General Fundraising Trends among University Patrons and Entrepreneurs to Promote the Sustainability of Universities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, authors tried to analyze the general trends in fundraising among university patrons and businessmen and to identify possible solutions that could help in attracting donations to universities and promote their sustainability in the future.

In general, the topic of this paper is interesting. The subject could be relevant and appropriate for the Journal.

However, some major issues need to be addressed to improve this article before it can be accepted for publication.

Methodogy.

·       Authors should present the methods used and explain why they were used. At the same time, other correlation analysis methods should be presented, such as multilinear regression or Anova analysis.

Results and Discussion

·       You should think about how transformational the research is likely to be should be made so that the outcome of the work will have an impact on the community/society facing given sustainability-related challenges?

·       You should provide the hypotheses of your study and the practical applications of your work in a separate section, before the conclusions and provide your good perspectives.

·       What are the bottlenecks of this work and how did you mitigate the impacts attributed to them?

·       Why do you believe your research to be important? What long-term impacts will it have on environmental protection and the wider public or the field following the completion of the research?

References

The related work section cites many sources that are relatively out-of-date.

 Good luck!

Author Response

Dear Sir/ Madam,

We express our deep gratitude for reviewing this article. We have considered the recommendations of the reviewers, made corrections in the article, and supplemented the information requested by the reviewers and provided answers to the reviewers' questions.

The answers to the experts' questions are as follows:

Reviewer 1

In this paper, authors tried to analyze the general trends in fundraising among university patrons and businessmen and to identify possible solutions that could help in attracting donations to universities and promote their sustainability in the future.

In general, the topic of this paper is interesting. The subject could be relevant and appropriate for the Journal.

However, some major issues need to be addressed to improve this article before it can be accepted for publication.

Recommended corrections have been made.

Methodogy. Authors should present the methods used and explain why they were used. At the same time, other correlation analysis methods should be presented, such as multilinear regression or Anova analysis.

Recommended corrections have been made (see lines 398-472; 680-700).

Results and Discussion

-You should think about how transformational the research is likely to be should be made so that the outcome of the work will have an impact on the community/society facing given sustainability-related challenges?

Recommended corrections have been made (see lines 87-89).

-You should provide the hypotheses of your study and the practical applications of your work in a separate section, before the conclusions and provide your good perspectives.

Recommended corrections have been made (see lines 77-96).

-What are the bottlenecks of this work and how did you mitigate the impacts attributed to them?

Recommended corrections have been made (see lines 95-96).

-Why do you believe your research to be important? What long-term impacts will it have on environmental protection and the wider public or the field following the completion of the research?

Recommended corrections have been made (see lines 90-94).

References. The related work section cites many sources that are relatively out-of-date.

In recent years, no significant new studies have been conducted in the chosen topic, if the authors conduct research and comparison between countries, then the theoretical part uses and cites sources from previous years. The authors of the article believe that the selected sources are relevant to the topic and there is no possibility to refer to other sources that simply do not exist.

Some new sources published in recent years were added, but other relevant ones could no longer be found (see lines 102-222).

Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very interesting topic. I believe the paper's quality would be improved if:

- the 'conclusions" part was altered so as to differ significantly from "discussion" part, addressing perspectives towards practical implications of the study's findings

- a part discussing the limitations of the present study and providing direction for future research was added

Author Response

Dear Sir/ Madam,

We express our deep gratitude for reviewing this article. We have considered the recommendations of the reviewers, made corrections in the article, and supplemented the information requested by the reviewers and provided answers to the reviewers' questions.

The answers to the experts' questions are as follows:

Reviewer 2

This is a very interesting topic. I believe the paper's quality would be improved if:

- the 'conclusions" part was altered so as to differ significantly from "discussion" part, addressing perspectives towards practical implications of the study's findings

All the suggestions have been considered and corrections have been made in the paper.

- a part discussing the limitations of the present study and providing direction for future research was added

All the suggestions have been considered and corrections have been made in the paper (see lines 797-806).

Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I’ve read your manuscript with big interest. It deals with interesting and internationally important issue. Some conceptualizations are notable, and the employed example is representative. However, I feel that substantial revisions (also re-organizations and additions) are necessary to make this manuscript really suitable to “Sustainability”. I hope my recommendations specified below will help you.

1)      Title and abstract should stress that the study focuses on the particular country.

2)      Materials and Methods should be extended. Please, note that I recommend some substantial re-organizations below and, thus, some related information can be moved to Materials and Methods (this section must correspond exactly to Results).

3)      The sources of ALL sorts of factual information from the chosen country should be indicated.

4)      What is written in Results is, in fact, Literature Review, and this section is commonly placed before Materials and Methods.

5)      The present section Results includes information, which should be distributed (may be with some extensions) between Materials and Methods and Results.

6)      Discussion should 1) explain your findings (why does these occur and how does the socio-economical and cultural context of those chosen country matter?), 2) put them into the context of the international research (compare with the previous studies from different countries), 3) state practical/policy recommendations.

7)      Conclusions can be organized as follows: very general concluding sentence – numbered list of the most principal findings (2-3 from Results and 203 from Discussion) – limitations – perspectives for further research.

8)      References: more articles published in top international journals in the 2020s should be cited.

9)      Writing is clear, but I recommend to avoid too short paragraphs. A good rule: one paragraph – no less than 2-3 sentences.

Please, do not judge me overcritical. I think your study is promising and important, and, thus, it deserves bringing in optimal form. I may have more specific comments after seeing the revised version of your work.

The language can be checked once again, but more principal is to work with the paragraph length and somewhere style.

Author Response

Dear Sir/ Madam,

We express our deep gratitude for reviewing this article. We have considered the recommendations of the reviewers, made corrections in the article, and supplemented the information requested by the reviewers and provided answers to the reviewers' questions.

The answers to the experts' questions are as follows:

Reviewer 3

I’ve read your manuscript with big interest. It deals with interesting and internationally important issue. Some conceptualizations are notable, and the employed example is representative. However, I feel that substantial revisions (also re-organizations and additions) are necessary to make this manuscript really suitable to “Sustainability”. I hope my recommendations specified below will help you.

Title and abstract should stress that the study focuses on the particular country.

Researchers are from Latvia and data from Latvian databases are analyzed. Mentioned in the paper.

Materials and Methods should be extended. Please, note that I recommend some substantial re-organizations below and, thus, some related information can be moved to Materials and Methods (this section must correspond exactly to Results).

All the suggestions have been considered and corrections have been made in the paper (see lines 398-472).

The sources of ALL sorts of factual information from the chosen country should be indicated.

All the suggestions have been considered and corrections have been made in the paper (see lines 398-472).

What is written in Results is, in fact, Literature Review, and this section is commonly placed before Materials and Methods.

All the suggestions have been considered and corrections have been made in the paper (see lines 398-472).

The present section Results includes information, which should be distributed (may be with some extensions) between Materials and Methods and Results.

Discussion should 1) explain your findings (why does these occur and how does the socio-economical and cultural context of those chosen country matter?), 2) put them into the context of the international research (compare with the previous studies from different countries), 3) state practical/policy recommendations.

All the suggestions have been considered and corrections have been made in the paper (see lines 106-121).

 Conclusions can be organized as follows: very general concluding sentence – numbered list of the most principal findings (2-3 from Results and 203 from Discussion) – limitations – perspectives for further research.

All the suggestions have been considered and corrections have been made in the paper (see lines 707-806).

References: more articles published in top international journals in the 2020s should be cited.

In recent years, no significant new studies have been conducted in the chosen topic, if the authors conduct research and comparison between countries, then the theoretical part uses and cites sources from previous years. The authors of the article believe that the selected sources are relevant to the topic and there is no possibility to refer to other sources that simply do not exist.

Some new sources published in recent years were added, but other relevant ones could no longer be found (see lines 102-222)

Writing is clear, but I recommend to avoid too short paragraphs. A good rule: one paragraph – no less than 2-3 sentences.

All the suggestions have been considered and corrections have been made in the paper.

Please, do not judge me overcritical. I think your study is promising and important, and, thus, it deserves bringing in optimal form. I may have more specific comments after seeing the revised version of your work.

Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,   Thank you for trying to meet the requirements and provide an improved version of the work.

However, there are still aspects that need to be worked on. The methodology is carried out superficially, without taking into account the recommendations and the discussion section must contain comparisons between the results offered by the work and other studies in the field.

The results section must contain the results obtained by the authors by implementing the methodology, in accordance with the objectives of the work and the working hypotheses.

Author Response

Dear Sir/ Madam,

Thank you for the suggestions, corrections have been made in the article.

With best regards

Laila Kundzina, Liva Grinevica, Baiba Rivza, Peteris Rivza

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I appreciate your revisions and find the updated version better. However, I still see several major issues:

1) Your actual results are given in Discussion. They MUST be separated from interpretations and moved to Results.

2) What is now written in Results is NOT results, but literature review. This can be either moved to a separate section or merged with the methodological section.

3) The methodology is characterized superficially. You have to provide details. The methodology should correspond to Results (in updated form - see above) very precisely.

Please, check again my recommendations given at the previous round of reviewing.

I also ask you to mark in the text (with colour or MS Word Track Changes) all changes you make.

The language is ok, but stylistic improvements are necessary. For instance, it is unnecessary to wrire "Researcher" before the name in the text.

Author Response

Dear Sir/ Madam,

Thank you for the suggestions, corrections have been made in the article.

With best regards

Laila Kundzina, Liva Grinevica, Baiba Rivza, Peteris Rivza

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, many thanks for your improvements! Please, do not judge me overcrticial. I see potential of your study, and the only thing I wish is to see this contribution being published in the best possible form to attract the readers' attention.

I'm generally satisfied with the revised version. I only recommend you to cite some literature in the section 5.1 where the contributions to theory are explained. If you write about the theory, this means that this theory has already been published.

The language can be polished somewhere.

Author Response

Dear Sir/ Madam,

We express our deep gratitude for reviewing this article. We have considered the recommendations of the reviewer, made corrections in the article, and supplemented the information requested by the reviewer and provided answers to the reviewer questions.

The answer to the reviewer questions are as follows:

I'm generally satisfied with the revised version. I only recommend you to cite some literature in the section 5.1 where the contributions to theory are explained. If you write about the theory, this means that this theory has already been published.

Additions have been made, please see lines 705-746.

With best regards,

Liva Grinevica

Laila Kundzina

Baiba Rivza

Peteris Rivza

Author Response File: Author Response.docx