised manuscript has been proof-read by the native speaker Dr. Laura Sutcliffe https://www.uni-goettingen.de/de/mitarbeiter/73082.html

Thank you for your offered useful feedback for improving the manuscript!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf