Review Reports

No.

Comment

Corrections

1

Please have the language checked by a professional/native speaker.

Done, the language has been reviewed by a reliable source in your journal, the review certificate is attached

2

Please note the manuscript has several broken sentences

Done, this was remedied by reviewing and modifying the text

3

I also suggest the authors to reflect on how sections were organized.

Done

4

There are many sentences/ arguments repeated throughout the text, e.g., the number of items in the questionnaire; procedures to check validity and reliability

It has been processed

5

- A comprehensive theoretical framework is missing - just a few references are used.

Thank you for this valuable note. References related to the topic of the study have been added

6

Please develop a conclusions section that is more connected with your investigation, with the key messages, and the relation of this national investigation with other universities/countries.

Reviewed and developed, ideas highlighted in relation to local and international universities.

No.

Comment

Corrections

1

4.  Introduction:                                                                                                  i. Basic concepts and or variables in the topic were not addressed (e.g: faculty visuals, university role, educational philosophy, sustainability), hence the insufficient conceptual review. The "food security" concept was adequately discussed, but definitions were from reference [1]. Use two different sources.

It has been revised and modified, please see the introduction to the study.

2

5. No theoretical framework

The theoretical framework is integrated with the introduction and has been added to it

3

6. Objective 3  contents did not reflect the role to agree with the topic and on what you have on "results research question/subtitle" as well as the interpretation ( section 1.4, line 170-171 ). Problem statement number 3 did not also agree with objective 3 (see lines 161-162 vs 170-171)  Reflect that!

It has been modified and cleared

4

7. Significance should indicate who were the beneficiaries, what, and how?

clarified

5

8. Methodology:  N/B study limitations do not mean the same as study delimitation, revisit. The approach is not clear!

done

6

9. Differentiate between faculty members and lecturers? Specify sampling procedures?

Done, sampling procedures were specified

7

10. Section 2.4 deviated from the study's aim, and objectives. i.e, it emphasized importance and impact in place of "role"

clarified

8

10. how many experts validated the instrument for data collection?

Done

No.

Comment

Corrections

1

it requires major revision and English copy-editing before it is suitable for publication.

Done, the language has been reviewed by a reliable source in your journal, the review certificate is attached

2

Some words (e.g. “Faculty Visuals”) in the title do not seem clear or adequately descriptive even after reading the entire manuscript.  So the title needs to change.  It promises more than the abstract while paper concept and intentions seem a bit misleading apparently discussing a case study with data only from Saudi public universities.  Similarly key words do not mention or reflect the narrower Saudi context of the study.   The authors should at a minimum include Saudi in the title and eliminate “Faculty Visuals.”  Also “Saudi universities” (not just implying all universities) should also be included in key words.

Title is change to: Role in Promoting the Sustainability of Food Security: Faculty Visuals in KSA Universities

Also, the keyword

3

The abstract also needs to be revised since some sentences and recommendations are vague and confusing.  E.g. “The study recommends the necessity of adopting a clear educational philosophy that reflects the culture of the community and faces global developments.”  What does this mean?  The paper does not adequately explain what a “culture of the community” means or how this might relate to “global developments”.  The authors should focus the analysis and conclusions more on Saudi contexts supported by the relevant data.

Done, the summary has been modified in the context of the value note

4

The paper is weak or missing clarity concerning Saudi contexts.  E.g. re Lines 97-102 mention “Saudi Arabia's educational policy focused on education for sustainable development… Benefiting from all kinds of beneficial human knowledge in the light of Islam, for the advancement of the nation and raising its standard of life.”  But implications are not clear.

The paragraph has been modified and attached to the details. Share this valuable note with you

5

What difference does Islam make to food security or related SDGs?  The authors mention Saudi education policy to achieve food security but the concept is vague and not clear about what indicators are used.  Moreover, there are no citations to English language documents or literatures on Saudi education.  What other literatures can be cited to better contextualize the study?

Context clarified and sources added

6

Problem with gender biased language: “Wisdom is the lost property of the believer, and if he finds it,..”  He, or she?  Or this Islamic or official text?

There is no gender bias in the language, and this is an official text that cannot be modified so it has been dispensed with in another context.

7

The concept of “national security of peoples” is used imprecisely and not consistent with scholarly literature in the political science, foreign policy or allied fields including human security (or food security more specifically).   The authors should not use the term national security (a concept more typical of military or defense literature to describe what appears largely as a food security issue.

The phrase has been modified to prevent confusion with other terms in the political sciences

8

Re Lines 164-166 this study aims to “Highlight the roles played by universities in achieving sustainable food security in the 165 fields of (education and learning) and (policies and regulations)….”   By which universities? (Saudi only?)  More specificity in description and names with disaggregation of data is needed.

The objective has been reformulated to be more specific and clearer.

9

Re Lines 190-193  “Human limits: included faculty members at Saudi universities during the year 2021- 2022. and : Objective limits: The study was limited to the roles played by universities in achieving sustainable food security in the fields of (education and learning) and (policies 193 and regulations).  Again by which universities? (Saudi only and how many?)  Which Saudi Universities (names and sample populations of each distributed over which five regions should be identified in a table or appendix.

Modified as suggested

10

Re line 218  again sample from five universities (only 5 or  more?) need clarity with names and sample size from each.

done

11

Inconsistency and poor use of terms, concepts and definitions

We apologize for that. We have tried to reformulate to be clearer in the entirety of the paper

12

The paper needs to improve and harmonize use of terms, concepts and definitions.  Currently they are inconsistently used and poorly explained.

For example, see “Sustainability of food security” (Lines 1-2 Title or line 131).  “Sustainable food security” (line 161-162). “Sustaining Food Security” (line 183-185) or “sustainable food security” again (line 193).

The improvement has been done, the reason for the difference in the term in Arabic literature is due to the unification of the term

13

And is the definition intended to be only about “Reducing food waste” (line 183)?  This seems to be a very narrow and insufficient goal to address broader concerns “enhancing food security in its various dimensions” which the paper ostensibly proposes to discuss.  This section needs to be fixed as well as other parts of the paper so definitions are consistent and clear with any relevant citations.  E.g. even later (line 222) another term “food security sustainability” or “sustainability in food security” (lines 373-377) is also used variously at different points.  Or universities’ role in achieving or promoting “sustainable food security” (lines 360-369).  Related concepts are not clearly or consistently used or defined across the entire paper.

Edited and all notes considered

14

Inconsistent use of terms creates confusion about how surveyed faculty may actually perceive “food security sustainability” or related notions especially since none of the data or analysis presented (except maybe the undigested final Appendix F) indicate differences or nuances in concept, policy or implications for curricula, etc.

The differences that emerged may have come after translation, as the tools are presented to faculty members in Arabic, which are very understandable to them, and the terms are understood in the same context.

So, we don't think there will be any effect on the results

The translation was revised, and the English term was consistent

15

Lots of undigested and inadequately or unexplained data.  Too many Tables

Clarifying the characteristics of the tool in no way may have led to this, but many magazines require us to do so. We know that the large number of tables is cumbersome, thanks for your observation

16

The current study was based on the opinions of 272 faculty members in Saudi public universities. The sample size and methodology should be adequate.  However, again further to questions and comments above which public universities and how many from which regions?  Why did the authors not mention the specific names of the institutions?  They should be named with data and sample size from each then disaggregated.

The amendment was made according to the previous note and mentioned the names of the universities in the five regions in the determinants of the study

17

There are too many tables and statistics presented.  There should less detailed discussion about statistics and methodology and raw data presented.  Some tables appear redundant or unnecessary.  For the average reader to understand it could be clearer to summarize most of the key results presented and improve the argument.  But using mainly descriptive statistics to analyze what the authors suggest is a paper more about educational policy and philosophy is problematic.  It is difficult to read.  It is not suitable for publication as is.

We know the complications accompanying the large number of the table, once again many arbitrators ask us for these details, and we are confused

 However, only one table was deleted

18

Essentially the authors need to show better why this study is really important with more explanation and analysis.  Some statistics could be made available in a publicly accessible data-base which could be consulted by readers to supplement the paper.

Good suggestion, thanks for the help

19

Some specific assumptions or assertions also need more clarity about why.  E.g  lines 401-404 note “positive indicators of the universities’ contribution to the sustainability of food security is 401 their partnership with the private sector interested in this aspect…”  But why is partnership with the private sector a positive indicator?  What is the justification or rationale?  Are there any potential drawbacks or concerns?  Are there any relevant reference or citations?  There are other examples in the paper.  But the authors should more carefully re-read the paper or have a colleague read and offer independent comments on another draft.

We appreciate the effort you made to enrich the paper and your keenness to do so. The aforementioned paragraph has already been reformulated to show the details and improve them

20

Missing Contexts and Inadequate reference list or citations.

The paper has been supplemented by a number of sources on its subject.

21

Some material cited is not accessible in English (except title only Sustainable Development Indicators, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 2022.  The authors should refer to any relevant English language primary reports or published academic papers.

We appreciate that, but we need to link the data with Arab studies, where we document it

22

For the paper to have broader value as a contribution to the global literature there must be a section or at least several paragraphs describing the Saudi university system as well as food security contexts in the country (not just “educational philosophy’ intersecting with Islam). The only reference provided is to an Arab language primary document (national statistics report) which most international readers will not be able to check or understand.  The authors should include cited references to any relevant English language policy or program documents or other academic literatures on Saudi education or higher education including extension education and food security etc.  A simple Google Scholar search will reveal some potentially relevant papers published in the last decade or more.  Otherwise, various UN reports (e.g from UNESCO) specifically addressing Arab world issues and data could help.  But currently the Saudi education and food security contexts are not clear in the paper.  This needs fixing. 

The paper was reinforced with statistics from a Saudi official authority (The General Authority for Statistics GASTAT) that provides some of its data in English to crystallize the Saudi situation with regard to sustainable food security.

23

Essentially the authors must better demonstrate how their paper differs from or contributes to existing published peer-reviewed literatures on Saudi higher education and food security as well as any relevant English language reports by UN agencies or other relevant specialized bodies.

24

Broader themes and conclusions requiring more explanation

Line 434 (and other sections) identify “faculties in favor of the humanities” as one of the broader themes and conclusions for the study. And that scientific faculties may not address human issues well (e.g. lines 440-44).  But why does this matter?  What are the implications for policy, academic reform or food security?   This seems to be an important result of the study that needs more context and explanation

This result has been explained further

25

English Grammar

Some words and phrasing are confusing with grammar wrongly applied.  Eg. Line 97  “Saudi Arabia's educational policy focused…”  (or should it be “focuses,” i.e. In the present).  This is just one example of many.  The authors should engage a native English speaker or professional to edit the manuscript.

They were presented to a trusted professional editor by the magazine after making the modifications

Conclusions/Summary

This is a potentially useful study adding to data and literature on university roles in food security education and provision.  It is good to see new work which proposes to examine role of university policies supporting or detracting from food security

The summary has been clarified and enriched

26

However, the Abstract is poorly constructed and difficult to understand.  There is also no information cited in English about existing policies of any universities implicated in the data.  So this needs to be addressed.  There are many statistics presented but inadequate definitions or interpretation of their relevance.  Again, as noted above E.g. on line 408 what does “the achievement of sustainability in food security” mean? (by what definition or indicators to measure?).  Or similarly on line 452.

The study summary has been modified and enriched

27

There is also very little discussion or introduction of problematic Saudi food security and sustainability contexts (desert environment, water availability, food import dependency, role of agrochemicals, trade, etc.).  How were, or should be such issues be addressed in the data? What was the relevance of different disciplines in the statistics (existing humanities or biology or agriculture, courses, etc?.).  Whether or not, or in what degrees faculty perceptions included these concerns the paper should at least include some more contexts to introduce and explain limitations of the data, and what could be better pursued in future work.   To this end the entire sections 5-6 need to be re-written (lines 474-494) and enhanced.  Reduce and refine the raw data presented and increase explanation and conclusions with more detailed recommendations.

In sum, it is very difficult to understand relevance of data collected and presented to Saudi case. re lines 488-499.  The final recommendations are not very clear and quite weak.  Why only these?  Recommendations for whom?  Researchers, administrators, faculty, other scholars?  Etc.

Accurate and valuable comments that the esteemed arbitrator would thank you for. The paper has been reinforced with new reports and studies, and the interpretation of the results is dealt with in more detail.

TITLE. The author reply says “Title is change to: Role in Promoting the Sustainability of Food Security: Faculty Visuals in KSA Universities.”  But the new fully revised Manuscript (noting changes in red) reads” “KSA Universities’ Role in Promoting the Sustainability of Food 2 Security: Faculty Opinions.”  However, I assume this new title with “Faculty Opinions” is the correct one on the revised manuscript itself and proposed citation which should be kept as actually revised.

Title modified based on careful suggestions from reviewers to clarify the study and relate it to its actual community, as the previous title was deemed inaccurate in the field

However, the content of the study was not affected, and the current title is more expressive of the study

The final title is

"  KSA Universities’ Role in Promoting the Sustainability of Food Security: Faculty Opinions"

Just to confirm

PHRASING AND GRAMMAR. Lines 430-433 and the following sentence is unclear.  “The answers from the study sample also 430 indicated the university’s that support faculty members to conduct joint research with 431 students on food security to enhance the value of sustainability for its employees as well 432 as considering the conduct of many extracurricular activities related to that [28].”  Phrasing needs to be improved for clarification.  Also re Line 431 re Grammar (should be ”universities”  (NOT university’s)

Thanks for the important note, it has been revised and modified

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION. The authors have now adequately revised the manuscript with changes indicated in red.  It is improved with additional citations, analysis and explanation offering a useful national study acceptable for publication.  The revised version makes it is more accessible and readable for a wider academic audience globally while contributing to the international literature.  I do not need to see further revisions.  On any other technical, grammatical or copy-editing points for the paper’s publication, I leave further corrections, clarifications, recommendations and formatting to the journal Editors.

We appreciate and respect your time and your accurate and useful comments, which resulted in this effort and the improvements in the paper. Thank you very much for making the paper more accessible and readable for a wider academic audience worldwide.