The Development of Civic Competence in Higher Education to Support a Sustainable Society: The Case of Latvian Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Aims and objectives of the paper could be more explicitly stated at the outset to provide the reader with increased clarity and focus.  The first third of the paper is a detailed overview of the subject matter but it lacks a central purpose or research alignment that would provide the foundation for subsequent analysis and discussion.  The abstract is clear on the aims and intentions but this does not translate to the body of the text, problem statement or selection rationale.

There is great potential for this paper as the subject matter and context are under-researched, and therefore of value and interest to the academic community.  What is needed, in places, is a greater sense of clarity and purpose for the paper.

The paper addresses many issues (many of them very broad in nature) almost in passing - sustainability, soviet legacy - and needs to ground these in the context of literature and the study itself.  The core of the paper is an interesting one but it would benefit from a reframing of the narrative.  A clearer introductory section that outlines the aims and objectives and a tighter conclusion that places the findings in the context of the research questions and objectives.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for providing valuable insights into our research paper, highlighting both its strengths and weaknesses. We have carefully considered your recommendations and made several improvements to the paper, but according to the instructions to the authors  we didn't divided the introduction and theoretical background, but sticked with the given manuscript sections - Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions (this section is not mandatory).

But if we understand correctly the problem is that the reasons why the proposed research goal is essential (based on empirical research) are not emphasised, so we added more findings in the introduction and a discussion. By integrating findings from other research, we aim to offer a more comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand. The discussion section now offers deeper insights and analysis of our findings.

Furthermore, we have refined our methodology to ensure robustness and accuracy in our research approach. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback, which has greatly contributed to the overall improvement of our research paper.

 

Kind regards,

Authors of the paper

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well done paper from the field of students' civic competence assessment. Overall, the paper has followed basic standards for publications in academic journals, although the manuscript does not stand out in any special way. It feels like one of many similar manuscript, missing the answer to the 'so-what' question. Authors are encouraged to revise the discussion so that includes comparisons to international studies of civic competences and address the issue of why this research is important for Latvia, Latvian academic community and young adults. Beyond this recommendation, authors also need to separate their Introduction from the Theoretical background. Introduction needs to be an engaging section, motivating the reader to get involved with the manuscript. Everything else should be moved to the Theoretical background (i.e. theory review). Best of luck with your revision and publishing efforts.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for providing valuable insights into our research paper, highlighting both its strengths and weaknesses. We have carefully considered your recommendations and made several improvements to the paper. However, we adhered to the given manuscript sections - Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions, as specified in the instructions to the authors.

We understand that there was a concern regarding the lack of emphasis on the reasons why the proposed research goal is essential, particularly based on empirical research. To address this issue, we have incorporated additional findings in the introduction and expanded the discussion section. We revised the discussion so that it includes comparisons to international studies of civic competences and addresses the issue of why this research is important for Latvia.

Furthermore, we have refined our methodology to ensure robustness and accuracy in our research approach. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback, which has greatly contributed to the overall improvement of our research paper.

Sincerely, 

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript needs to be refined in the following ways:

1. In the introduction, the importance and urgency of conducting this study is not sufficiently explained and elaborated and needs to be further strengthened.

2. the manuscript lacks a hypothesis development section. It is recommended that the authors clearly state the specific hypotheses to be tested.

3. In the methodology section, the authors did not state the specific sampling method and sample representativeness. In addition, the authors do not describe the specific methodology used to conduct the survey (face-to-face, telephone or Internet interviewing) and how the quality of the survey was controlled. These elements need to be clearly stated.

4. The relationship in Figure 1 is not very clear. It is recommended that the authors do a structural equation modeling to determine the link between the variables.

5. The discussion section needs to be developed by distinguishing between theoretical implications, practical implications, research limitations and future shortcomings.

6. the conclusion is written in a bland manner and needs further reinforcement.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate the valuable insights you provided regarding our research paper, recognizing both its strengths and weaknesses. Your feedback has been instrumental in guiding our revisions, and we have implemented several improvements to enhance the quality of the paper.

We have enriched the introduction by emphasizing the significance of this research for Latvian society. Furthermore, we have enhanced the depth and analysis in the discussion section to provide more profound insights into our findings. Additionally, we refined our methodology to ensure the robustness and accuracy of our research approach, conducting further literature review and supplementation of the discussion section.

Regarding the absence of a hypothesis development section, our study does not propose or test a hypothesis but instead focuses on answering the research question. Consequently, we did not employ structural equation modeling to establish links between variables in our analysis.

Once again, we express our gratitude for your valuable feedback, which has significantly contributed to the overall enhancement of our research paper.

Kind regards,

Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version is an improvement over the previous one and meets the criteria for publication.