Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor,

 

I am writing regarding the article "The COVID-19 Pandemic and the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals: EU Perspective" by Brzyska and Szamrej-Baran submitted for publication in Sustainability.

The article analyzes the impact of COVID-19 on the progress of the European Union towards achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It focuses on 23 indicators with quantitative targets, estimating the years needed to reach the targets based on pre- and post-pandemic trends. The indicators are grouped into low, medium, and high-risk categories for achieving the 2030 targets. Several indicators are examined in detail.

The article concludes that progress has been uneven, with COVID-19 hampering the advancement for many SDGs. Strategic monitoring and policy efforts are needed to get back on track.

 

Comments:

 

·        The introduction could provide more context on the SDGs, their global adoption and importance, and the EU's commitment to them. This would help readers unfamiliar with the topic.

·        In the first sentence, rephrase to "In an era where social and economic inequalities, climate change, and environmental degradation have become key challenges globally, the international community has committed to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development." This frames the introduction better.

 

·        Provide more background on the SDGs in paragraph 2 - when they were adopted, key elements, and why they are important globally.

 

·        In paragraph 3, cite sources when stating the SDGs are common to all UN member states but can be adapted.

 

·        A limitation of the quantitative approach is that it relies heavily on past trends continuing. This should be acknowledged, as unexpected events could alter trajectories.

 

·        For the indicators examined in detail, graphs plotting past trends and future projections would help visualize the data.

 

·        There are some minor typos that should be corrected in the article text.

 

·        In section 2.1, explain how the 23 indicators with targets were selected from the broader set of 100 EU SDG indicators. Provide the rationale.

 

·        Describe any limitations of the data sources used for the indicators. Are there issues with completeness, continuity, or comparability over time?

 

·        When describing the results in the conclusion, be more specific on which goals seem on track vs seriously at risk based on the analysis.

 

·        The article would benefit from comparing the results to other studies on SDG progress in the EU. This could strengthen the conclusions.

 

·        Consider an appendix listing all 23 indicators examined, their targets, and risk category for achieving the target. This would help readers access the full data.

·        In Table 1, make the font size bigger for the indicator names to improve readability.

 

·        For the detailed indicator examples, add graphs as suggested to visualize the trends.

·        Discuss any differences between EU countries or regions in SDG progress and how the pandemic impacted certain areas more.

 

·        Elaborate on which policy instruments could help accelerate progress for the goals most at risk of not being achieved.

 

·        Proofread carefully to fix minor grammar, style, and formatting issues. Ensure citations and references adhere to journal guidelines.

·        Relate the conclusions back to the original research questions posed in the introduction. Were they answered effectively?

 

·        Compare the results to other studies on EU SDG progress to strengthen the conclusions.

 

·        Provide specific policy recommendations to accelerate progress on at-risk SDG indicators. Don't just state they are needed.

·        Review for consistent formatting, grammar, citation style. Adhere to journal guidelines.

 

·        An appendix with all indicators examined would help transparency and completeness.

 

In summary, this is a worthwhile study analyzing EU progress on the SDGs before and after COVID-19. With some revisions to provide more context, data visualization, and policy insights, the article can make a strong contribution. I hope these comments are helpful, and I look forward to seeing the revised manuscript.

 

 

Dear Editor,

 

I am writing regarding the article "The COVID-19 Pandemic and the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals: EU Perspective" by Brzyska and Szamrej-Baran submitted for publication in Sustainability.

The article analyzes the impact of COVID-19 on the progress of the European Union towards achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It focuses on 23 indicators with quantitative targets, estimating the years needed to reach the targets based on pre- and post-pandemic trends. The indicators are grouped into low, medium, and high-risk categories for achieving the 2030 targets. Several indicators are examined in detail.

The article concludes that progress has been uneven, with COVID-19 hampering the advancement for many SDGs. Strategic monitoring and policy efforts are needed to get back on track.

 

Comments:

 

·        The introduction could provide more context on the SDGs, their global adoption and importance, and the EU's commitment to them. This would help readers unfamiliar with the topic.

·        In the first sentence, rephrase to "In an era where social and economic inequalities, climate change, and environmental degradation have become key challenges globally, the international community has committed to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development." This frames the introduction better.

 

·        Provide more background on the SDGs in paragraph 2 - when they were adopted, key elements, and why they are important globally.

 

·        In paragraph 3, cite sources when stating the SDGs are common to all UN member states but can be adapted.

 

·        A limitation of the quantitative approach is that it relies heavily on past trends continuing. This should be acknowledged, as unexpected events could alter trajectories.

 

·        For the indicators examined in detail, graphs plotting past trends and future projections would help visualize the data.

 

·        There are some minor typos that should be corrected in the article text.

 

·        In section 2.1, explain how the 23 indicators with targets were selected from the broader set of 100 EU SDG indicators. Provide the rationale.

 

·        Describe any limitations of the data sources used for the indicators. Are there issues with completeness, continuity, or comparability over time?

 

·        When describing the results in the conclusion, be more specific on which goals seem on track vs seriously at risk based on the analysis.

 

·        The article would benefit from comparing the results to other studies on SDG progress in the EU. This could strengthen the conclusions.

 

·        Consider an appendix listing all 23 indicators examined, their targets, and risk category for achieving the target. This would help readers access the full data.

·        In Table 1, make the font size bigger for the indicator names to improve readability.

 

·        For the detailed indicator examples, add graphs as suggested to visualize the trends.

·        Discuss any differences between EU countries or regions in SDG progress and how the pandemic impacted certain areas more.

 

·        Elaborate on which policy instruments could help accelerate progress for the goals most at risk of not being achieved.

 

·        Proofread carefully to fix minor grammar, style, and formatting issues. Ensure citations and references adhere to journal guidelines.

·        Relate the conclusions back to the original research questions posed in the introduction. Were they answered effectively?

 

·        Compare the results to other studies on EU SDG progress to strengthen the conclusions.

 

·        Provide specific policy recommendations to accelerate progress on at-risk SDG indicators. Don't just state they are needed.

·        Review for consistent formatting, grammar, citation style. Adhere to journal guidelines.

 

·        An appendix with all indicators examined would help transparency and completeness.

 

In summary, this is a worthwhile study analyzing EU progress on the SDGs before and after COVID-19. With some revisions to provide more context, data visualization, and policy insights, the article can make a strong contribution. I hope these comments are helpful, and I look forward to seeing the revised manuscript.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your review and for the time and effort you put into thoroughly analyzing our article. We are very grateful for your valuable insights and suggestions, which will undoubtedly contribute to enhancing the quality of our presented material. We have carefully considered your recommendation and have revised the paper.

The introduction could provide more context on the SDGs, their global adoption and importance, and the EU's commitment to them. This would help readers unfamiliar with the topic.

As suggested, we expanded the introduction and introduced more context on the Sustainable Development Goals, their global adoption and importance, and the EU's commitment to them.

In the first sentence, rephrase to "In an era where social and economic inequalities, climate change, and environmental degradation have become key challenges globally, the international community has committed to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development." This frames the introduction better.

We have rephrased the first sentence into the sentence indicated in the review.

Provide more background on the SDGs in paragraph 2 - when they were adopted, key elements, and why they are important globally.

We have provided more background on the SDGs in paragraph 2.

In paragraph 3, cite sources when stating the SDGs are common to all UN member states but can be adapted.

We cited as source Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; Outcome Document for the UN Summit to Adopt the Post-2015 Development Agenda: Draft for Adoption (by United Nations).

A limitation of the quantitative approach is that it relies heavily on past trends continuing. This should be acknowledged, as unexpected events could alter trajectories.

We appreciate your observation. The limitations of the study have been included in the Discussion section, lines 435-449.

For the indicators examined in detail, graphs plotting past trends and future projections would help visualize the data.

We have introduced graphs for the 4 indicators discussed in detail showing past trends and future projections, which should better visualise the data.

There are some minor typos that should be corrected in the article text.

The manuscript has been proofread by a native English speaker and subsequently revised to avoid typos, grammatical and stylistic errors.

In section 2.1, explain how the 23 indicators with targets were selected from the broader set of 100 EU SDG indicators. Provide the rationale.

This has been considered in the Materials and Methods section, lines 179-209. A more extensive explanation for the selection of indicators is provided there.

Describe any limitations of the data sources used for the indicators. Are there issues with completeness, continuity, or comparability over time?

The limitations of the study have been included in the Discussion section, lines 435-449.

When describing the results in the conclusion, be more specific on which goals seem on track vs seriously at risk based on the analysis.

We have made changes to the 'Conclusions' section. We have added two paragraphs in which we hope to better expose the degree of risk of not achieving the sustainability targets in time (lines 496-526).

The article would benefit from comparing the results to other studies on SDG progress in the EU. This could strengthen the conclusions.

We have added a new section: ‘Discussion’, in which we related our research findings to the report: Sustainable Development in the European Union: Monitoring Report on Progress towards the SDGs in an EU Context.

Consider an appendix listing all 23 indicators examined, their targets, and risk category for achieving the target. This would help readers access the full data.

In Table 1. Summary results for the SDGs with quantitative targets in the EU, all 23 indicators have been presented, divided into three risk groups of failure in achieving the target: low (A), medium (B), and significant (C).

In Table 1, make the font size bigger for the indicator names to improve readability.

Changing the font size at discretion is prohibited. The table format, shape, and font size - are designed in accordance with the requirements of the MDPI publisher.

For the detailed indicator examples, add graphs as suggested to visualize the trends.

Regarding the inclusion of graphs to visualize trends for the detailed indicator examples, we have added four graphs corresponding to four analysed indicators. These graphs aim to provide a clearer understanding of the trends and augment the textual discussion in the manuscript.

Discuss any differences between EU countries or regions in SDG progress and how the pandemic impacted certain areas more.

The suggestion to discuss the differences in SDG progress among EU countries or regions, and how the pandemic has had a varying impact, is an intriguing and valuable point. Given the EU's current composition of 27 diverse member countries, there is undoubtedly a significant variance in the progress made toward achieving the SDGs.

However, we believe that this topic is substantially broad and would require a comprehensive and expanded research focus to adequately cover the differences among countries and the specific impacts of the pandemic on SDG attainment. The complexity and depth of this subject make it a suitable topic for a separate article, where it can be examined with the rigour and detail it merits.

Elaborate on which policy instruments could help accelerate progress for the goals most at risk of not being achieved.

We have incorporated a 'Discussion' section, situated between lines 458-494, wherein we offer an analytical exploration followed by targeted policy recommendations. These are specifically aimed at assisting the European Union in accelerating progress for those sustainable development targets that are most at risk of not being met.

Proofread carefully to fix minor grammar, style, and formatting issues. Ensure citations and references adhere to journal guidelines.

The manuscript has been proofread by a native English speaker and subsequently revised to enhance both clarity and consistency. In addition, the citation and references style has been changed to comply with the requirements of the journal ‘Sustainability’.

Relate the conclusions back to the original research questions posed in the introduction. Were they answered effectively?

We have amended the 'Conclusions' section to explicitly relate back to the original research questions presented in the introduction. All research questions have been effectively addressed and positively verified, thereby strengthening the overall coherence and integrity of the manuscript.

Compare the results to other studies on EU SDG progress to strengthen the conclusions.

We have added a new section: ‘Discussion’, in which we related our research findings to the report: Sustainable Development in the European Union: Monitoring Report on Progress towards the SDGs in an EU Context.

Provide specific policy recommendations to accelerate progress on at-risk SDG indicators. Don't just state they are needed.

We have added a 'Discussion' section, found between lines 458-494 of the manuscript, where we engage in an analytical review and proceed to outline precise policy suggestions. These recommendations are tailored to aid the European Union in hastening the fulfilment of those sustainable development goals facing the highest risk of non-achievement.

Review for consistent formatting, grammar, citation style. Adhere to journal guidelines.

The text has been revised and also subjected to proofreading to enhance its clarity and coherence. Moreover, the citation style has been altered to comply with the journal's requirements.

An appendix with all  indicators examined would help transparency and completeness.

Annex Table A.1 presents all SDGs and the main characteristics of the EU SDG indicator set in 2023. In Table 1. Summary results for the SDGs with quantitative targets in the EU, all 23 indicators have been presented, divided into three risk groups of failure in achieving the target: low (A), medium (B), and significant (C).

In summary, this is a worthwhile study analysing EU progress on the SDGs before and after COVID-19. With some revisions to provide more context, data visualization, and policy insights, the article can make a strong contribution. I hope these comments are helpful, and I look forward to seeing the revised manuscript.

Your insights have been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our work, and we sincerely appreciate your guidance. I believe that the changes made to the analysis will enrich our work and make it more complete and in harmony with the expectations of the scientific community.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, 

Thank you for your paper. These are some revisions suggested, as I believe this paper would be a great fit for the journal: 

Could you kindly consider adding citations to the statement on lines 58-60? This would provide additional support for the mentioned point.

Similarly, if feasible, it would be beneficial to include citations for the statements on lines 63 and 65. This would help bolster the credibility of the arguments presented.

Regarding the studies cited on lines 65-67, could you clarify whether these studies align with the first or second approach outlined in the preceding paragraph? This clarification would enhance the reader's understanding.

With regards to the claim presented on lines 68-69, it might be helpful to include a citation to substantiate this point. This would further reinforce the validity of the assertion.

I kindly request clarification regarding the rationale behind the focus on lines 73-92 on the listed publications. Could you elaborate on the significance of these sources and how they contribute to the study's epistemological or methodological framework? Additionally, if there are any other relevant sources, it would be helpful to have your insights on their contributions and how they fit into the delineated approaches on line 62.

For the reference provided on line 94, and similarly on lines 99 and 103, could you please ensure proper citation formatting? Additionally, I'm curious if there is a specific reason for mentioning the authors' country of origin. Does this context hold any significance? A similar query arises in paragraphs 100-121.

The introductory section appears to lack a clear articulation of the research question and the hypotheses being tested. Could you kindly provide a more specific overview of the problem your team aims to address?

To enhance clarity, could you provide examples for each type of indicator mentioned on line 146?

I would appreciate further elaboration on the statement made on line 153 concerning the subjective judgment of the researcher. Could you explain the practical significance of such an indicator and how it is effectively monitored? It might be helpful to enhance the description of the measurability and reportability of each indicator, using examples akin to economic indices for guidance.

The statement on line 183 might benefit from clarification. It appears that, in the given scenario, achieving the objective could be labeled as 'impossible' rather than 'difficult'.

It would greatly enhance the manuscript if you could provide comprehensive explanations for the values presented in Tables 1-4, particularly for instances of negative observed (or required) annual rates. These negative values might lead to misinterpretation without proper context. For instance, the negative required annual rate in Table 3—does it imply a reduced effort to avoid early target attainment?

Could you provide insight into the evidence underpinning the assumption that the rate of target achievement for certain goals was influenced by COVID-19? What causal connections can be drawn in these cases? What is the causal nexus?

It is strongly recommended that a significant section be added to the manuscript: the "Discussion." This section should address (among other things) pivotal issues such as:

(a) Exploring the possibility of non-constant rates of goal achievement, considering the non-linear nature of many social phenomena.

(b) Examining the role of initial achievement levels for each indicator. How does the starting point influence convergence rates to the target?

(c) Reflecting on the reproducibility of the employed methodology. Can it be used for other indicators?

(d) Delving into the limitations associated with the study; your insights on these limitations would be appreciated.

(e) Deriving practical recommendations from the study's findings.

(f) Expounding on how the findings can distinguish effective (good) and ineffective (bad) practices in evaluating specific policies and measures toward goal attainment.

(g) Assessing the applicability of the methodology for cross-country comparisons; this consideration would offer a broader perspective.

I appreciate your attention to these comments and look forward to the improved version of your manuscript.

Sincerely,

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to extend our heartfelt gratitude for your thorough and constructive review of our manuscript. Your insights have been invaluable in refining our work. We have carefully considered your recommendation and have revised the paper.

Could you kindly consider adding citations to the statement on lines 58-60? This would provide additional support for the mentioned point.

In line with your recommendations, we have included additional citations to strengthen the academic grounding of the article. These can be found in the revised manuscript at lines 77-80.

Similarly, if feasible, it would be beneficial to include citations for the statements on lines 63 and 65. This would help bolster the credibility of the arguments presented.

In acknowledgment of the feedback received, we have revised the introductory statement in the literature review section of our manuscript. Initially, the text suggested that two dominant approaches prevail in the scholarly literature on Sustainable Development Goals. On reflection, this was an imprecise characterization since our intention was not to classify and systematize the approaches to the SDGs issue taken by various researchers, but only to indicate that it is diverse, we have changed the mentioned sentence. It now reads: “There are different approaches in the literature studies on sustainable development goals”.

Regarding the studies cited on lines 65-67, could you clarify whether these studies align with the first or second approach outlined in the preceding paragraph? This clarification would enhance the reader's understanding.

Following the revisions mentioned in the previous response, the categorization into a 'first' or 'second' approach is no longer applicable. As such, the query concerning the alignment of the cited studies on lines 65-67 with either approach is now moot. The amended text aims to emphasize the variety of scholarly perspectives on SDGs, without classifying them into specific categories.

With regards to the claim presented on lines 68-69, it might be helpful to include a citation to substantiate this point. This would further reinforce the validity of the assertion.

In accordance with the suggestion, we have added four references in line 89 of the manuscript.

I kindly request clarification regarding the rationale behind the focus on lines 73-92 on the listed publications. Could you elaborate on the significance of these sources and how they contribute to the study's epistemological or methodological framework? Additionally, if there are any other relevant sources, it would be helpful to have your insights on their contributions and how they fit into the delineated approaches on line 62.

The cited literature review serves as a backdrop to the research being conducted. It showcases various perspectives from different viewpoints. Additional references have been included in the literature review to provide a more comprehensive background. The classification of literature sources according to the division mentioned in line 62 is no longer applicable, as we have decided to abandon this division, as previously mentioned.

For the reference provided on line 94, and similarly on lines 99 and 103, could you please ensure proper citation formatting? Additionally, I'm curious if there is a specific reason for mentioning the authors' country of origin. Does this context hold any significance? A similar query arises in paragraphs 100-121.

The formatting of the indicated citations has been corrected. The reason for mentioning the researchers' country of origin follows a convention adopted by the authors for research teams, which are often quite large. The authors wanted to avoid listing all their members in detail.

The introductory section appears to lack a clear articulation of the research question and the hypotheses being tested. Could you kindly provide a more specific overview of the problem your team aims to address?

The introduction has been revised. The purpose of the article, the research questions, and the authors’ contribution to the literature have been clearly formulated (lines 57-73).

To enhance clarity, could you provide examples for each type of indicator mentioned on line 146?

Examples for each type of indicator have been added and can be found on lines 169-175 of the revised manuscript.

I would appreciate further elaboration on the statement made on line 153 concerning the subjective judgment of the researcher. Could you explain the practical significance of such an indicator and how it is effectively monitored? It might be helpful to enhance the description of the measurability and reportability of each indicator, using examples akin to economic indices for guidance.

A more detailed explanation of this important issue has been included in the paragraphs between lines 170-209. We hope that this explanation sufficiently clarifies these matters.

The statement on line 183 might benefit from clarification. It appears that, in the given scenario, achieving the objective could be labeled as 'impossible' rather than 'difficult'.

The change has been implemented.

It would greatly enhance the manuscript if you could provide comprehensive explanations for the values presented in Tables 1-4, particularly for instances of negative observed (or required) annual rates. These negative values might lead to misinterpretation without proper context. For instance, the negative required annual rate in Table 3—does it imply a reduced effort to avoid early target attainment?

This has been explained in the paragraph below Table 1 (lines 283-294). The negative required annual rate in Table 3 does not imply a reduced effort to avoid early target attainment. It rather indicates the desired direction of change, namely a reduction in the value of the indicator to the expected target in 2030. An additional column reflecting the desired direction of change has been added to Table 1.

Could you provide insight into the evidence underpinning the assumption that the rate of target achievement for certain goals was influenced by COVID-19? What causal connections can be drawn in these cases? What is the causal nexus?

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the progress towards achieving the SDGs. The pandemic has negatively impacted the global economy, leading to job losses and reduced income for many people[1]. The health crisis caused by the pandemic has put immense pressure on health systems worldwide. The pandemic has also exacerbated existing social inequalities and affected the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people the most[2]. In our paper, we have included appropriate references to evidence supporting the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the achievement of specific targets (below Figures 1-4). It is important to emphasize that due to the complexity and comprehensiveness of the world, we are not able to consider all factors influencing a given phenomenon. Attempting to present the entire economic reality is pointless and doomed to failure due to the infinite number of details. Therefore, in economics, we use economic models, which are simplified representations of the world that make certain assumptions about the constancy of some phenomena in order to describe the impact of a particular factor on the economy.

It is strongly recommended that a significant section be added to the manuscript: the "Discussion." This section should address (among other things) pivotal issues such as:

In compliance with your strong recommendation to incorporate a "Discussion" section into the manuscript, we have added this section to offer an in-depth analysis and discussion of our findings. We trust that this inclusion enhances the academic rigor and overall coherence of our work.

(a) Exploring the possibility of non-constant rates of goal achievement, considering the non-linear nature of many social phenomena.

Many social phenomena, such as population growth, economic development, and technological progress, often exhibit non-linear behaviour. One report by the United Nations Secretary-General on progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals highlights the unevenness of progress and the many areas in which significant improvement is required. Overall, it seems that achieving goals in social phenomena can be a complex and non-linear process, influenced by a wide range of factors. It was highlighted in Discussion section, between lines 435-450, as a limitation of the study.

(b) Examining the role of initial achievement levels for each indicator. How does the starting point influence convergence rates to the target?

The initial achievement levels for each indicator can significantly influence the convergence rates to the target. If an entity starts with a high level of achievement, it may require less effort to reach the target compared to an entity starting from a lower level. On the other hand, entities starting at lower levels may have more room for improvement and could potentially progress at a faster rate. In economics, the concept of convergence suggests that poorer economies (or entities with lower initial achievement levels) tend to grow faster than richer ones. This could be due to factors such as the potential for technology transfer, capital deepening, and structural change. However, it’s important to note that these are general trends and the actual rate of convergence can be influenced by a variety of factors, including the specific characteristics of the entity and the nature of the target itself. These issues are indeed very interesting, however, our considerations do not strictly deal with convergence. It is worth considering this topic as a future research subject.

(c) Reflecting on the reproducibility of the employed methodology. Can it be used for other indicators?

Reflection on the repeatability of the applied methodology was incorporated in manuscript between lines 430-434.

(d) Delving into the limitations associated with the study; your insights on these limitations would be appreciated.

We appreciate your observation. The limitations of the study have been included in the Discussion section, lines 435-449.

(e) Deriving practical recommendations from the study's findings.

We have added a 'Discussion' section, found between lines 458-494 of the manuscript, where we engage in an analytical review and proceed to outline precise policy suggestions. These recommendations are tailored to aid the European Union in hastening the fulfilment of those sustainable development goals facing the highest risk of non-achievement.

(f) Expounding on how the findings can distinguish effective (good) and ineffective (bad) practices in evaluating specific policies and measures toward goal attainment.

In our paper, in the Discussion section, we focused on effective practices in evaluating specific policies and measures toward goal attainment. Our policy recommendations are oriented towards positively influencing progress in the attainment of specific targets, such as increasing investment in renewable energy sources. While we do not explicitly categorize certain practices as 'ineffective' or 'bad,' it can be reasonably inferred that policies counter to our recommendations would be less effective in achieving the goals. For instance, lack of financial support for the transition to renewable energy can be understood as an ineffective practice within the scope of our study.

(g) Assessing the applicability of the methodology for cross-country comparisons; this consideration would offer a broader perspective.

The proposed methodology can be used for cross-country comparisons if it concerns indicators with a measurable goal. For indicators without a measurable goal, it would need to be modified by adding subjectively determined thresholds. It would also be worthwhile to measure the relative position of countries towards each other, with a country’s status score of an indicator calculated relative to the range of values from the worst to the best performing country.

Once again, thank you for your invaluable contribution to enhancing the quality of our research. We hope the revisions meet your expectations and improve the manuscript's chances for publication.

 

[1] Frontiers | Assessing the Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemics on Sustainable Development Goals in Nepal (frontiersin.org).

[2] Impact of COVID-19 on SDG progress: a statistical perspective (un.org)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to read your manuscript. You should address some points, but there are some good points too.

The authors note that (lines 57-58): "Research on the implementation of Agenda 2030 is of increasing interest to researchers. The literature in this area is growing rapidly". But there is not a single reference to the authors. The following talks about the innovative approach used by the authors, but it is not clear what research gap they want to close. The introduction is too long and overloaded with the presentation of an overview of previous studies, albeit sparse. However, it would be better to make the introduction shorter, presenting the purpose, the research question and briefly describing the methods. Then I would create a section on the goals of the development of harmony and separately on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic or something similar. I recommend reading the article about coherence from: Burksiene, V., Dvorak, J., & Burbulyte-Tsiskarishvili, G. (2018). Sustainability and sustainability marketing in competing for the title of European Capital of Culture. Organization, 51(1), 66-78.

In any case, the literature review is very limited and requires addition.

It is not very clear from the section on methods how the authors chose the indicators or if all the indicators were suitable, if they were not then why, if they were suitable why?

The results and discussion have no connection with the works of other authors, so it remains unclear whether the obtained data are valid and how their objectivity was checked.

The conclusions look weakly like a retelling of what is written in the results, but there is no answer to the purpose of this study, no policy implications, no connection with theory and, finally, limitations. In conclusion, is the COVID-19 pandemic forgotten?

The bibliography is not in MDPI style. 

All the best

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time to review our work. We appreciate your valuable feedback and suggestions, which will help us improve the quality of our manuscript. Your insights and expertise have been invaluable in guiding our revisions, and we are grateful for your contribution to our research

The authors note that (lines 57-58): "Research on the implementation of Agenda 2030 is of increasing interest to researchers. The literature in this area is growing rapidly". But there is not a single reference to the authors. The following talks about the innovative approach used by the authors, but it is not clear what research gap they want to close. The introduction is too long and overloaded with the presentation of an overview of previous studies, albeit sparse. However, it would be better to make the introduction shorter, presenting the purpose, the research question and briefly describing the methods. Then I would create a section on the goals of the development of harmony and separately on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic or something similar. I recommend reading the article about coherence from: Burksiene, V., Dvorak, J., & Burbulyte-Tsiskarishvili, G. (2018). Sustainability and sustainability marketing in competing for the title of European Capital of Culture. Organization, 51(1), 66-78.

In response to your comment concerning the absence of references to support our statement on the growing interest in Agenda 2030 research (lines 57-58), we have addressed this oversight. The revised manuscript now includes pertinent citations to substantiate this claim, which can be found on line 78. We believe that this addition strengthens the manuscript's credibility and aligns with academic rigor.

To address the ambiguity you pointed out concerning the research gap our study aims to address, we have elaborated on our scholarly contributions (lines 70-74). Specifically, our work seeks to enhance understanding of the realization of quantitative targets for SDGs within the European Union. Our manuscript offers a multifaceted perspective essential for informed policy-making and contributes to scholarly debate on this critical issue.

In literature studies, other authors focus on assessing whether the Sustainable Development Goals are being realized or will be realized in the future. The studies look at either a specific goal or a group of specific goals, relating to the social or environmental sphere, for example Eurostat reports, look at all the goals and are prepared annually. The authors of the article focus on measurable indicators which, according to them, are objective and through which the level of progress towards a target can be accurately shown. In addition, despite extensive research of the literature, none of the articles analysed found an answer to the question of how many years from now the target will be achieved with a given development trend.

Our approach involves estimating the number of years required to achieve the designated SDG targets, assuming the continuation of current trends. We conduct this analysis based on data from both the period preceding the COVID-19 pandemic and the period that includes its impact. This enables us to provide a comprehensive assessment of the progress made in realizing the SDGs, taking into account the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. We then compare these estimated timeframes to assess the risk level that a given target will not be met by the pre-set deadline of 2030. This methodology allows us to offer a nuanced understanding of the pace at which the EU is progressing toward its SDG targets, thus providing both policymakers and academics with valuable insights into areas requiring urgent attention.

Taking into account your observations about the lengthy and overly detailed introduction, we have undertaken a substantial restructuring of our manuscript. The introduction has been shortened and now primarily focuses on setting the research questions and presenting the purpose of the article. The methodology is described in a separate part (Section 3). In addition, two supplementary sections have been added; one serves as a literature review, and the other is a "Discussion" section, aimed at elaborating on the broader implications of our research. We believe these changes more adequately address the scope and structure recommended in your feedback.

In response to your recommendation to consult the article by Burksiene et al. (2018), we have reviewed the piece. While it offers intriguing perspectives on sustainability and sustainability marketing, its relevance to the specific focus of our manuscript—particularly the intersection of SDGs and the COVID-19 pandemic—is somewhat tangential. Nevertheless, respecting your view that it could offer a beneficial lens, we have included this reference in our manuscript, cited as Reference 9 (line 75).

We trust that this inclusion meets your recommendation, although we kindly note that the direct applicability of this source to our research focus may not be as pronounced as suggested. We hope this new addition and our other revisions will improve the manuscript to your satisfaction.

In any case, the literature review is very limited and requires addition.

In light of your observation regarding the limited literature review, we have substantially enriched this section. Additionally, we have allocated a separate section specifically for the 'Literature Review' to provide a more in-depth and comprehensive examination of the relevant scholarly work. This serves to bolster the theoretical grounding of the manuscript.

It is not very clear from the section on methods how the authors chose the indicators or if all the indicators were suitable, if they were not then why, if they were suitable why?

This has been considered in the Materials and Methods section, lines 179-209. A more extensive explanation for the selection of indicators is provided there.

The results and discussion have no connection with the works of other authors, so it remains unclear whether the obtained data are valid and how their objectivity was checked.

We have added a new section: ‘Discussion’, in which we related our research findings to the report: Sustainable Development in the European Union: Monitoring Report on Progress towards the SDGs in an EU Context.

The conclusions look weakly like a retelling of what is written in the results, but there is no answer to the purpose of this study, no policy implications, no connection with theory and, finally, limitations. In conclusion, is the COVID-19 pandemic forgotten?

In response to your critique concerning the conclusions, we have taken measures to address each of the points raised. The conclusions have been revised to more explicitly answer the research questions posed in the introduction and to highlight the significance of the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, the 'Discussion' section, now labelled as Section 5, delves into policy implications and limitations, thereby adding depth to the manuscript. We trust that these modifications will enhance the quality of the manuscript and meet your expectations as a reviewer.

The bibliography is not in MDPI style.

The citation style has been altered to comply with the journal's requirements MDPI style.

 

Thank you for your invaluable contribution to enhancing the quality of our research. Your insights have greatly assisted in refining the manuscript, and I believe these changes made align with both your expectations and the standards of the publication.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have correctly answered the objections presented. The article is acceptable in its current version.

The authors have correctly answered the objections presented. The article is acceptable in its current version.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dears Authors,

The revised manuscript is now of a high quality and I do not have any other comments. Congrats for manuscript completion.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the updated manuscript. All recommendations are implemented and I think the manuscript can be accepted to the Sustainability journal.

All the best