Bridging Intellectual Capital, Sustainable Development and Quality of Life in Higher Education Institutions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article addresses a very interesting topic, applies an appropriate methodology and presents the results clearly.
I leave the following observation and recommendation:
- What are the reasons for selecting those HEIs and not others? The authors sought to have one HEI per region (NUT II), which seems positive. But it would be equally important to have selected private HEIs and the polytechnic subsystem. Thus, the sample would be more representative of Portuguese higher education. In my opinion, representativeness is limited, and the results of the study should not be generalized to all Portuguese higher education.
I recommend that this be mentioned in the limitations of the study.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
We would like to acknowledge the comments that contributed to the improvement of the paper.
Point 1: What are the reasons for selecting those HEIs and not others? The authors sought to have one HEI per region (NUT II), which seems positive. But it would be equally important to have selected private HEIs and the polytechnic subsystem. Thus, the sample would be more representative of Portuguese higher education. In my opinion, representativeness is limited, and the results of the study should not be generalized to all Portuguese higher education. I recommend that this be mentioned in the limitations of the study.
Response 1: Having in mind the suggestion made by the reviewer, the following sentence pointing this limitation was introduced at the "Conclusions, Implications and Limitations of the Study" item (p. 22):
Another aspect associated to the representativeness is the fact that the sample is related only to public university education. As in Portugal exist public and private HEIs and a binary system, as mentioned before, it would be worthwhile to have selected private HEIs and the polytechnic institutions. So, representativeness is limited, and the results of the study cannot be generalized to the universe of Portuguese HEIs. Nevertheless, based on public Portuguese university education system, the sample was representative of the reality under study, since each institution was located in different regions at the NUTS II level.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for allowing me to review your wonderful ideas in the manuscript and in the sole purpose of improving the manuscript here are the comments:
The title is not clear, sustainability encompasses many elements, limiting your scope of work to the three dimensions of IC, Stakeholders, and quality of life may imply a need to emphasize the area of behavior or social elements to the title. Abstract should be limited to the methodology, brief flow of the paper. Starting it with a literature statement may not be the best way to go Method: Structural Equation Model 738 students and 587 teachers/researchers at 7 HEIs? Are these full-time students, are they randomly selected do they represent enough data are they diverse? Does their level of engagement affect the study? 25: how should they be in line with all dimensions of sustainable development, also please consider giving examples of both implications 39: According [2] …please briefly mention some of these gaps. And preferably not start the paragraph with a reference to a resource that readers may not have read or understood. This is repeated in many parts such as when referencing [5,6,11,15] and in other areas. Please have a small table for all the acronyms Introduction: Its quite long, the literature review part can be moved to another section. The introduction should be an introduction of the research with emphasis on the how this research is conducted, problems, challenges, and the objectives. It is advisable to review the entire section, link the paragraphs to critical ideas that help articulate and shape the objectives. I have noticed that the author assumes in many cases that the readers are on par with the latest research, it is advisable to mention something in [5] for instance and not assume that the readers are on par with the authors. Each paragraph has a minor idea, for instance [5] the role of competitiveness, [6] creative economy. It might be useful for the authors to decide if it is suitable to add a table and summarize the type of studies they went through. Discussing the literature shouldn’t be part of the introduction. Authors may want to push line 71 and forward to the background section. Please list a few examples of the indicators for QAL, QWL in 98-99 Before jumping to a conclusion in line 100, about no evidence of studies that support this idea or that. It is advised to set the search criteria in the literature for example the databases selection, the date span of the search and so on. Line 102: please change purpose to objective The problem statement is not clear. Please emphasize it in the introduction 55 what is the author trying to convey? What are these challenges? IC of HEIs and SD practices: 131: what are the four stages of IC? 139: What is DS? Please refer to my earlier comment about a table for acronyms. The extensive literature carried out in line 139- 219 shares a few researchers’ ideas about what to include in sustainable development. These are also referred to in many sustainability assessment tools used by many universities around the world (e.g. STARS by AASHE) furthermore a university from Portugal the University of Universidade Aberta has joined this open source assessment tools. Please take a look at it, it may be useful to articulate H1 hypothesis. Sustainable Development Practices and Quality of life 228: human behavior would be a better word then life-styles 238: the link between satisfaction and sustainability can be improved If the aim of this section is to select the indicators, then please do so and make it clear, if on the other hand the authors want to establish causality perhaps more work is needed in this section to do so. Students academic quality of life What is odf in line 270. If it is a name of a resource, please use the first letter in capital and make sure you follow the journals guidelines 275: this paragraph needs referring to a previous idea. Please make sure ideas flow seemingly. 2 Teachers/Researchers QWL Either add this section with the previous one. To maintain the 2-hypothesis mentioned in the abstract and introduction. Or add this hypothesis to the abstract and introduction for simplicity and consistency Research methodology: The authors may wish to discuss how the sample was selection, and perhaps share a few statistics of the groups surveyed or interviews (median age, gender, level of education, department of study, age and so on) if this is the table included in table 3 please ignore this comment. 357: 32 indicators are mentioned, there seems to be more then 40 indicators in table 1. Please recheck this 379: Please label UBI properly. 446: did the authors check for multicollinearity of the factor’s studies? 449: perhaps it would be wise to indicate if the data was normally distributed or not. 476: Please discuss why these indicators were not relevant and were thus withdrawn It is highly recommended to draw a framework showing how the methodology was formulated. English proofing is needed.Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
The authors acknowledge all the comments that contributed to the improvement of the paper.
Point 1: The title is not clear, sustainability encompasses many elements, limiting your scope of work to the three dimensions of IC, Stakeholders, and quality of life may imply a need to emphasize the area of behavior or social elements to the title.
Response 1: Having in mind the suggestion made by the reviewer, a new title was introduced as follows (p. 1):
Bridging intellectual capital, sustainable development and quality of life in HEIs
Point 2:
a) Abstract should be limited to the methodology, brief flow of the paper. Starting it with a literature statement may not be the best way to go Method: Structural Equation Model 738 students and 587 teachers/researchers at 7 HEIs?
b) Are these full-time students, are they randomly selected do they represent enough data are they diverse? Does their level of engagement affect the study?
Response 2:
a) Having in mind the suggestion made by the reviewer, the abstract was changed as follows (p. 1):
This paper analyses the relationship between intellectual capital of higher education institutions and their sustainable development practices and assesses whether higher education institutions’ sustainable development practices are related to their stakeholders’ quality of life. Using a Structural Equation Model, two models specifications are estimated, gathering primary data from a convenience sample composed by 738 full-time students and 587 teachers/researchers at seven Portuguese higher education institutions. Findings reveal that intellectual capital influences sustainable development practices directly and positively; whereas sustainable development practices influence in a significant way students’ quality of life although the same is not verified for teachers/researchers. These findings provide insightful implications for policy-making and intellectual capital management for practices in higher education institutions. Firstly, by showing that the SD concept is associated with HEIs’ practices of economic, environmental, social and organisational sustainability. Secondly, by concluding that public Portuguese HEIs need to improve social dimension of SD practices, and here there may be room for improvement in the institution through better and more proficient social engagement, more directed to the challenges of sustainability and social change; and thirdly, by showing that the inclusion of better sustainable practices, has repercussions on the quality of life of all stakeholders.
b) The students are full time and it was used a convenience sample. This information has been added in the abstract as follows (line 18) :
Using a Structural Equation Model, two models specifications are estimated, gathering primary data from a convenience sample composed by 738 full-time students and 587 teachers/researchers at seven Portuguese higher education institutions.
Point 3: 25: how should they be in line with all dimensions of sustainable development, also please consider giving examples of both implications (p. 1)
Response 3: Having in mind the suggestion made by the reviewer, the abstract was changed (see Response 2)
Point 4:
a) 39: According [2] …please briefly mention some of these gaps.
b) And preferably not start the paragraph with a reference to a resource that readers may not have read or understood. This is repeated in many parts such as when referencing [5,6,11,15] and in other areas.
Response 4:
a) According to the reviewer’s comments, the paragraph was revised as follows (line 43):
Despite the remaining gap and lack of information in the literature of reference about how intellectual capital and sustainability influence each other in practitioners’ perspective, researchers’ theoretical perspectives have shown how IC and sustainability are closely related [2]. For example, it is revealed that a country’s knowledge assets and intangible assets have significant implications for its future value, inasmuch as they represent a source of skills and competences considered essential for national economic growth, the development of human capital and promotion of QoL [3].
b) This recommendation has been taken into account.
Point 5: Please have a small table for all the acronyms
Response 5: This recommendation has been taken into account. Please see Annex 1 “Acronyms”.
Point 6: Introduction: Its quite long, the literature review part can be moved to another section. The introduction should be an introduction of the research with emphasis on the how this research is conducted, problems, challenges, and the objectives. It is advisable to review the entire section, link the paragraphs to critical ideas that help articulate and shape the objectives.
I have noticed that the author assumes in many cases that the readers are on par with the latest research, it is advisable to mention something in [5] for instance and not assume that the readers are on par with the authors. Each paragraph has a minor idea, for instance [5] the role of competitiveness, [6] creative economy. It might be useful for the authors to decide if it is suitable to add a table and summarize the type of studies they went through.
Response 6: These recommendations have been taken into account (please see text in red presented in the introduction item, pp 1-3).
Point 7:
a) Discussing the literature shouldn’t be part of the introduction. Authors may want to push line 71 and forward to the background section.
b) Please list a few examples of the indicators for QAL, QWL in 98-99.
Response 7:
a) These recommendations have been taken into account (please see text in red in 1, 2 and 3 items).
b) The following changes were incorporated (line 282) :
[…] and (ii) as a set of non-economic factors as a subject of research in the quality of academic life of students (QAL) (satisfaction with services, emotions felt in campus, etc.), e.g. [58–64], or as a factor for assessing quality of work life (needs for satisfaction in a physical and emotional line) (QWL) [65–69].
Point 8: Before jumping to a conclusion in line 100, about no evidence of studies that support this idea or that. It is advised to set the search criteria in the literature for example the databases selection, the date span of the search and so on.
Response 8: This recommendation has been taken into account, and the sentence was revised as follows (line 287):
[…] but after checking some recent literature reviews about IC [17]] and searching the most renowned databases (e.g., Web of Science and Scopus), there were no studies, witch aimed to simultaneously analyse IC, SD and QoL in HEIs, considering their stakeholders’ perceptions.
Point 9:
a) Line 102: please change purpose to objective The problem statement is not clear.
b) Please emphasize it in the introduction 55 what is the author trying to convey? What are these challenges?
Response 9:
a) The word “purpose” was replaced by “objective” (line 84).
b) This recommendation has been taken into account, and the sentence was revised as follows (line 66):
Several challenges have been faced by the HEIs, namely facing the budget reductions, which implies the implementation of efficiency and cost reduction logics, as well as adopting new community welfare promotion practices to improve their own QAL. In this way, HEIs reinforce the attractiveness and retention of human and financial resources, which will positively contribute to the sustainability of these institutions.
Point 10: IC of HEIs and SD practices: 131: what are the four stages of IC?
Response 10: Following the reviewer’ suggestion, the following sentence was added (line 114):
Studies related to this stage defend a change of approach to understand the drivers of wealth creation, based on a balance of intellectual and financial measures, in order to create a more holistic vision of the national innovation capacity and the renewal of society and politics [17].
Point 11: 139: What is DS? Please refer to my earlier comment about a table for acronyms.
Response 11: This acronym was an error and it was corrected to SD.
Point 12: The extensive literature carried out in line 139- 219 shares a few researchers’ ideas about what to include in sustainable development. These are also referred to in many sustainability assessment tools used by many universities around the world (e.g. STARS by AASHE) furthermore a university from Portugal the University of Universidade Aberta has joined this open source assessment tools. Please take a look at it, it may be useful to articulate H1 hypothesis.
Response 12: This recommendation has been taken into account, and this sentence has been added (line 128):
As an example, it may be referred the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE), that began in 2006. AASHE empowers higher education faculty, administrators, staff and students to be effective change agents and drivers of sustainability innovation [21]. This association developed the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS), which is a framework for colleges and universities for measuring their own sustainability and it is the product of an extensive stakeholder engagement process.
Point 13: Sustainable Development Practices and Quality of life. 228: human behavior would be a better word then life-styles.
Response 13: The word “life-styles” was changed by “human behaviours” ( line 240).
Point 14: 238: the link between satisfaction and sustainability can be improved If the aim of this section is to select the indicators, then please do so and make it clear, if on the other hand, the authors want to establish causality perhaps more work is needed in this section to do so.
Response 14: This recommendation has been taken into account, and the following sentences have been added (line 253):
Taking care of the environment, conserving and preserving it, is a commitment that all organizations will be urged in the short term because it raises the QoL of individuals in the workplace (micro environment) and those who inhabit the global space (macro environment) [47] SD practices implies the improvement of QoL through satisfaction with many aspects of life, as education, justice, community participation and recreation [48]. Thus, environmental, cultural and economic factors can interfere with the degree of satisfaction with life, especially if biological needs, safety aspects, social aspects, psychological aspects have been minimally affected [49].
Point 15: Students academic quality of life. What is odf in line 270. If it is a name of a resource, please use the first letter in capital and make sure you follow the journals guidelines.
Response 15: The error was corrected (line 311).
Point 16: 275: this paragraph needs referring to a previous idea. Please make sure ideas flow seemingly.
Response 16: This recommendation has been taken into account. Please see changes in red in item 3.
Point 17: 2 Teachers/Researchers QWL. Either add this section with the previous one. To maintain the 2-hypothesis mentioned in the abstract and introduction. Or add this hypothesis to the abstract and introduction for simplicity and consistency.
Response 17: This recommendation has been taken into account (see abstract).
Point 18: Research methodology: The authors may wish to discuss how the sample was selection, and perhaps share a few statistics of the groups surveyed or interviews (median age, gender, level of education, department of study, age and so on) if this is the table included in table 3 please ignore this comment.
Response 18: Distribution of respondent students and teachers/researchers by HEI, area of study, gender and age-group are displayed in Annex 3.
Point 19: 357: 32 indicators are mentioned, there seems to be more then 40 indicators in table 1.
Response 19: The indicators refer to IC and are 32. So that no doubts remain to the reader, the sentence in line 405, is as follows:
The 32 key indicators used for IC are presented in the Annex 2.
Point 20: Please recheck this 379: Please label UBI properly.
Response 20: UBI was properly labelled (line 422)
Point 21: 446: did the authors check for multicollinearity of the factor’s studies?
Response 21: In structural equations analysis and in the PLS method, according to Hair, Hult, Ringle and Sarstedt (2018), the analysis of multicollinearity (or collinearity) is only justified when there are formative indicators to be analyzed, which is not the case here because these models are reflective. However, SmartPLs software reports this analysis for all indicators (formative and reflective) in the “PLS Algoritm” when running the model. Thus, taking into account the comments of the reviewer, the following paragraph has been incorporated (line 459):
The variance inflation factor (VIF) was also used to diagnose collinearity and it was found that the variance value of each indicator is no higher than 2.7 which does not signal potential multicollinearity issues.
Point 22: 449: perhaps it would be wise to indicate if the data was normally distributed or not.
Response 22: Having in mind the reviewer comments, the following sentence was introduced (line 448):
Considering the statement presented by Hair et al. [91), the PLS assumes no distribution to the data and is relatively robust against distribution deviations. However, the same authors state that researchers should still examine PLS-SEM results carefully when distributions deviate substantially from normal. In accordance, absolute skewness and/or kurtosis values of greater than 1 are indicative of non-normal data. Taking into account what was mentioned by Hair el al. [91], in this case, regarding skewness and kurtosis statistics, they do not provide evidence of a non-normal distribution. In both models, the kurtosis and skewness values of the indicators are within the acceptable range of –1 and +1. The only exception is the ORG indicator, in M1, which has a skewness of -1,113 and a kurtosis of 1,365 and thus exhibits a slight degree of non-normality. However, as the degree of skewness and kurtosis is not severe and because ORG is one of four indicators measuring the (reflective) SD construct, this deviation from normality is not considered a problem and the indicator is retained.
Point 23: 476: Please discuss why these indicators were not relevant and were thus withdrawn
Response 23: In accordance with reviewer comments, the following sentence was added (line 488):
It was found adequate to drop the indicators with higher loadings values that were detracting from the result. The models were estimated until the SRMR value in both models reached the cut-off value of> 0.08 [94].
Point 24: It is highly recommended to draw a framework showing how the methodology was formulated.
English proofing is needed.
Response 24: This recommendation has been taken into account and the following paragraph was introduced (line 374):
The purpose of the study is descriptive because it aims to discriminate the determining factors possibly associated with the phenomenon under study [86]. Through a quantitative, objectivist, and therefore deductive approach, this research it will be supported by models built on results and previous research, with quantitative indicators collected through a questionnaire.
The English was verified.
Reviewer 3 Report
Keywords
- Line 31-32: keywords should be listed in alphabetical order
Abstract
- Line 17-18: the author / authors should find another form so as to avoid the repetition of the word ”ascertain”.
1.Introduction
- Line 55 and line 58 - because it is the first appearance in the text, the full name for the HEI and SD and the abbreviation in parentheses must be used. After that, the abbreviation can be written in the text of the paper.
2. Intellectual Capital of HEIs and Sustainable Development Practices
- Line 210: there is an extra space in the text between words that should be removed.
4. Research Methodology
-Research Methodology Section should be improved with information about the research period.
- Line 341-345: in this phase, it is not about the sample, it is about the population.
-Line 346-375: it would be recommended that chapter 4.2 should not be divided into subchapters because the 4 subchapters contain only a few rows each.
- the author (s) must specify the sampling method used, together with a justification for choosing it.
- It may be better to move Table 1 and Table 3 into the annexes.
- Line 393-395: Table 2 - The author (s) should explain what it means Optimum sample size.
- Line 433-436: it is likely that Table 3 is included as an image and is unclear. It is recommended to replace Table 3 with a new one, edited in word.
- Line 379: the meaning of the abbreviation UBI should be specified.
-Pag 13, line 446-591 – The „Presentation and discussion of the results” section should be removed from the Research Methodology section. The author/authors should have a separate section for presenting the analysis and results.
-Line 450: the variables presented in Table 4 are not control variables.
-Line 451: In the text the authors talk about the average, and Table 4 presents the median. The text and data in the table should be in line with each other.
-Line 452: I suppose that the authors wanted to write p<0.01.
-Line 486-487: The abbreviations used in Table 5 are not indicated. It is recommended to include a table foot with the meaning of SRMR, dULS and dG.
5. Interpretation and Discussion of the Results
When writing the discussion section, authors should carefully consider all possible explanations for the study results, rather than just those that fit your hypothesis or prior assumptions and biases. So, authors should:
Discuss your results in order of most to least important; Compare your results with those from other studies; Discuss what your results may mean for researchers in the same field as you, researchers in other fields, and the general public. How could your findings be applied?; State how your results extend the findings of previous studies.6. Conclusions, Implications and Limitations of the Study
- This section will need a revision, in order to better reflect on the added value of your study to the existing body of knowledge. Which insights from the literature are confirmed, which are contested, which new insights does your study add?
- The authors should better highlight the implications of this research on all stakeholders (HEIs, students, teachers, researchers).
- Also, perhaps the contributions (implications) should be grouped into practical and theoretical contributions.
- the authors should also point out the limitations of the sampling method.
- Line 692-695: It is said here that universities are from different regions of Portugal. This should have been presented earlier in the methodology. For the sample to be representative, an appropriate sampling method should have been used. About the sampling method no information was presented in the methodology section.
-The authors should better highlight future research directions. In this respect, it is recommended to group the future directions of research and to delimit them from the other ideas, through separate paragraphs.
References
- this section should be reviewed in accordance with the MDPI Reference List and Citations Style Guide.
Exemple:
- for articles published in journals, the year of publication should be highlighted in bold and the journal name should be written in italics.
-for book, the Book title should be written in italics.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
The authors acknowledge all the comments that contributed to the improvement of the paper.
Point 1: Keywords - Line 31-32: keywords should be listed in alphabetical order
Response 1: keywords were listed in alphabetical order (line 35).
Point 2: Abstract Line 17-18: the author / authors should find another form so as to avoid the repetition of the word ”ascertain”.
Response 2: The “ascertain” word in 18 line was replaced by “check” (lines 91-92).
Point 3: 1.Introduction Line 55 and line 58 - because it is the first appearance in the text, the full name for the HEI and SD and the abbreviation in parentheses must be used. After that, the abbreviation can be written in the text of the paper.
Response 3: The full name for the HEIs and SD and the abbreviation in parentheses were used (lines 63 and 72).
Point 4: 2. Intellectual Capital of HEIs and Sustainable Development Practices Line 210: there is an extra space in the text between words that should be removed.
Response 4: The space was removed.
Point 5: 4. Research Methodology
a) -Research Methodology Section should be improved with information about the research period.
b) -Line 341-345: in this phase, it is not about the sample, it is about the population.
c)-Line 346-375: it would be recommended that chapter 4.2 should not be divided into subchapters because the 4 subchapters contain only a few rows each.
d) the author (s) must specify the sampling method used, together with a justification for choosing it.
e) It may be better to move Table 1 and Table 3 into the annexes.
f) Line 393-395: Table 2 - The author (s) should explain what it means Optimum sample size.
g) Line 433-436: it is likely that Table 3 is included as an image and is unclear. It is recommended to replace Table 3 with a new one, edited in word.
h) Line 379: the meaning of the abbreviation UBI should be specified.
i) -Pag 13, line 446-591 – The „Presentation and discussion of the results” section should be removed from the Research Methodology section. The author/authors should have a separate section for presenting the analysis and results.
j) -Line 450: the variables presented in Table 4 are not control variables.
k) -Line 451: In the text the authors talk about the average, and Table 4 presents the median. The text and data in the table should be in line with each other.
l) -Line 452: I suppose that the authors wanted to write p<0.01.
m) -Line 486-487: The abbreviations used in Table 5 are not indicated. It is recommended to include a table foot with the meaning of SRMR, dULS and dG. We acknowledge the reviewers’ comments.
Response 5:
a) The research period was introduced as follows (line 421) :
The definitive sample was collected between November 2017 and February 2018, in two phases.
b) The word sample was substituted by population and the sentence remains as follows (line 383) :
Selection of this population is justified as it ensures a diversified sample with the representation of one HEI per region (NUTS II level) and considers the universe of these seven HEIs as a suitable laboratory to test the effects of IC on QAL and QWL.
c) The subchapters were removed
d) The sampling method was better explained. The followed sentence was added (line 393) :
Quantitative data were collected through a Questionnaire A, for students, and a Questionnaire B, for teachers/researchers, resorting to structured, closed questions. A 7-point Likert scale was used for the answers. This scale seems to be the most correct in this study since the respondent builds acceptance levels, according to his experiences and social influences, giving the opportunity to give clear answers instead of neutral or ambiguous answers. This type of scale has already been used in similar studies related to IC, e.g. [18], QAL, e.g. [64], and QWL, e.g. [67].
e) The tables were removed to the Annexes 2 and 3, respectively (see annexes).
f) The following information was added to the legend of the table mentionated (now Table 1, line 434):
* The optimal sample size to be collected at each participating HEI was determined for a confidence level of 99% and considering a sampling error of 5%, as proposed by [90].
g) Table replaced and edited in word (see annex 3).
h) The abbreviation is specified (line 423).
i) This recommendation has been taken into account and a new section is added entitled:
Presentation and discussion of the results (line 439)
j) The variables’ designation was completed (line 447).
k) The word “median” in Table 2 (line 447) was corrected to “Average”.
l) The error was emended (line 445).
m) The abbreviations were explained in a legend (501)
Point 6: 5. Interpretation and Discussion of the Results. When writing the discussion section, authors should carefully consider all possible explanations for the study results, rather than just those that fit your hypothesis or prior assumptions and biases. So, authors should:
Discuss your results in order of most to least important; Compare your results with those from other studies; Discuss what your results may mean for researchers in the same field as you, researchers in other fields, and the general public. How could your findings be applied?; State how your results extend the findings of previous studies.
Response 6: These recommendations have been taken into account (please see text in item 5.3., line 620-679).
Point 7: 6. Conclusions, Implications and Limitations of the Study
a) This section will need a revision, in order to better reflect on the added value of your study to the existing body of knowledge. Which insights from the literature are confirmed, which are contested, which new insights does your study add?
b) The authors should better highlight the implications of this research on all stakeholders (HEIs, students, teachers, researchers).
c) Also, perhaps the contributions (implications) should be grouped into practical and theoretical contributions.
d) the authors should also point out the limitations of the sampling method.
Response 7: Having in mind the reviewer comments, the following review was made:
a) Theoretical contributions/implications are highlighted as follows (line 687):
The results obtained are important contributions to the literature on IC through ratification of new evidences for theory, as they confirm empirically: firstly, a positive and significant relationship between HEIs’ IC and HEIs’ SD; and secondly, a positive and significant relationship between HEIs’ SD and students’ QAL. Regarding the influence of HEIs’ SD on teachers/researchers’ QWL, no empirical evidence was found of a robust relationship between these two constructs, suggesting there may be other variables that are not being considered and which could possibly change this result, and so new, more thorough research in this field is suggested. Therefore, this type of relationship, never before studied, opens new theoretical horizons and new perspectives for further study and research in this area.
b) Implications of the research on all stakeholders are highlighted as follows (733):
This study provides also practical implications per stakeholders: (i) HEIs must satisfy students satisfaction and emotions, fostering QAL, through a better engagement in sustainability activities, by integrating sustainability into the academic curriculum, and by giving better and more information, concerning SD, about what it is happening within HEI; and (ii) HEIs must develop some support infrastructures that allow managers to track which sustainability satisfaction needs (QWL) teachers/researchers may have, so that institutions can develop strategies leading to SD while enhancing human resources’ satisfaction needs within the employer institution. For example, those needs may be related to social responsibility, through greater dissemination of the activities that the institution develops and/or intends to develop, through specific educational training that can contribute to both personal enrichment and a greater competence in knowledge transfer to their peers and/or students.
c) See a) and b)
d) Having in mind the suggestion made by the reviewer, the following sentence pointing sampling method was introduced at the conclusions item (line 750):
Another aspect associated to the representativeness is the fact that the sample is related only to public university education. As in Portugal exists public and private HEIs and a binary system, as mentioned before, it would be worthwhile to have selected private HEIs and the polytechnic institutions. So, representativeness is limited, and the results of the study cannot be generalized to the universe of Portuguese HEIs. Nevertheless, based on public Portuguese university education system, the sample was representative of the reality under study, since each institution was located in different regions at the NUTS II level.
Point 8:
a) Line 692-695: It is said here that universities are from different regions of Portugal. This should have been presented earlier in the methodology.
b) For the sample to be representative, an appropriate sampling method should have been used. About the sampling method no information was presented in the methodology section.
Response 8:
a) This gap has been overcome by introducing the following paragraph in section 4.1 (line 384).
Selection of this population is justified as it ensures a diversified sample with the representation of one HEI per region (NUTS II level) and considers the universe of these seven HEIs as a suitable laboratory to test the effects of IC on QAL and QWL. Although the Portuguese higher education system (public and private) is a binary system, where we can find the university education that is oriented towards the supply of solid scientific formation, joining efforts and competences of teaching and research units and the polytechnic education that is concentrated especially on applied sciences, vocational training and advanced professionally oriented technical training, in this study we focus only on public university education.
d) Please see section 4.3. (line 420).
Point 9: -The authors should better highlight future research directions. In this respect, it is recommended to group the future directions of research and to delimit them from the other ideas, through separate paragraphs.
Response 9: Having in mind the suggestion made by the reviewer, the following paragraph was introduced at the conclusions item (line 768):
With this final motivation, a window of opportunity opens to make future comparative studies based on the age factor and pro-sustainability education factor, since we believe that both can be determinant for the development of successful SD practices, in the HEI context in particular and society in general. Future research avenues can be explored by developing studies focusing especially on HC, aiming to test disaggregated measures and indicators of this critical asset. Adding to this it is suggested to prosecute cross-country comparisons. It would be also of interest to deep the scarce knowledge on IC in HEIs, by contrasting the perceptions of the governance board and students concerning the different activities of this type of knowledge institutions, which play a significant role in educating proactive citizens for sustainable development and quality of life, with a clear vision of social impact.
Point 10: References. this section should be reviewed in accordance with the MDPI Reference List and Citations Style Guide.
Example:
for articles published in journals, the year of publication should be highlighted in bold and the journal name should be written in italics.
-for book, the Book title should be written in italics.
Response 10: We acknowledge the reviewer’s comments. All the references were checked.
Reviewer 4 Report
Overall, this is an excellent manuscript.
The purpose of the study is described in a logical, comprehensible, and explicit manner. A notable argumentation in support of research pointing to gaps in the literature is established. The significance of the research is clearly established.
The review of literature in the field displays a deep understanding of existing peer reviewed literature. Topics within the existing literature are addressed with strong connections made to the current study.
The research setting, sample, and participant selection procedures and data sources are clearly described and justified. Data collection methods are clearly described and justified. The processes for analysis are succinctly articulated.
The findings build logically from the analysis. The discussion draws logical connections between the problem, the research strategy, the findings, and the conclusions.
Author Response
We acknowledge the reviewer’s comments.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for making the changes. The paper seems in an excellent, clear and interesting shape now.
Author Response
The authors acknowledge the comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article has been improved, and we thank the author(s) for this. The Research Methodology section is clearer, presenting information on the population and the sampling method, and the results better suggest the added value of this study. Also, the authors presented better the limitations of the research and highlighted the implications of this research, as well as the future directions of research.
However, the authors should also consider the following suggestions:
Line 31-35: Most likely this paragraph represents the author's response to a Reviewer's Comments. I suggest that these lines to be removed from the final version of the paper.
Line 448: The asterisks (*) of table 2 are not indicated. It is recommended to include a table foot with this information.
Line 438, Line 448 and Line 603: For Table 1, Table 2 and Table 11 the authors should mention the source.
Line 477: check manuscript throughout for typo's: e.g it should be Annex and not 'Anexx'
Line 673-674: What does ”IES” mean?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments:
The authors acknowledge all the comments, which contributed for improving the clarity and quality of the revised manuscript.
Point 1: Line 31-35: Most likely this paragraph represents the author's response to a Reviewer's Comments. I suggest that these lines to be removed from the final version of the paper.
Response 1: These lines have been removed.
Point 2: Line 448: The asterisks (*) of table 2 are not indicated. It is recommended to include a table foot with this information.
Response 2: The asterisks of table 2 were introduced in the table foot (in line 443).
Point 3: Line 438, Line 448 and Line 603: For Table 1, Table 2 and Table 11 the authors should mention the source.
Response 3: The correspondent sources were added (e.g. in lines 434, 444 and 600).
Point 4: Line 477: check manuscript throughout for typo's: e.g. it should be Annex and not 'Anexx'
Response 4: This error was corrected (in line 474).
Point 5: Line 673-674: What does ”IES” mean?
Response 5: This acronym was an error and it was corrected to HEIs (e.g. in lines 670 and 671).
