Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The objectives are clearly stated and correspond to solutions and results that are indisputable in my opinion.

The methodology corresponds to the intentions and concept of the scientific work of the authors.

The article is well-founded, it draws from a reasonable amount of relevant sources and maps the subject matter quite faithfully, I appreciate the complexity and high level of analysis, which is not always the standard for this kind of studies.

I value it highly in terms of content and science, and I have no comments that would make it necessary to edit and rework something.

I only have a minor formal remark about formatting, on page 4, separate the text of the last paragraph of subsection 2.2 with a space and then adjust the spaces in chapter 3.

Author Response

Consulte el archivo adjunto.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The submitted paper entitled “A retrospective approach to pro-environmental behavior from Environmental Education: An alternative from Sustainable Development” is a very interesting and well-written paper as it uses modern methodologies, such as network bibliometrics, to portray specific relations among issues and notions like Environmental Education, Sustainability, Education for Sustainability, and Pro-environmental behavior.

 

Since I strongly believe that meta-analyses papers are equally important as the papers presenting results from primary data, in my opinion, this paper should proceed for publication after revision, especially due to the fact the approaches that were used come from modern bibliometric tools.  

 

More specifically, the authors should consider the following points:

·      The first paragraph of the Results section should move to the Methodology section. After all, the existence of references actually leads to such a decision.

·      The paragraph after Figure 3 should precede Figure 3.

·      Consider the misplacement of legends. Table legends precede tables and figure legends follow figures.

· I understand there are some incorrect points in the two paragraphs describing Figures 4 and 5. I urge the author(s) to check the information referring to the four quadrants. From what I see in Figure 4, Sustainability and Environmental Education are placed in the bottom right corner and not in the top right one. Accordingly in Figure 5, Education for SD is placed in the bottom right corner.

·      The information presented in Figure 6 is too small and therefore not clear.

·      In the Discussion section, I would strongly urge the author(s) to minimize sub-section 4.2 to one or two paragraphs and avoid discriminating them from the above sub-section, since in my opinion, the detailed information presented here is misleading.

·      Information presented in the Conclusion section does not seem like a conclusion but more like a discussion, since there are references in it.

 

·      Finally, there are inconsistencies in the recording of the references both throughout the text and in the References section. The author(s) should consider following the journal’s guidelines for authors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This article presents „A retrospective approach to pro-environmental behavior from Environmental Education: An alternative from Sustainable Development”. An interesting article, but there are the following suggestions for their solution for publication:

The abstract of the article provides a properly presented description of the essence of the research. 

The introduction presents the background for undertaking the research and the two research themes. What is missing, however, is an overall anchoring of the need to take action on the topic explored (general background). In addition, it is worth assigning a clear purpose of the article to the questions posed (information needs in relation to the answers to the questions posed). It is worth outlining the limitations, which will be addressed more strongly in the conclusion when identifying further research needs.

Methodology correctly presented, supported by literature. Assumptions presented are related to the article presented. Research steps are clear.

Presentation of research results clear. Figures add value to this paper, facilitate the perception of the content.

The summary should be developed. The main conclusions are worth combining with recommendations. It is important to highlight the research response to the gap (which is exposed in the summary). The research contribution should be more strongly articulated to emphasise the practical importance of the article.

The literature should be expanded. It is worth studying to add to the general educational needs for society: https://doi.org/10.3390/en15155461, whether education already at tertiary level https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137129. 

The form of literature footnotes should follow MDPI standards.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf