Sport Academics’ Awareness and Knowledge of Sustainability in Higher Education in Türkiye

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It mentions 5 hypotheses, lines: 216-224 and in line 286 it mentions what has been done for the 5th and 6th hypothesis. This inconsistency should be corrected.

From line 397 to 445 it is a draft, which should be specified since it copies instructions of the processes and does not account for them for this work.

The statistical work requires more rigor, issues such as are not raised or are incompletely mentioned:

- The type of process that verifies content validity for the survey or why such a process was not considered.

- The statistical process for creating the dimensions of analysis for the survey conducted is not clear.

- How to establish the adequacy of the data for the detection of the expected structure, for which a Bartlett's sphericity test could be performed to contrast the variables and their correlation or the KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) test of sampling adequacy, which, considering the total variance used or accepted, allows creating each dimension of analysis.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment"

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

The content must be improved, the bibliography as well as the interpretation (along with the presentation) of the results obtained in statistics help us to understand the objective of the study.

I suggest narrowing down the hypotheses (a main hypothesis and the other secondary ones...a single tool was applied), expanding the discussions and adding the conclusions.

From my point of view, a larger number of articles would help researchers a lot for a broader vision, especially when focusing on sports (is it a sustainable activity or not, according to the applied tool?).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

"Please see the attachment"

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In my opinion, the corrections presented in this article are sufficient to allow it to be published.

Author Response

We are thanking to the reviewer for kind and helpful comments

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Conclusions can be improved (must be clearly delimited by discussions).

Author Response

We are thanking to the reviewer for kind and helpful comments.

The conclusion and discussion part is re-named as "Discussion" only. The context is re-written and enriched.   

Regards

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

thank you for improved document.