Sustainability in Higher Education Institutions in Pakistan: A Systematic Review of Progress and Challenges
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study under review "Sustainability in higher education institutions in Pakistan: A systematic review of progress and challenges." deals with a relevant issue, unless it is descriptive and conceptual in nature, not presenting a proper methodology and not providing sufficient value added from a theoretical point of view. It can be considered as a preliminary work but needs to be extended with further empirical analysis and provide further insights for the case presented.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The central theme of the document is sustainability in the academic context. However, it has many opportunities for improvement to be considered for publication in Sustainability.
1. Rewrite the abstract. It should not have citations. Also, it must be both deeper and shorter. The authors should consider incorporating the main results obtained in quantitative terms. In this way, it captures the reader's attention.
2. The introduction does not provide a comprehensive background on the topic nor provide a clear description of the aim of the paper. Try to improve the presentation of the contribution of the paper to the academic literature and the motivation.
3. What are the main contributions of this research compared to previous ones?
4. A review article must have at least 50 citations. Also, please check the characteristics and research methods for this type of article at mdpi.com. Pay attention to the PRISMA methodology. Also, please check papers published in the last 3 years.
5. At the end of the Introduction, the structure of the paper should be indicated.
6. It is important to make a comparison of Pakistan in relation to Asian countries
7. Please include Scopus and WoS in the search, line 137. A very good strategy is to perform the literature review using VosViewer. Besides, I suggest checking others review papers published on Sustainability.
8. Please indicate clearly how the document could help decision-makers. I suggest making a figure that allows to relate them to the SDGs.
9. Conclusion section must be widened and improved. -rewrite- Also, it would be interesting to indicate the limitation of the study.
10. The results are not being compared/analyzed with other studies.
11. Further studies must be indicated.
General comment. After reading this document, I believe that requires major revision by the authors. It has the potential to become a pivotal role in Pakistan's education scenario. In this way, two rounds could be carried out.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript deals with an important and current issue and it is important for the scientific community. The manuscript is scientifically correct and the references are sufficient and recent.
The materials and methods must be improved:
It is not specified how the sample was selected (pages 3). Why were 300 article chosen? Why not 302 or 288? Finally why was selected only 100 articles for full revision?
Why did the selection process is between January 2017 and December 2021 ? Why was selected the period 2017-2021?! If is about pandemic why not (2010-2020) period?
The statistical rigor is lacking in the sampling part. These aspects must be explained in detail.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have made extensive improvement in their article.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper can be published in the present form. This version has a superior level to the last one.
