Evaluation of Scientific Research in Universities Based on the Idea of Education for Sustainable Development
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study develops an original, topical, and under-researched academic community. Universities worldwide are making efforts to orient their actions within the framework of the 2030 Agenda. It is unknown how and how much progress has been made. This situation occurs because there are no reliable evaluation tools or index systems to assess the extent to which university activities, such as teaching, management and research, are integrated with sustainability. Therefore, it is believed that the study contributes to Chinese university education, but it can also be adapted to other contexts.
The results show that world-class Chinese universities are more concerned with pursuing sustainable development. They can consistently contribute to social development from talent cultivation, scientific research and social service; however, they identify weaknesses such as room for improvement. The research is orderly, coherent and methodologically relevant.
The bibliography, as well as the sources consulted, are current and coherent with the researched topic.
The authors should improve/correct the following issues:
1) Content:
- Explain what criteria/characteristics the authors have used to determine that a Chinese university is world-class.
- The authors state that the results show that world-class Chinese universities are more concerned with pursuing sustainable development than the best in the UK and the US. Why do they make this claim? The study did not compare universities elsewhere in the UK and the US.
- In their conclusions, the authors state: "In terms of the degree of concern about sustainable development, Chinese universities pay more attention to sustainable development than UK and USA universities" On what basis do they draw this conclusion? The study involves 42 Chinese universities.
2) Formal:
- The figures are not perceived correctly. Improve the design of the figures.
- Review the punctuation system in the manuscript; there are some punctuation errors.
- Revise the format of the references according to the journal's publication guidelines.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for taking time from your busy schedule to review our manuscript, Evaluation of Scientific Research in Universities Based on the Idea of Education for Sustainable Development. Your comments and suggestions have helped us a lot to improve the manuscript, highly appreciated. Your questions and comments are addressed in the word file.
Thank you so much for your kind suggestion!
Best regards!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript presents an evaluation of the contribution of Chinese universities to educational sustainability development (ESD). The results are compared with a limited set American and UK universities.
The manuscript is in need of extensive editing of English language. In its current form the manuscript is dificult to comprehend, mainly because non-concise writing, language and typing errors. The only part that appears readable is section 2.1. Look for articles (ie. 'the'), but also incomprehensible expressions such as 'the local economic society from the economy', to give just one example of many instances.
The difficulty with understanding the authors' argument comes, in addition to language errors and unclear use of reference words (ie. 'this', 'they', et cetera), from an unclear use of central terms. For one, the term sustainable development, appears to refer to how university output is concerned with issues such as pollution and energy renewal. However, at times in the text sustainable development appears to refer to how university education itself can be made sustainable. This needs to be clarified up front.
The reader is often left wondering what to do with the information presented in paragraphs. The scientific and practical relevance and quality of the manuscript would be improved by building clear arguments: each and every paragraph has one (and only one) concept, idea or argument. This concept is first introduced, clearly defined, placed in context, then discussed, and then brought to a conclusion. This is the way to build a scientific text. Not just bringing together a series of statements, without clear definitions and arguments.
Section 2 presents existing research. I wonder whether the authors clearly distinguished between studies on a topic, and studies of a topic. This makes a huge difference, and in its current form, the literature overview does little to bring light to the field.
Taken together, in its present form it is difficult to evaluate the manuscript's contribution to the field. I would advise the authors first to define a clear line of argument, with concise definitions of terms and concepts, and then heavy language editing by a native speaker or proofreading service. The result then can be evaluated for its scientific and practical quality.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for taking time from your busy schedule to review our manuscript, Evaluation of Scientific Research in Universities Based on the Idea of Education for Sustainable Development. Your comments and suggestions have helped us a lot to improve the manuscript, highly appreciated. Your questions and comments are addressed in the word file.
We made a lot of changes to the paper according to your suggestions.
Thanks for your kind suggestions again!
Best regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for letting me review this article. It is a very interesting and important topic nowadays.
The research is very well conduct, the abstract is well written, and the authors developed a very strong literature review.
The research approach and design is very well explicit, and the data analysis and results well developed and presented.
The discussion brings light into the research developed and a critical view of the results achieved.
However the conclusions section must be improved, highlighting the main theoretical and empirical findings.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for taking time from your busy schedule to review our manuscript, Evaluation of Scientific Research in Universities Based on the Idea of Education for Sustainable Development.
Your comments and suggestions have helped us a lot to improve the manuscript, highly appreciated. Your questions and comments are addressed in the word file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I thank the authors for considering the reviewers' comments. The readability of the manuscript has certainly improved, and hence its scientific relevance.
