Investigating the Role of Public Relations Campaigns in Environment Awareness Among University Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the author's careful revisions. The current revised draft has made significant improvements, and I have no other major concerns about this revised draft. However, I believe that this article can benefit from the refinement and improvement of its format, in accordance with the requirements and standards of this journal.

Starting from the abstract to the content, such as lines 91-98, it is inappropriate to bold randomly.

Author Response

My sincere greetings and appreciation to the esteemed editorial board of the journal, and my sincere thanks and appreciation to the reviewers of the research for their time, effort, and valuable comments. Regarding the reviewers' comments, it should be noted at the outset that the required amendments were made for the first reviewer and shaded in (green)

For the first Reviewer:

• We thank the reviewer for his time and effort, and we have fulfilled the note regarding not using bold font in lines 1-98. (Modified)

 

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting article. Nonetheless, other aspects necessitate scrutiny and modification to enhance the manuscript's clarity, coherence, and methodological rigour.

The manuscript inconsistently employs the terms "PR Campaigns" and "Public Relations Campaigns." To enhance clarity and professionalism, the authors must standardise vocabulary throughout the manuscript. Due to the scholarly context of the article, the more official designation "Public Relations Campaigns" is appropriate.

The transition between paragraphs, particularly in the literature review and discussion parts, is frequently jarring, undermining the overall consistency of the argument. Enhanced transitions would greatly improve readability and logical coherence. Readers may find it challenging to comprehend the progression of essential concepts without more explicit connections between sections.

Although the sample size (N = 784, useable = 712) is excellent and offers a solid foundation for statistical analysis, the study lacks adequate information concerning the validation of the survey instrument. The status of the elements regarding piloting, expert evaluation, or pre-testing remains ambiguous. Simply referencing existing research is inadequate; elucidating the adaptation or validation of the items for the present situation will enhance the study's credibility.

The authors present an SRMR (Standardised Root Mean Square Residual) value of 0.143, which they deem acceptable according to a proposed threshold of <0.85. This seems to be a considerable misconception. The generally accepted threshold for SRMR is <0.08 for an adequate model fit. A result of 0.143 indicates inadequate model fit and diminishes the trustworthiness of the structural equation model. The authors are urged to reevaluate the model utilising appropriate threshold values and contemplate the exclusion of low-loading components to enhance fit.

The manuscript presents the Theory of Planned Behaviour but fails to adequately incorporate its elements within the framework of Public Relations tactics. The concept of "Perceived Behavioural Control" (PBC), integral to the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), is neither distinctly defined nor operationalised within the Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) framework. The authors should explicitly connect each TPB component to the characteristics or results of PR efforts and illustrate how these links were modelled and quantified.

The manuscript has multiple occurrences of superfluous repetition, particularly in the abstract and discussion sections. This diminishes the efficacy and influence of the communication. The authors ought to refine these sections to remove redundancies and enhance conciseness while maintaining clarity.

Supplementary Suggestions

The authors ought to eliminate items with low factor loadings and re-evaluate the model to improve construct validity and overall model fit.

The manuscript would significantly benefit from professional editing by a native English speaker to enhance grammar, syntax, and overall clarity. Numerous sentences are inelegant or ambiguous, undermining the academic appearance.

The document mentions an Egyptian sample but provides little information regarding its origin, demographics, and significance. The discourse on cultural ramifications is scant. A comprehensive elucidation of the Egyptian context and its possible impact on TPB constructions and PR outcomes is essential for an international audience.

Efforts must be undertaken to enhance theoretical integration by explicitly connecting each TPB construct—particularly PBC—to practical components of Public Relations initiatives. Incorporating examples or case studies would be beneficial.

The manuscript need improved formatting for uniformity and clarity. Incorporating sample survey items in an appendix or table would assist readers in evaluating the quality and pertinence of the measures.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript would significantly benefit from professional editing by a native English speaker to enhance grammar, syntax, and overall clarity. Numerous sentences are inelegant or ambiguous, undermining the academic appearance.

Author Response

My sincere greetings and appreciation to the esteemed editorial board of the journal, and my sincere thanks and appreciation to the reviewers of the research for their time, effort, and valuable comments. Regarding the reviewers' comments, it should be noted at the outset that the required amendments were made for  second reviewer in (yellow):

For the Second Reviewer:

• Regarding the note on the use of the term "PR Campaigns," the term suggested by the reviewer, "Public Relations Campaigns," has already been used and standardized throughout the research article. (Modified)
• Regarding the overall structure of the research and transitions between sections, the entire research has been modified and restructured, and organized in accordance with the reviewer's vision. (Modified)
• Regarding the sample size and instrument, a validation and reliability test has been added to the instrument used in the research. (Modified)
• Regarding the SRMR value, this error has already been addressed by taking a series of measures to correct the model and referencing them within the research. (Modified)
• Regarding the Theory of Planned Behavior, the theoretical axes that contribute to testing the research hypotheses were used in accordance with previous studies; this has been referred to within the research.
• Regarding the repetition and lack of organization in the abstract and discussion of the results, this section has been reworded and duplicates have been removed. (Modified)
• The detailed description of the sample, particularly the Egyptian sample, has also been noted. The journal's services will also be utilized to refine and improve the language and overall format of the research. (Modified)

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some minor editing for clarity and readability is needed.  

Author Response

My sincere greetings and appreciation to the esteemed editorial board of the journal, and my sincere thanks and appreciation to the reviewers of the research for their time, effort, and valuable comments. Regarding the reviewers' comments, it should be noted at the outset that the required amendments were made for the third reviewer in (turquoise).

For the Third Reviewer:

• Regarding the abstract, it has been rewritten to align with the journal and the reviewer's opinion. Its elements have also been properly rearranged, as suggested by the reviewer. (Modified).
• The sample number and location have been indicated in the abstract, as requested by the reviewer. (Modified).
• The title "Introduction" has been changed to "Background," and "M Dash" has been removed. (Modified)
• Regarding the "Literature Review," more details and recent studies have been added to the theoretical framework in its various sections, clarifying the research gap, as requested by the reviewer. (Modified)
• In the methodology, the sample, its nature, and location have been described. (Modified)
• A table detailing the demographic characteristics of the sample has been included. (Modified)
• The discussion of the results has been reorganized and placed before the abstract, as requested by the reviewer. (Modified).
• More references have been added to deepen the theoretical framework of the research and clarify the research gap. (Modified)

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please complete Fig 1. 

The revisions have addressed the comments from the first review. 

No other revisions are suggested. 

 

Author Response

My sincere greetings and appreciation to the esteemed editorial board of the journal, and my sincere thanks and appreciation to the reviewers of the research for their time, effort, and valuable comments.

We especially thank you for your time and valuable comments on the research paper during the two review phases. We have already made all the changes, including the final one to the description of Figure 1, which is highlighted in turquoise.
Regards.

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 Authors

Glad to review this paper (sustainability-3476279). Thanks for your patience. The present report investigated the public relations for university students’ perspective on environmental tendencies. However, the contribution of the paper is not clear and not outstanding. Some representations are not rigorous or standardized, which should have been checked carefully before submitting. Hence, I have to recommend the current paper to give a REJECTION feedback to the Editor. The blow comments are to help improve further. 

Main problems:

i.          Handling a report and investigation, what did the authors study? Only a superficial feeling and public perception did not belong to the theoretical research field. Generally speaking, the entire work is too inadequate, which lacks necessary research efforts.

ii.          The questionnaires were from January 2024 to March 2024. Why did the authors choose this period? In terms of ‘with a 0.05 degree of error is expected’, how did you obtain finally?

iii.          With regards to Section 3.3, what did they have different impacts on various colleges? Why did the authors focus on these differentiated colleges but did not analyze at all at the rear?

iv.          In the whole paper, there are no formulas to indicate what results were derived from. Should have added it to the modeling section.

v.          With regards to ‘indicating a robust influence of PR campaigns on behavioral intention toward environmental sustainability’, what robustness did the authors find and where?  

vi.          As regards the values in Table 5, they are too low. As we can see, 0.004 and 0.078 denote uncorrelated performance, right? However, for Table 5, the authors did not explain and analyze.

vii.          Finally, the authors should rewrite Section 4, which would have made a quantitative analysis rather than provided common sense. The latter is useless to study.

 

Minor issues:

1. When you used ‘PR’ on Line 20 at first, should have given a full name rather than on L21.

2. The citation of references is also highly irregular, both in the context and in Sec ‘References’.

 

3. Table 3 had typeface errors. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language quality should improve further. 

Author Response

My sincere greetings and appreciation to the esteemed editorial board of the journal, and my sincere thanks and appreciation to the reviewers of the research for their time, effort, and valuable comments. Regarding the reviewers' comments, it should be noted at the outset that the required amendments were made for the first reviewer and shaded in (green):

For the first Reviewer:

• Regarding the first note, related to deepening the research topic, more in-depth details have been added to the research, its components, and summary. (Modified)
• Regarding the time period for implementing the questionnaire, the researchers settled on the period from January 2024 to March 2024, given the presence of several important international forums and conferences on climate and environmental issues held at that time in various regions of the Arab world. Therefore, implementing the questionnaire during this period was timely. (Modified)
• Regarding the colleges in which the questionnaire was implemented, the researchers were careful to select a diverse sample that included students with different majors, so that the sample would represent various forms of education, enabling the results to be generalized.
• The fourth note, regarding the results obtained, has been added to the research. (Modified)
• Regarding the strong impact of public relations campaigns on behavioral intentions, it has been interpreted. (Modified)
• Regarding the values ​​in Table 5, they were reviewed, and indeed, there was an error in some of the table's data. The original statistical analysis file was reviewed and the error corrected. (Modified)
• Regarding the rewriting of Section (4). (Modified)
• Amendments were also made to other secondary notes. (Modified)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper uses PLS-SEM methods to highlight the vital contribution of public relations campaigns in encouraging environmental awareness and promoting pro-environmental behaviors within educational settings. The author found that public relations campaigns positively affect students' environmental education, awareness, attitude, and behavioral intention by investigating university students in the UAE and Egypt. In addition, the author combines the theory of planned behavior with studying PR strategies in environmental disciplines to fill the gap.

It is an interesting and relevant topic. There are several points that I wish can help the authors.

1. In the abstract section, the author provides an overview of the research content and conclusions of the article. Still, there is a lack of explanation of the contribution of this article. This may not easily attract readers' interest in reading. It is recommended that the contribution of this article be included in the abstract section.

2. While the overall structure is sound, the transitions between sections could be smoother. Adding clear linking sentences between paragraphs and sections would improve the logical flow of the paper.

3. The abbreviation "i.,e.," in line 143 is inappropriate. It is suggested that the meaning be changed to "e.g.,"

4. In line 204 of the paper, "employing parametric tests is suitable for current research." However, the data in this paper did not pass the normality test, and PLS-SEM has the characteristics of non-parametric estimation. Consider changing "parametric tests" to "non-parametric tests."

 

I hope these comments will help the authors to enhance the article.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

My sincere greetings and appreciation to the esteemed editorial board of the journal, and my sincere thanks and appreciation to the reviewers of the research for their time, effort, and valuable comments. Regarding the reviewers' comments, it should be noted at the outset that the required amendments were made for  the second reviewer in (yellow)

For the Second Reviewer:

• Regarding the abstract, the contribution of the article has been added to the research summary. (Modified)
• Regarding the overall structure of the research and the transition between sections, the entire research has been revised and restructured, and organized according to the reviewer's vision. (Modified)
• The abbreviation "i.,e.," has been corrected. (Modified)
• Regarding the fourth note, the normal distribution test has been added, and the description of the tests has been changed from parametric to nonparametric. (Modified)

ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author:

It is a great honor to participate in the investigation of the Role of Public Relations Campaigns in Environment Awareness among University Students "article review work. This paper aims to explore the role of public relations activities in raising environmental awareness among university students in the UAE and Egypt. The article has a novel topic and scientific research method, which has certain academic value and practical significance.

For this article, I still have some questions for the authors to answer:

1. I am skeptical about the research structure model established by the authors. The academic, scientific, and profound nature of the model with the current number (4) as the variable must be explained with more powerful arguments.

2.Is there a causal relationship between education and Awareness, Attitude and Intention? According to the discussion in the second chapter, there is a causal relationship between attitude and intention in TPB.

3. The discussion must go deeper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I think the English is well expressed

Author Response

My sincere greetings and appreciation to the esteemed editorial board of the journal, and my sincere thanks and appreciation to the reviewers of the research for their time, effort, and valuable comments. Regarding the reviewers' comments, it should be noted at the outset that the required amendments were made for the third reviewer in (turquoise).

ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

For the Third Reviewer:

• Regarding the research model, it was used based on our knowledge of previous studies and our observation as researchers of this phenomenon, with justifications for its selection. (Modified)
• Regarding the relationship between education and awareness, attitude, and intention. (Modified)
• The third note, related to deepening the discussion, was modified, adding some comments and expanding the discussion of the results. (Modified)

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc