Students’ Perceptions and Attitudes toward University Social Responsibility: Comparison between India and Croatia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review your interesting manuscript about social responsibility in the context of Universities in India and Croatia. I have few comments that may find helpful to improve the manuscript.
1. The introduction is rather short. While I understand the Gen Z argument being presented as they currently present the main student body, I would like to point out, that it would be helpful for the reader to get an introduction in University systems in both countries. This should back up and justify, why we need to talk about social responsibility. In which ways are unis doing it already- or not?
2) In addition, can you please justify your choices. Why Croatia and India? How are uni-systems comparable? And why is this important and appropriate? The practicality of author collaboration is not good enough as a justification. This currently missing. And it is mentioned only short. The argument is not well explained.
3) You indicated this as the aim of your study: "This study compares the differences between 54 students’ perceptions and attitudes toward USR in India and Croatia. It uses the well- 55 known Carroll’s pyramid of social responsibility and the ISO standard to assess the levels 56 and areas of USR in both countries." Can you please include your specific objectives or hypotheses? This is not present in the manuscript.
4) Can the authors please further extend why the student perspective is relevant.
5) Carroll’s pyramid of social responsibility: You have chosen this framework with the justification it is widely accepted and cited. Well, fair enough. Can please discuss- alternatives to frame the study and explain why your choice is most appropriate
6) Can the authors extend their explanation of the ISO 26000 standards to which extent they are followed in the author's chosen University context. What are the 7 principles and the 6 core-themes. Can the authors speak more about the adaption in Croation and Indian Universities. So far there is only one sentence.
7) Your work builds on student sample. Can you elaborate on recruitment? Who surveyed the students. If the researchers themselves- please comment on ethics and power dynamics. Was it a face to face or an online survey? Did students receive a form of compensation to participate in the survey? And lastly can you indicate questions and scales.
8) 1340 students- is this the number you obtained after data cleaning? Can you indicate your drop-out rate?
9) Sample Characteristics: Please distinguish between Croatian and Indian students in the description
10) Can the authors please critically reflect on their methodological proceeding and on their sample. Given this a convenience sample- please address the generalizability of your results.
11) Can the authors deduce some best practice recommendations for universities and make some further suggestions for future studies.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper under review appears interesting and suitable for publication. On the one hand, from a theoretical view, it is well-structured and based in a selection of relevant and updated bibliographical references. On the other hand, results derive from cross-country research between Croatia and India involving representative samples of individuals in both countries. Concrete improvement suggestions which could be addressed prior to definite acceptance are as follows:
- Even when the cross-country study was conducted in Croatia and India, no concrete reason to ‘specifically’ choose these two countries are provided along the text, and it would be welcome.
- From a conceptual view, the name ‘Generation Z’ is restricted in the paper to those born between mid-1990s and 2002 (pages 1-2). Even when there is usually an agreement on locating the starting date by mid-90s, there is not such agreement about de final date. Thus, and according to some sources, Generation Z (or zoomers or millennials) could include individuals born up to mid or late 2000s. This wider approach would be more useful in order to properly include all individuals in the sample (individuals born in 2004 are already involved in university students).
- There is a comment about the location and gender of individuals in the total sample (page 4), as well as on their adscription to doctoral, master or bachelor students. An additional comment on such characteristics (gender and level of studies) in each sub-sample would be welcome, thus providing another reference for proper comparison and representativeness of obtained results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I read your article entitled Students’ perceptions and attitudes toward university social responsibility: comparison between India and Croatia and I have the following suggestions:
The implications and novelty of the research are important aspects that should be included in the Abstract.
The objective of the study is different in the Abstract and Introduction. Correction is necessary (preferably in the Abstract).
The link between the subject under consideration and sustainability should be better justified.
Also, given that you are conducting a comparative India-Croatia study, I recommend that you focus on this aspect from the beginning of the research. In addition, it is not clear from the introductory part why the two countries were chosen for the research, which are so different.
Literature Review does not apply. This component will be redone according to scientific rigor.
Part 3 is incomplete. Firstly, I don't see the reason for splitting 3.1 and 3.2. Secondly, since the Abstract specifies that methods are used to process the data from the questionnaire, these methods should be described from a technical point of view.
The presentation of results, discussions and conclusions need adjustments.
The paper has weaknesses starting from the analysis of the conceptual framework, the lack of technical description of the methodology which is simplistic anyway, the conclusions are not adequate, to the motivation of the choice of the two countries non-existent and unfocused discussions on implications and novelty.
The documentation base is relatively small.
The study lacks hypotheses.
The study has many weaknesses that require further efforts to improve the analysis.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The work has been carefully improved. My comments were considered. Well done
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
thank you for the positive feedback. However, we had to make some additional changes, due to requirements of Reviewer 3, so the final version is at your disposal.
Mirna Leko Šimić, Ekta Sharma and Željka Kadlec
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
The second version of the work includes a number of changes. Some of the recommendations were not followed. From my point of view, the work has two weak points. One is the countries you are comparing. The differences are so great that it is difficult to draw any relevant conclusions. Also, I would have preferred to read some conclusions drawn separately for each of the two countries, to have some differentiated proposals. The second weak point is the methodology. You applied a methodology that you did not present technically. Congratulations for formulating research hypotheses, however, it is necessary to specify the extent to which you have validated them or not. Also, the necessary parallel with the specialized literature appears to see the extent to which the results you obtained are or are not in agreement with the already existing ones and to highlight the novelty of the work.
LR should have been substantially improved. Also, the argumentative part needs to be robustly realized.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
You made some improvements to the paper, but in the future it would be advisable to pay more attention to the elaboration of the papers (especially the argumentation, the description of the methodology and the drawing of conclusions).
