Disaster Risk Reduction Education Through Digital Technologies in the Context of Education for Sustainable Development: A Curricula Analysis of Security and Defense Studies in Serbia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presented is a review of existing DRR (disaster risk reduction) courses in Serbian universities. The paper focuses on sustainable development and general security topics in the cirricula of Serbian Higher Education Institutions. I have some questions and recommendations to the authors.
1) It is not clear from the text of the paper how crucial is the nexus of the security problems and sustainable development: some concrete examples and evaluations of such nexus should be given, in my opinion. Moreover, this connection is to be shown on some diagrams.
2) I think that environmental change is not a critical threat for human safety and prosperity. Some regions on the Earth have been transformed to address the challenges of the time.
3) Give, please, some details on "rigorous qualitative methodology" to analyze the critical documents related to defense studies. How can be characterized the core of this methodology?
4) I think that Tables 2-6 should be transformed into diagrams or pictures. They are not readable in the present form.
5) All the conclusions should be accompanied by clear and clear recommendations for changing the education courses and "filling the gaps" if any.
6) Outline, please, the advantages of the National Security Center over the State Universities.
7) A comparative analysis of courses in several Universities could be useful for better understanding the author's idea. I recommend the authors to draw some Figures in order to "liven up too dry presentation" of their results.
Author Response
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a revised version of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you invested in reviewing our work and are grateful for the insightful feedback and constructive suggestions you provided. We have incorporated the majority of the recommendations, with these changes clearly highlighted in the manuscript. Below, please find our detailed responses to each comment and concern:
Comment 1: It is not clear from the text of the paper how crucial is the nexus of the security problems and sustainable development: some concrete examples and evaluations of such nexus should be given, in my opinion. Moreover, this connection is to be shown on some diagrams.
Response 1: We agree with your observation. We have elaborated in more detail on the relationship between security and sustainable development, based on relevant research and publications. All changes in the text are marked in red, in accordance with your suggestions, as well as those from other reviewers.
Comment 2: I think that environmental change is not a critical threat for human safety and prosperity. Some regions on the Earth have been transformed to address the challenges of the time.
Response 2: We acknowledge and value your perspective.
Comment 3: Give, please, some details on "rigorous qualitative methodology" to analyze the critical documents related to defense studies. How can be characterized the core of this methodology?
Response 3: The methodology section of the paper has been updated and broadened. The essence of a qualitative approach to analyzing documents related to security and defense studies programs is rooted in exploring the content, context, and teaching strategies that inform security education, particularly regarding Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR).
Comment: 4: I think that Tables 2-6 should be transformed into diagrams or pictures. They are not readable in the present form.
Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion. All tables have been presented as diagrams. We hope they are now more readable.
Comment 5: All the conclusions should be accompanied by clear and clear recommendations for changing the education courses and "filling the gaps" if any.
Response 5: Thank you for your comment. We have aligned the recommendations with the conclusions drawn.
Comment 6: Outline, please, the advantages of the National Security Center over the State Universities.
Response 6: We outlined the advantages of the National Security Center over the State Universities. The National Simulation Center's advantages lie in its organizational unit as a state university. The Center possesses technological capabilities, including equipment and software dedicated to security research and problem-solving, that are not available in other units of universities (public or private) in Serbia. At the same time, the Center serves as a project hub for all universities in the country, bringing together project teams that research and address security issues, making it unique in its role and function.
Comment 7: A comparative analysis of courses in several Universities could be useful for better understanding the author's idea. I recommend the authors to draw some Figures in order to "liven up too dry presentation" of their results.
Response 7: While we appreciate the suggestion, a comparative analysis across multiple universities is not feasible at this time due to the limited availability and accessibility of detailed curriculum information from other institutions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors seem to have good ideas but I find myself asking why a lot when reading through this. Why security studies specifically? What is the connection there to disaster studies?
More description is needed several places throughout, the research question(s) are not clearly stated, the sustainability goals are mentioned in the intro but not really brought up again, the materials could use more description - it is mentioned that important curriculum documents were analyzed. What were these documents and how were they obtained? Likewise, more information about the coding process and how it was carried out would be helpful. Finally, more information about the schools. What was their size (small, mid-size, large), are they public or private etc.
Because this is a qualitative study, context is very important and without descriptions like those mentioned above, the reader is not able to interpret the whole story and how it is applicable in their own contexts.
Author Response
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a revised version of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you invested in reviewing our work and are grateful for the insightful feedback and constructive suggestions you provided. We have incorporated the majority of the recommendations, with these changes clearly highlighted in the manuscript. Below, please find our detailed responses to each comment and concern:
Comment 1: Why security studies specifically? What is the connection there to disaster studies?
Response 1: We appreciate your question. We have made an effort to elaborate in more detail on the importance of DRR for security studies and their interconnection. We hope our explanation is clear and adequate. All changes in the text are marked in red.
Comment 2: More description is needed several places throughout, the research question(s) are not clearly stated, the sustainability goals are mentioned in the intro but not really brought up again, the materials could use more description - it is mentioned that important curriculum documents were analyzed. What were these documents and how were they obtained? Likewise, more information about the coding process and how it was carried out would be helpful. Finally, more information about the schools. What was their size (small, mid-size, large), are they public or private etc.
Response 2: We agree with you that more description is necessary in the methodology section and results. Therefore, we have clarified the research questions, explained the process by which documents were obtained, and added more information about the institutions (whether they are public or private, the number of students enrolled, etc.). We have also made an effort to mention the SDGs more frequently throughout the text. All the mentioned changes are marked in red.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your revisions. All of my concerns were addressed quite well and I believe it greatly improved the overall manuscript making it a stronger contribution to literature
