Quality of Education and Science in the Context of Sustainable Development Goals—From Millennium Goals to Agenda 2030: Factors of Innovation Activity and Socio-Economic Impact

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The Title:

Quality of education and science in the context of Sustainable Development Goals – from Millennium Goals to Agenda 2030: factors of innovation activity and socio-economic impact

The authors of the manuscript take up the important issue of implementing the Sustainable Development Goals from scratch, i.e. education and science. There was a designated way to achieve the goals - a road map and the assessment of the fulfillment of tasks. The methodology proposed by the authors covers the management of education systems, the implementation of scientific research, management / regulation of the economy at the micro (university), meso- (regional) and macro- (national) level. Very interesting material, compact, well-thought-out not only in terms of content, but also in terms of editing. Diagrams and tables allow you to understand the topic.

Detailed comments are provided below:

• the quality of Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 should be improved, in the current version they do not allow any assessment of their usefulness in the manuscript
• I suggest in Table 2 to provide an additional row with total values for the EU
• Fig. 3 to improve the quality, the drawing is prepared on the basis of Table 2, but in Table 2 there is no Poland, Romania, and in Fig. 3 these data appear, please complete
• Do the references in Table 2 have numbers as References? Please complete in the table
• The data in Fig. 5 is unreadable, please improve the quality
• Mind map in Fig. 6 is unreadable, please improve the quality
• Please provide the conclusions in points

Author Response

Point 1: The quality of Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 should be improved, in the current version they do not allow any assessment of their usefulness in the manuscript

Response 1: Edited

Point 2: I suggest in Table 2 to provide an additional row with total values for the EU.

Response 2: Edited

Point 3: Fig. 3 to improve the quality, the drawing is prepared on the basis of Table 2, but in Table 2 there is no Poland, Romania, and in Fig. 3 these data appear, please complete. Do the references in Table 2 have numbers as References? Please complete in the table

Response 3: Edited.

Point 4: The data in Fig. 5 is unreadable, please improve the quality. Mind map in Fig. 6 is unreadable, please improve the quality.

Response 4: Edited.

Point 5: Please provide the conclusions in points.

Response 5: Edited. (in red)  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper talked about the quality of education and science in the context of sustainable development goals, However, some descriptions are not clear. Some revisions are necessary in the manuscript.

1. Figure 1 is hard to understand without a detailed explanation, please add it.

2. The author needs to further describe how the method used in section3 is implemented and explain its rationality.

3. Some of the abbreviations are not defined, especially in the figures.

4. The issue this manuscript wants to solve and the final conclusion are not clear enough, please further improve it.

5. In this study the authors have focused on sustainable development goals which include impact of clean energy. More analysis on clean energy technology are suggested to supply to indicate advantages of your work, which can refer to：[a] IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf. vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 835-846. 2022; [b] Journal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 919-929, 2021; [c] IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 2906-2918, 2022

Author Response

Point 1: Figure 1 is hard to understand without a detailed explanation, please add it.

Response 1: Edited. (in red)

Point 2: The author needs to further describe how the method used in section 3 is implemented and explain its rationality.

Response 2: Edited (in red)

Point 3: Some of the abbreviations are not defined, especially in the figures.

Response 3: Edited. (in red)

Point 4: The issue this manuscript wants to solve and the final conclusion are not clear enough, please further improve it.

Response 4: Edited.

Point 5: In this study the authors have focused on sustainable development goals which include impact of clean energy. More analysis on clean energy technology are suggested to supply to indicate advantages of your work, which can refer to：[a] IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf. vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 835-846. 2022; [b] Journal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 919-929, 2021; [c] IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 2906-2918, 2022.

Response 5: Edited. (in red)  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx