Chemical Engineering beyond Earth: Astrochemical Engineering in the Space Age
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript, which I found to be generally well-written and interesting. ‘Astro-chemical Engineering’ is indeed a very interesting field, Below, I present a number of suggestions, which aim at strengthening the article further.
Abstract
The abstract could be re-written to adopt a more balanced approach. The literature should be discussed along with reasoning, scope as well as details about the research design being utilized. I do understand that the paper is conceptual. However, you may refer to the way you researched and synthesized your analysis, along with your analytical approach. Please be reminded that many readers will simply read the abstract to decide if they want to keep reading or not.
Introduction
The introduction provides a clear theoretical background and purpose for the study.
In the last paragraph of the Introduction, good to see a sentence explaining the structure of the paper.
While there is no clear reference to the method employed, my understanding after reading the Introduction is that the paper is conceptual. You need to make this clearer by referring explicitly to the type of paper (conceptual) and the method used in the research (e.g. systematic literature review or content analysis?). You could also add a set (2 or 3) of research questions.
Material and Methods
Given the context of the paper, which focuses on Sustainability and Sustainable Development, you may consider utilizing and citing the following recent publication:
Efthymiou, L.; Kulshrestha, A.; Kulshrestha, S. (2023) A Study on Sustainability and ESG in the Service Sector in India: Benefits, Challenges, and Future Implications. Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 165. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13070165.
Conclusion
Please expand the Concluding section to:
- Make a stronger case for the original contributions the paper makes. In other words, why is this study needed now and how does it advance our understanding of relevant theoretical or empirical matters?The limitations of the paper
- Discuss implications to practice.
- Also, please add a paragraph on future research in the field.
Very good work overall. I look forward to receiving a revised version of the paper.
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Abstract
The abstract could be re-written to adopt a more balanced approach. The literature should be discussed along with reasoning, scope as well as details about the research design being utilized. I do understand that the paper is conceptual. However, you may refer to the way you researched and synthesized your analysis, along with your analytical approach. Please be reminded that many readers will simply read the abstract to decide if they want to keep reading or not.
Answer: The abstract is rewritten.
Introduction
The introduction provides a clear theoretical background and purpose for the study.
In the last paragraph of the Introduction, good to see a sentence explaining the structure of the paper.
While there is no clear reference to the method employed, my understanding after reading the Introduction is that the paper is conceptual. You need to make this clearer by referring explicitly to the type of paper (conceptual) and the method used in the research (e.g. systematic literature review or content analysis?). You could also add a set (2 or 3) of research questions.
Answer: A new paragraph is added in the Introduction presenting the aim and the structure of the paper.
Material and Methods
Given the context of the paper, which focuses on Sustainability and Sustainable Development, you may consider utilizing and citing the following recent publication:
Efthymiou, L.; Kulshrestha, A.; Kulshrestha, S. (2023) A Study on Sustainability and ESG in the Service Sector in India: Benefits, Challenges, and Future Implications. Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 165. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13070165.
Answer: The paper does not focus on Sustainability and Sustainable Development, it focuses on the opportunity for chemical engineers to take lead roles in the exploration and utilization of space, which in the distant future contributes to sustainability. However, Astrochemical Engineering has many to offer to sustainability as space technologies can be used to solve problems on Earth and from this point of view this paper is related, among others, to SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure) and 13 (Climate Action). A paragraph is added in the conclusions on sustainability.
Conclusion
Please expand the Concluding section to:
- Make a stronger case for the original contributions the paper makes. In other words, why is this study needed now and how does it advance our understanding of relevant theoretical or empirical matters?The limitations of the paper
Answer: The paper makes a strong case over many pages that chemical engineering is already playing a major role in space exploration, and will be even more important in the future. Yet the curricula does not presently provide this as a starting point for graduates. We believe that this is a strong original contribution of this paper.
- Discuss implications to practice.
Answer: We believe that implication to practice is better illustrated by an ISRU example and a paragraph is added at the end of section 2 on MOXIE experiment.
- Also, please add a paragraph on future research in the field.
Answer: The paper already introduces the future of ChE and thus there is no future research, perhaps further refining of the curriculum can be the case which however can be done by other authors after studying the paper.
The conclusions section is rewritten.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
TITLE:
The title is what attracts (or does not) the attention and interest to the article. So, it should be carefully written.
It is advisable to insert a subheading that specifically indicates the subject that article is about.
Keyword: Why SDG4? The authors never refer to it in the text. Review keywords
INTRODUCTION
An introduction should be informative and well-worded. Therefore, it is missing:
1- present the theoretical problem/formulation and the objective of the study.
2- give clues to the discussion of the results.
3- present the structure of the article.
It is advisable to add points 2 and 3 and to simplify the text.
CONCLUSIONS
The results should be presented in a comprehensive manner, highlighting the most relevant ones and provide a summary of the text.
The originality and relevance of the results presented should be strengthened.
The limitations itself should be presented and discussed here.
You don't see what the article specifically intends.
What is the purpose of this article?
What does it bring back to the academy?
Author Response
Reviewer 2
TITLE:
The title is what attracts (or does not) the attention and interest to the article. So, it should be carefully written.
It is advisable to insert a subheading that specifically indicates the subject that article is about.
Answer: the title is changed to “Astrochemical Engineering; Chemical Engineering in the Space Age”.
Keyword: Why SDG4? The authors never refer to it in the text. Review keywords
Answer: The keywords is removed.
INTRODUCTION
An introduction should be informative and well-worded. Therefore, it is missing:
1- present the theoretical problem/formulation and the objective of the study.
2- give clues to the discussion of the results.
3- present the structure of the article.
It is advisable to add points 2 and 3 and to simplify the text.
Answer: The new paragraph is added in the Introduction presenting the aim and the structure of the paper.
CONCLUSIONS
The results should be presented in a comprehensive manner, highlighting the most relevant ones and provide a summary of the text.
The originality and relevance of the results presented should be strengthened.
The limitations itself should be presented and discussed here.
You don't see what the article specifically intends.
What is the purpose of this article?
What does it bring back to the academy?
Answer: The conclusions section is rewritten.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors proposed a curriculum for astrochemical engineering.
the shortcomings of the study is listed below:
1- Authors put some effort to propose renovate the present curriculum of chemical engineering to space engineering. The rationale for the update should be based on the thorough literature review of the relevant studies.
2- In page 6, the proposed curriculum were presented. Each course requires description and the reason why it should be included.
3- Please add discussion and practical implications sections.
4- References should be updated in respect to curriculum update studies.
Moderate English proofreading is required
Author Response
Reviewer 3
1- Authors put some effort to propose renovate the present curriculum of chemical engineering to space engineering. The rationale for the update should be based on the thorough literature review of the relevant studies.
Answer: The proposed curriculum is not a renovation but novel. There is no existing chemical engineering curriculum to compare with and some that may have some relevance are thorough presented in pages 4 and 5.
2- In page 6, the proposed curriculum were presented. Each course requires description and the reason why it should be included.
Answer: The description is provided and is a standard summary of modules, as is the case in similar curricula in several Universities. The reason of including these modules is evident from the preceding analysis and is based on thorough evaluation of existing literature and the experience of the authors.
3- Please add discussion and practical implications sections.
Answer: This paper is not a standard one and thus we used a structure suitable to convey the objectives and rationale behind the concept. The paper comprises an Introduction and then two sections with a detailed discussion on space exploration, chemical engineering and the need to introduce astrochemical engineering.
4- References should be updated in respect to curriculum update studies.
Answer: The curriculum presented is novel and thus there is no literature on the same topic. We have used all available literature to cover the subject and we have included older literature as some aspects of the topic have been discussed since few decades. If the reviewer has any suggestions we are open to consider them and add in the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Many thanks for providing me with the opportunity to evaluate the revised paper. It seems that most of my suggestions are yet to be completed, including a discussion on the study's research deisgn in the Abstract, Introduction, Methods; the study's contribution, limitations and future research in the Conclusion; and the utilisation of certain sources towards locating the study in the context of sustainable education.
I look forward to receiviong a revised version of the paper.
Cordially,
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Comment: It seems that most of my suggestions are yet to be completed, including a discussion on the study's research deisgn in the Abstract, Introduction, Methods; the study's contribution, limitations and future research in the Conclusion; and the utilisation of certain sources towards locating the study in the context of sustainable education.
Answer: We have responded to all the comments in our revised paper. In the present revision we further improved all parts of the paper. We have also expanded the sustainability aspects of the paper; new paragraph is added at the end of section 4 related to sustainable education and sustainability and 3 new papers were cited: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129443, https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/13/7/165 and https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/13/7210.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This version of the article is better. However, I would still like to highlight the following improvements:
1. The article title should be a bit bolder. I therefore present these suggestions, which should be improved:
"From Earth to the Cosmos: Pioneering Astrochemical Engineering in the Space Age"
"Chemical Engineering Beyond Earth: Astrochemical Engineering in the Space Age"
2. The objective is still not clear in either the Abstract or the Introduction. What the authors propose in this article is the presentation of a new course.
3. In the Introduction, the structure of the article should appear at the end of this point.
4. Also, in the Introduction it is not understood why the inclusion the text of William Shakespeare & Julius Caesar (lines 102-108)
5. I think it would also be important to include the profile of the candidates, as well as the career opportunities of this course.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Comment: The article title should be a bit bolder. I therefore present these suggestions, which should be improved:
"From Earth to the Cosmos: Pioneering Astrochemical Engineering in the Space Age"
"Chemical Engineering Beyond Earth: Astrochemical Engineering in the Space Age"
Answer: We adopted the reviewer’s second suggestion.
Comment: The objective is still not clear in either the Abstract or the Introduction. What the authors propose in this article is the presentation of a new course.
Answer: We propose a new course and this is clear in the abstract when we say that “To this end, we introduce Astrochemical Engineering as an advanced course…”. We amended the abstract by adding more information on the MSc. In the Introduction we made it more clear in the revised paper by saying that “We therefore created and present in this paper a new 2-year curriculum leading…”.
Comment: In the Introduction, the structure of the article should appear at the end of this point.
Answer: The structure of the article is presented at the end of the Introduction followed by few lines which beautify the narrative.
Comment: Also, in the Introduction it is not understood why the inclusion the text of William Shakespeare & Julius Caesar (lines 102-108)
Answer: We believe that we are on the threshold of an expansion in space exploration, and exploitation of space resources. Chemical engineering will play an increased role in this scenario. If we don’t begin preparing chemical engineers now in the specialities that serve space exploration and exploitation, chemical engineers will have to adapt ad hoc to the upcoming technology demands after the fact. By proceeding now to implement our proposed curriculum, chemical engineers can lead, rather than follow the new space ventures. As Shakespeare said: “There is a tide in the affairs of men, which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune …” We argue that the timing is ripe to implement this program.
Comment: I think it would also be important to include the profile of the candidates, as well as the career opportunities of this course.
Answer: We added few lines on this before at the end of section 4.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This version of the study lacks structural organization and the proposed curriculum did not base on any theoretical foundation. Authors should improve the following sections:
1- Authors may inspect relevant curriculum proposal studies to improve related literature and methodology.
Example:Franco, L. F. M., da Costa, A. C., de Almeida Neto, A. F., Moraes, Â. M., Tambourgi, E. B., Miranda, E. A., ... & Suppino, R. S. (2023). A competency-based chemical engineering curriculum at the University of Campinas in Brazil. Education for Chemical Engineers, 44, 21-34.
2-What are the program competencies? Program competencies should be clarified.
2- You need to address the rationale and the motivation clearly.
3- Authors did not mention any preliminary approaches to collect information regarding the profile of the prospective graduates. How do they ensure that the proposed curriculum address the needs of the graduates?
3-There are already similar programs such as chemical engineering in space/air? What is the novelty of your proposed programme?
4- You should address the program and learning outcomes relationship for the curriculum courses?
5- A scientific method should be folllowed to introduce the steps of the proposed curriculum.
6- Please include ratio for core/engineering/elective/science etc courses the proposed curriculum.
Thorough proof reading is required.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Comment: Authors may inspect relevant curriculum proposal studies to improve related literature and methodology.
Example:Franco, L. F. M., da Costa, A. C., de Almeida Neto, A. F., Moraes, Â. M., Tambourgi, E. B., Miranda, E. A., ... & Suppino, R. S. (2023). A competency-based chemical engineering curriculum at the University of Campinas in Brazil. Education for Chemical Engineers, 44, 21-34.
Answer: We have thoroughly studied existing ChE curriculums as well as those of other disciplines in the related area and we mention several of these in the paper.
Comment: What are the program competencies? Program competencies should be clarified.
Answer: The competencies is what the course list provides.
Comment: You need to address the rationale and the motivation clearly.
Answer: We believe we have done this already, motivation in the Introduction and section 3, rationale in section 2 and section 4.
Comment: Authors did not mention any preliminary approaches to collect information regarding the profile of the prospective graduates. How do they ensure that the proposed curriculum address the needs of the graduates?
Answer: The authors cannot ensure it and this is not the objective of this paper. We plan the curriculum based our perceptions of the needs of space applications and the evolution of Chemical Engineering.
Comment: There are already similar programs such as chemical engineering in space/air? What is the novelty of your proposed programme?
Answer: There is no similar course at the moment and thus the novelty of this paper is clear. We discuss existing courses that have some similarities in detail, see section 4.
Comment: You should address the program and learning outcomes relationship for the curriculum courses?
Answer: Figure 2 is removed and replaced with the course learning outcomes, which were written following Bloom’s Taxonomy.
Comment: A scientific method should be folllowed to introduce the steps of the proposed curriculum.
Answer: This paper is a result of hard work by a group of experienced authors that have followed scientific methods to produce it.
Comment: Please include ratio for core/engineering/elective/science etc courses the proposed curriculum.
Answer: The modules are presented in all sufficient detail and we don’t see the reason for using such a ratio.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for addressing the required changes.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
editing is provided
Thank you for the effort to read our manuscript
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I strictly suggest authors to inspect relevant curriculum proposal studies. The way they introduce the proposed curriculum leads to serious shortcomings for the research. Defining program and learning outcomes for the entire curriculum and for each course entered should be done. Program graduate's profile should be added. Researvhers should follow the basic steps of curriculum development as: planning, content&methods, implementation if possible. Please inspect further curriculum proposal studies.
Moderate English proof reading is required.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for your effort and your comments once again although most of them is a repetition from the previous round.
However find below our answers on your comments
In round 2, dear Reviewer you mentioned that “there are similar programs” to which we replied “there is no similar course now and thus the novelty of this paper is clear. We discussed… see section 4”. In round 3, you insist for strict suggestion to explore relevant curriculum proposal studies. This is unfortunate as the authors expected the novelty and niche field of interest presented in the article would make it clear that such curriculum does not exist and is a very good opportunity for new research.
In round 2, Dear Reviewer you mentioned about “future research”. We have replied that the manuscript proposes a curriculum which future research does not apply. This is because it is not a research project. At the same time, in round 3, you mentioned that “the way they (the authors) introduce the proposed curriculum leads to serious shortcomings for the research”. we assume that you missed the provided answer in the 2nd round.
In round 2, dear reviewer you asked for the learning outcomes. The authors used Bloom’s taxonomy to present learning outcomes (please be so kind an see figure 2). In round 3, dear reviewer you insist to define learning outcomes. This comment is already convincingly answered.
Find attached our revised manuscript
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
