Promoting Sustainable Fish Consumption in Portuguese 4th-Grade Students
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept.
Author Response
There are no comments.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll suggestions of improvement have been addressed.
Thank you!
Good luck!
Author Response
There are no extra comments.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
You have presented an interesting article with a fundamental message on sustainability. It is written in a very understandable way, so it is easy to follow your topic. However, there are some minor and major points that I would like to see revised. I will explain my concerns below.
(0) Title: I think that emphasizing the comparison between ftf and online learning methods does not accurately reflect the content of the paper. Methodologies is too all-encompassing, as only two equivalently designed training measures were compared, which is not representative of the methodologies. Furthermore, for me it is more about the effectiveness of the measures, including in the sense of pre-post comparisons, but also comparisons with each other.
(1) Abstract: Please adapt the abstract to the changes after the revision.
(2) Introduction: In general, the introduction has a clear thread that leads to the hypotheses. Nevertheless, I miss an overview of the state of research on aspects of "ocean literacy" and on attitudes and training in sustainable food consumption. The discussion of online learning and traditional methods is very general and does not prepare well for the hypotheses.
On page 2, second paragraph, you write: "As so, the main objective of the present study was to understand how Ocean Literacy can be used as a tool to raise awareness and promote new habits regarding sustainable fish consumption by children in the 4th grade." I don't understand why you use the term ocean literacy here. What does the use of Ocean Literacy mean?
I think the background of the study should also emphasize the role of learning activities for training in sustainable food consumption to explain effects of knowledge gain and attitude change. Please also report on the relevant research background on attitude change through training/instruction.
The research hypotheses could be formulated in a more differentiated way with regard to knowledge, sustainable behavior and consumption habits. The hypotheses should be briefly explained again by summarizing the argumentation for effects. In particular, it is not clear why there should be no difference between face-to-face and online in this particular study scenario. Furthermore, it is completely unclear what the authors expect from qualitative focus interviews.
(3) Materials and methods: I would prefer a more detailed comparison between face-to-face and online training methods to get a good impression of what has changed in times of the pandemic and which parts are comparable. The authors should provide more information about the training process (how long in weeks, how often and long per day, etc.). A visual overview of the process would be helpful (including the timeline).
The description of the measurement instruments, especially the description of the measurement scales for knowledge, sustainable behavior and consumption habits, should be made more transparent (including an overview table). It does not make sense to calculate a Cronbach's alpha value for all items of a questionnaire; normally this makes sense for psychometric scales that measure one construct (such as knowledge), but not for items that focus on different constructs. So you can specify the number of items per scale, M, SD, Cronbach's alpha. You should also describe more adequately how the values per scale are obtained. It is not entirely transparent why the knowledge items result in a maximum of 21 points. It is also not transparent how you calculated the scores for the other two scales (e.g. how was the coding?).
More information about the age (M, SD, per school form) of the pupils and their gender would be desirable (per school). Please provide more information about the schools if you cannot characterize the students in more detail. What is the clientele of the schools?
(4) Results: The strategy for analyzing the data is not clear; no clear strategy for the analysis is provided. Normally, I would have calculated a repeated measures ANOVA (time as within-subject factor, instruction mode as between-subject factor). One then obtains main effects of time, instruction mode and the interaction of both factors. Single-item analyses may also be interesting, but I think you have to argue for this type of analysis. This could be done for all three scales, but separately. It is not good practice to analyze scores that have mixed validity; I understand that the scores analyzed in section 4.1.1 reflect knowledge and sustained behavior in parallel. What is H for a statistical test score (I know F, t, etc., but what is H?)?
(5) Discussion: Please include an additional section on the limitations of your study (e.g., sample, representativeness, internal validity, external validity, measurements, etc.) and refer to the aspects of the introduction that have changed after the revision (e.g., state of the research, etc.). Why are both methods successful?
Best regards,
Reviewer
Author Response
We appreciated all the comments and suggestions made by the reviewer. Our answers are in bold and changes in the manuscript are underlined in yellow. Best regards.
Dear Authors,
You have presented an interesting article with a fundamental message on sustainability. It is written in a very understandable way, so it is easy to follow your topic. However, there are some minor and major points that I would like to see revised. I will explain my concerns below.
(0) Title: I think that emphasizing the comparison between ftf and online learning methods does not accurately reflect the content of the paper. Methodologies is too all-encompassing, as only two equivalently designed training measures were compared, which is not representative of the methodologies. Furthermore, for me it is more about the effectiveness of the measures, including in the sense of pre-post comparisons, but also comparisons with each other.
Authors: We suggest eliminating the final part of the title to stay “Promoting fish sustainable consumption in Portuguese 4th-grade students”.
(1) Abstract: Please adapt the abstract to the changes after the revision.
Authors: The abstract was adapted as asked.
(2) Introduction: In general, the introduction has a clear thread that leads to the hypotheses.
Nevertheless, I miss an overview of the state of research on aspects of "ocean literacy"
Authors: A Paragraph was added (lines 46-62).
and on attitudes and training in sustainable food consumption.
Authors: A Paragraph was added (lines 63-70).
The discussion of online learning and traditional methods is very general and does not prepare well for the hypotheses.
Authors: We rephrase the chapter to better prepare for the hypotheses (lines 211-222).
On page 2, second paragraph, you write: "As so, the main objective of the present study was to understand how Ocean Literacy can be used as a tool to raise awareness and promote new habits regarding sustainable fish consumption by children in the 4th grade."
I don't understand why you use the term ocean literacy here. What does the use of Ocean Literacy mean?
Authors: We appreciate the comment. We’ve changed the term “Ocean Literacy” to “Environmental Sustainability Education activities” (line 74).
I think the background of the study should also emphasize the role of learning activities for training in sustainable food consumption to explain effects of knowledge gain and attitude change.
Authors: Following the reviewer's suggestion, we included a new paragraph (lines 148-155).
Please also report on the relevant research background on attitude change through training/instruction.
Authors: We answered the suggestion introducing a new paragraph on lines 157-162.
The research hypotheses could be formulated in a more differentiated way with regard to knowledge, sustainable behavior and consumption habits. The hypotheses should be briefly explained again by summarizing the argumentation for effects. In particular, it is not clear why there should be no difference between face-to-face and online in this particular study scenario.
Authors: We appreciate the comments. The hypotheses were clarified and more briefly explained (lines 2224-229).
Furthermore, it is completely unclear what the authors expect from qualitative focus interviews.
Authors: A clarification was added (lines 267-270).
(3) Materials and methods: I would prefer a more detailed comparison between face-to-face and online training methods to get a good impression of what has changed in times of the pandemic and which parts are comparable.
The authors should provide more information about the training process (how long in weeks, how often and long per day, etc.).
Authors: We appreciate the comments and clarified the training process (lines 2257-261 and 268-269)
A visual overview of the process would be helpful (including the timeline).
Authors: We appreciate the suggestion. A timeline was now included (table 4, line 271)
The description of the measurement instruments, especially the description of the measurement scales for knowledge, sustainable behavior and consumption habits, should be made more transparent (including an overview table).
Authors: Thanks for the suggestion. We included Table 6 with the scores by question and respective answers (Line 320).
It does not make sense to calculate a Cronbach's alpha value for all items of a questionnaire; normally this makes sense for psychometric scales that measure one construct (such as knowledge), but not for items that focus on different constructs. So you can specify the number of items per scale, M, SD, Cronbach's alpha.
Authors: The Cronbach’s alpha was a suggestion made by another reviewer that did not raise concerns about its application to the whole questionnaire. To follow the reviewer's suggestion, we could only determine Cronbach’s alpha to categories “knowledge” and “habits”, as the category “behaviours” only has one item not allowing the calculation. The results achieved were:
Knowledge: α=0.798, items = 15, M = 0.663, SD = 0.599
Habits: α=0.788, items = 5, M = 0.599, SD = 0.490
If the reviewer still prefers that we use these results instead of the global ones, we can do it.
You should also describe more adequately how the values per scale are obtained. It is not entirely transparent why the knowledge items result in a maximum of 21 points.
Authors: Thanks for the comment. As said before, we now included Table 6 referring to the pre-and post-test scores and eliminated the information about the maximum value that could be achieved, as it was incorrect.
It is also not transparent how you calculated the scores for the other two scales (e.g. how was the coding?).
Authors: We hope that the new Table 6 and the justification made in lines 317-318 clarify the reviewer's doubts.
More information about the age (M, SD, per school form) of the pupils and their gender would be desirable (per school). Please provide more information about the schools if you cannot characterize the students in more detail. What is the clientele of the schools?
Authors: Unfortunately, we do not have information about the specific ages and gender of the students. Nevertheless, we added a new table (Table 1, line 242) with specific information about the number of students per class, and the number of classes per school.
(4) Results: The strategy for analyzing the data is not clear; no clear strategy for the analysis is provided. Normally, I would have calculated a repeated measures ANOVA (time as within-subject factor, instruction mode as between-subject factor). One then obtains main effects of time, instruction mode and the interaction of both factors. Single-item analyses may also be interesting, but I think you have to argue for this type of analysis. This could be done for all three scales, but separately. It is not good practice to analyze scores that have mixed validity; I understand that the scores analyzed in section 4.1.1 reflect knowledge and sustained behavior in parallel.
Authors: We appreciate the reviewer's comments. We choose to clarify the strategy for analysing the data to allow the reader to follow the results (lines 322-332).
What is H for a statistical test score (I know F, t, etc., but what is H?)?
Authors: The clarification was added on line 326.
(5) Discussion: Please include an additional section on the limitations of your study (e.g., sample, representativeness, internal validity, external validity, measurements, etc.) and refer to the aspects of the introduction that have changed after the revision (e.g., state of the research, etc.). Why are both methods successful?
Authors: We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. We included a new section “Limitations of the study” at the end of the conclusion and included the aspects of the introduction that have changed after the study and why are both methods successful (521-538).
Best regards,
Reviewer
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors
The goal of the manuscript is very important.
Please make all recommendations in the attached PDF file.
The current research aims to increase the awareness of fourth-grade primary school students regarding the sustainability of fish consumption. There is no doubt that educating children and supporting them with correct information about the environment, food, preserving the sustainability of food, and also information about the environment in the oceans is important goal.
However, it was very important during the study to clarify the health benefits of eating fish and also the harmful effects on health due to increase fish consumption, and it was important to add this part with more clarification in the introduction of the research.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We appreciate the comments of the reviewer. Here are the answers. Our corrections are underlined in yellow. Best regards.
Line 81: Please correct the reference number.
Authors: The reference number was corrected.
Line 94: Please change to as excessive consumption can lead to health problems such as high level of mercury which damage nerves in adults and disrupt development of the brain and nervous system in a fetus or young child [Schaefer et al., 2019].
Ref. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Dec 4;16(24):4903. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16244903. Mercury Exposure, Fish Consumption, and Perceived Risk among Pregnant Women in Coastal Florida
Authors: The correction was made (lines 117-119).
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author(s)
The introduction of the article does not present the essence of the research problem. The author devoted a lot of space to the problem of fish consumption and the marine ecosystem. Such information is needed, but there is no information about why students were tested. As a reader of the article, I do not understand why the author analyzes students' answers in terms of those studying online and offline. I don't understand where this research approach comes from. You have to argue it.
Perhaps it would be better to show how variables such as age, health situation and place of residence influence fish consumption and consumer awareness?
If the author wants to focus on comparing the effects among offline/online students, please describe in the introduction when the study was conducted, what research methods were used, and what statistical tests were used.
I suggest reducing the font in the questionnaire so that it does not take up so much space. There can't be such short paragraphs as in 2.1. I propose to combine these points into one.
Add a literature review section. Put your research hypotheses there. Justify, based on the literature, why offline and online learning may produce different results.
In the discussion section, write what could influence the differences between online and offline students (purely hypothetically taking into account other additional variables).
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic is interesting and worthy of exploring. However, from reading of the content, this paper is somehow miss leading and cannot stand for itself.
1. It is very clear that this paper is based in the case study in Portugal but this fact did not reflect in the working title. (miss leading No.1)
2. It is cleat that this paper only selected 4th grade without providing justification. Why not selecting 5th or 6th grade? Only 4th grade cannot represent primary school students as a whole. (miss leading No.2)
3. Students at the age of 4th grade will eat whatever provided by the family and do not really have their own choice. (miss leading No.3)
4. Based on the above 3 miss leading points, this paper just cannot stand as it is. Unless the authors can clarify my concerns.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageFurther proof reading needed.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear author(s),
Please see below some improvement ideas for your manuscript:
1. I would definitely include in the Discussion section some limitations of the study, for instance, limited generalizability, the small sample and the self-reporting bias.
2. In the Discussion section I would highly recommend making a connection between the findings and the Portuguese context.
3. Was the questionnaire translated in Portuguese from English? Was it something elaborated by the authors' of the manuscript? If yes, then a Cronbach s alpha needs to be provided.
Thank you and good luck!
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe results related to online learning were predictable...teach and they learn. Just because instruction was online does not make it different...equivalency theory should be stated.
