Education for Sustainable Development and Innovation in Engineering School: Students’ Perception
, Michel J. F. Dubois 1,2,*, Marie Chedru 1,2 and Geoffroy Belhenniche 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The reviewer congratulates the authors for the study presented.
The text is of interest for generating scientific knowledge in higher education.
Some changes are suggested to improve the structure of the manuscript.
Introduction
Line 82 to 88; 96-97 This text should be moved to the objectives description. Before the methodology
Lines 89-95 This part of the manuscript should be deleted as it does not contribute anything to the article.
Lines 178-198. Point 3. Should be integrated in the methodology.
Lines 212-214. The objectives should be placed before the methodology, last paragraph.
4.1 Better to call this section Participants. This section should give some data related to ethical considerations, the authors should add the code of the ethics committee that approved the design of this research.
4.3. Add a section on Procedure. Explain the procedure followed in this part of the manuscript.
6. Discussion. This section should be for discussion only. Better to introduce another point (7) for the conclusions.
Line 383. The discussion section should start by reminding the objective(s) of the research.
Author Response
Thanks for your remarks and suggestions, all changes are highlighted in red. "Please see the attachment."
Introduction
Line 82 to 88; 96-97 This text should be moved to the objectives description. Before the methodology. OK Line 165-177.
Lines 89-95 This part of the manuscript should be deleted as it does not contribute anything to the article. OK
Lines 178-198. Point 3. Should be integrated in the methodology. OK sub-section 3.1. Line 179-209.
Lines 212-214. The objectives should be placed before the methodology, last paragraph. OK
4.1 Better to call this section Participants. This section should give some data related to ethical considerations, the authors should add the code of the ethics committee that approved the design of this research. OK Line 218-221 (See more information sub-section 3.4.).
4.3. Add a section on Procedure. Explain the procedure followed in this part of the manuscript. OK Line 245-249.
- Discussion. This section should be for discussion only. Better to introduce another point (7) for the conclusions. OK see section 5.
Line 383. The discussion section should start by reminding the objective(s) of the research. OK Line 382-386.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall an interesting paper. I think that some of your manuscript needs more explanation so that it is more clear, but overall it was interesting.
|
LINE |
COMMENT |
|
8 |
What do you mean completed in a first study? Is this the second study or a continuation? Need to be more clear |
|
14 |
What do you mean “sent to two specialties?” Sent where? |
|
16 |
What is important? Do you mean significant? |
|
17 |
What does this sentence mean? |
|
39 |
Long standing but with only one citation? |
|
39 |
Write out UNO the first time it is mentioned |
|
48-53 |
Needs more elaboration than just listing |
|
68 |
Many studies but list one citation? |
|
Intro |
This section has lots of great information, but it jumps around and sometimes needs to be explained more in relation to your study |
|
4.2 |
May help to show a table of these sections rather than try to list them all paragraph-style |
|
Methods |
Was the survey voluntary or mandatory? |
|
Data |
Try to not have tables broken across 2 pages |
|
Discussion |
If think that gender or location are a factor, why not include them in the analysis to determine if they were a covariables? |
|
434 |
Need more elaboration or citation if going for ambivalence |
|
|
|
Author Response
Thanks for your remarks and suggestions, all changes are highlighted in red. "Please see the attachment."
|
LINE |
COMMENT |
|
8 |
What do you mean completed in a first study? Is this the second study or a continuation? Need to be more clear OK Line 8 |
|
14 |
What do you mean “sent to two specialties?” Sent where? OK engineers’ training classes Line 15 |
|
16 |
What is important? Do you mean significant? OK Line 16 |
|
17 |
What does this sentence mean? OK Line 17 |
|
39 |
Long standing but with only one citation? Yes, as it is a review that explain all definitions of SD and declarations. |
|
|
|
|
39 |
Write out UNO the first time it is mentioned OK Line 40 |
|
48-53 |
Needs more elaboration than just listing. Lozano is a reference in this domain and our aim is to have a comprehensive overview of the significant works. |
|
68 |
Many studies but list one citation? Yes; but we cite other citations in the same paragraph. (see more details Line 67-75) |
|
Intro |
This section has lots of great information, but it jumps around and sometimes needs to be explained more in relation to your study OK done. |
|
4.2 |
May help to show a table of these sections rather than try to list them all paragraph-style We prefer this form because we reserve the tables for results. This sub-section is numbered 3.3 according to other reviewers’ request. |
|
Methods |
Was the survey voluntary or mandatory? Mandatory; added in the text (line 248). |
|
Data |
Try to not have tables broken across 2 pages How? May be the editor can help us. |
|
Discussion |
If think that gender or location are a factor, why not include them in the analysis to determine if they were a covariables? Yes, it has to be studied in the future research…(Line 493) |
|
434 |
Need more elaboration or citation if going for ambivalence. At this stage of our analysis, it is just a finding that we will seek to clarify later. |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
page 3 line 94: Beauvais).
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
page 3 line 94: Beauvais). Line 89 to 95 are delated according to Reviewer 1.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
A relevant study for the scientific community is presented due to its scope and timeliness. Everything concerning innovation in educational matters is always an attraction for readers interested in this field of knowledge. In addition, the teaching community can see their professional practice improved with this type of work.
However, to improve the quality of the manuscript, authors should address the following observations:
-Several citations have been found in the text that are not in square brackets. The manuscript must be established based on the MDPI regulations.
-The state of the matter analyzed is adequate. Although it is pertinent to analyze and include works such as those set out below, related to innovation in education and good practices:
Moreno-Guerrero, A., Soler-Costa, R., Marín-Marín, J., & López-Belmonte, J. (2021). Flipped learning and good teaching practices in secondary education. Comunicar, 68. https://doi.org/10.3916/C68-2021-09
Rodríguez-García, A.-M.; López Belmonte, J.; Agreda Montoro, M.; Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J. Productive, Structural and Dynamic Study of the Concept of Sustainability in the Educational Field. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5613. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205613
-The method is appropriate. However, the procedure followed in the investigation should be described in more detail. That is, create a specific section where all the processes carried out in the study are collected.
-The discussion should be reinforced with more authors. In addition, the most outstanding limitations of the study and future lines of research should be established. All this so that the scientific community can take the path established in this work.
-A relevant aspect would be to add, as a final section, the implications or prospects derived from this study.
Author Response
Thanks for your remarks and suggestions, all changes are highlighted in red. "Please see the attachment."
-Several citations have been found in the text that are not in square brackets. The manuscript must be established based on the MDPI regulations. OK
-The state of the matter analyzed is adequate. Although it is pertinent to analyze and include works such as those set out below, related to innovation in education and good practices:
Moreno-Guerrero, A., Soler-Costa, R., Marín-Marín, J., & López-Belmonte, J. (2021). Flipped learning and good teaching practices in secondary education. Comunicar, 68. https://doi.org/10.3916/C68-2021-09 OK Line 76-78 Ref 20.
Rodríguez-García, A.-M.; López Belmonte, J.; Agreda Montoro, M.; Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J. Productive, Structural and Dynamic Study of the Concept of Sustainability in the Educational Field. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5613. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205613 OK Line 70-74 Ref 17.
-The method is appropriate. However, the procedure followed in the investigation should be described in more detail. That is, create a specific section where all the processes carried out in the study are collected. OK Line 245-249.
-The discussion should be reinforced with more authors. Given the new scope required by this bibliographic study, it goes beyond the framework and the deadline of submission the new version. Sorry!
In addition, the most outstanding limitations of the study (OK Line 417-420) and future lines of research should be established (OK for more details sub-section 6.2) All this so that the scientific community can take the path established in this work.
-A relevant aspect would be to add, as a final section, the implications or prospects derived from this study. (OK for more details sub-section 6.2)
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have addressed the requested changes. The quality of the manuscript has improved considerably. My recommendation is to accept the manuscript.
