Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see file attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer 1,

thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive suggestions to improve our manuscript.

Please see the attachment for detailed responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

After the review of your article, it has been found that the research questions are not clearly stated. The conclusions need more support. The implications of the arguments included are missed. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for reviewing and considering our manuscript.

You commented that "the research questions are not clearly stated. The conclusions need more support. The implications of the arguments included are missed."

We would like to highlight that this is a conceptual/theoretical manuscript that does not report on specific research questions and associated results/conclusions. In terms of implications, we have added a paragraph in the conclusion section related to future research prospects, in response to similar comments by other reviewers.

Reviewer 3 Report

The theme of the article is very important and relevant. First of all, I congratulate the authors for a well written work. In general, the manuscript is clear and presented in a well-structured manner. The authors are concerned with defining and exemplifying the terms used. They cited relevant and recent references.

The title is descriptive and consistent with the abstract and the manuscript as a whole. The abstract offers an overview of the research; however, it does not present a clear research objective or main results. I recommend replacing the words sustainability and education, with Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) in keywords.

The introduction includes important and relevant studies that can support the research. It presents the context of the research; however, the purpose of the research is not clear. In different parts, observe different goals, for example, see lines 110-112; 140-141; 146-148; 246-249.

What is your objective? Make it clear in the manuscript.

The text does not present a methodological part or results. This is a theoretical discussion. But it would be interesting to structure the manuscript and tell how your design concept was developed.

minor fixes: line 541, item should be 4.4

Furthermore, why not present some of the results of using these teaching materials that were produced based on your design concept?

I believe these minor changes to the manuscript are necessary before publication.

I hope to find future studies that use this design concept.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for your helpful comments and suggestions to improve our manuscript.

Please see the attachment for detailed responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I thank the authors for their thoughtful reactions and the envigorating discussion this review process offered. I look forward to seeing this contribution published and to seeing it welcomed in the field of (research on) education for sustainability and action competence.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your constructive feedback as well as to your commitment to open review!

best,

Susan Hanisch