An Analysis of Factors Affecting University Reputation: A Case Study of Mongolian Universities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you dear authors for being so attentive to my comments.
The article has really become much better in my opinion.
However, one question remains unsolved: how does the reputation of the university derive from the social responsibility of the university by adding hypothesis 5? The model remained not visualized and not clear. But this is at the discretion of the editor.

Author Response

Comment 1:

Thank you dear authors for being so attentive to my comments.
The article has really become much better in my opinion.
However, one question remains unsolved: how does the reputation of the university derive from the social responsibility of the university by adding hypothesis 5? The model remained not visualized and not clear. But this is at the discretion of the editor.

Response 1:

As discussed in Section 2.7, the theory section, researchers generally agree that university social responsibility (USR) plays a key role in enhancing a university’s reputation. This idea was further supported by the results of our study, where Hypothesis 5 (H5) showed strong statistical significance across the different stakeholder models. Specifically, the alumni model showed a beta coefficient of ß = 0.827 (p = 0.000), the employer model ß = 0.797 (p = 0.000), and the parents model ß = 0.716 (p = 0.000).

If the quality of Figure 3, which displays the PLS algorithm test results for the university reputation model, appears unclear, please let us know. We would be glad to provide a higher-resolution version if needed.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for allowing me to revise the manuscript entitled "The Analysis of Factors Affecting University Reputation: Case Study of Mongolian Universities". I recognized very quickly that I had evaluated an earlier version of this manuscript a short while ago.

I have noticed that this version has been improved from the previous one. The revision of some sections and the additional clarifications have brought more clarity to the manuscript.

However, I have several observations listed below:

The introduction, working hypotheses and discussion of results should be 'in tune' in terms of identifying the main aim or objective of the study and how this is achieved.

The Introduction mentions three research questions (which are actually four).

The first four working hypotheses are related to the second research question (factors influence the increase in university social responsibility) and the last one to the first part of the third research question.

The results discussed show that all five proposed hypotheses are supported and that the study answers the three questions, but it is not clear how they are related to each other.

It is not sufficiently clear how the theoretical framework has been used to identify the factors that contribute to increase university social responsibility. Not enough effort has been made to show why and how these factors were selected. When referring to the limitations of the study, the authors list other factors that influence USR and could have been considered, without indicating why they were not taken into account in this research.

The presentation of results is concise but should be better interpreted in the light of previous research and the working hypotheses.

Author Response

Comment 1: The introduction, working hypotheses and discussion of results should be 'in tune' in terms of identifying the main aim or objective of the study and how this is achieved. 

Response 1: Based on your comment, we have added the following clarification to the introduction in lines 50-52, 63-70. 

Reputation is a reflection of quality, and at the same time, the quality of education is one of the key goals of sustainable development.

For instance, the long-term strategic plan for sustainable development of the country includes the goal of improving the quality of universities by establishing their rankings and promoting their recognition internationally. Within this goal, it has become important to assess the reputation of universities via the participation of their external stakeholders, such as alumni, parents and employers. In other words, alumni can determine the reputation of their own universities, parents can assess the institutions where their children studied, and employers can evaluate the universities where their employees graduated from based on their professional behavior, career advantages, and overall competence.

Comment 2: The Introduction mentions three research questions (which are actually four).

Response 2: We have revised the research question 3 (RQ3) based on your comment and merged the   duplicate ones into a single question. These changes do not affect or contradict the overall conclusions of the study.

RQ3: How does the social responsibility of HEIs affect the university reputation based on various stakeholder perspectives?

Comment 3: The first four working hypotheses are related to the second research question (factors influence the increase in university social responsibility) and the last one to the first part of the third research question.

Response 3: Yes, our research questionnaire consists of three main questions. The first question summarizes the research hypothesis and asks: How can higher education institutions contribute to sustainable development through social responsibility? We believe that HEI contribution to sustainable development is closely linked to enhancing their social responsibility.

The second question focuses on identifying the key factors that influence the development of social responsibility. Through this study, we attempt to demonstrate that HEIs in Mongolia need a deeper understanding of these influencing factors in order to develop effective strategies that support and strengthen their social responsibility efforts.

Regarding the third question, you pointed out that it contained two parts, which could potentially confuse readers. Based on your comment, we have revised and combined it into a single, clearer question to improve clarity and alignment with the study's objectives.

Comment 4: The results discussed show that all five proposed hypotheses are supported and that the study answers the three questions, but it is not clear how they are related to each other.

Response 4: We accepted your suggestion and added the following explanation to lines 413-432:

Based on the study results, we were able to answer the second research question as follows. For the total sample, the following factors showed a positive and statistically significant influence on university social responsibility (USR): teacher reputation (TR: β = 0.307), alumni reputation (AR: β = 0.153), research and innovation (R&I: β = 0.235), and cooperation (CO: β = 0.267).

This finding was consistent across stakeholder groups: 

TR → USR (H1): Alumni (β = 0.297), Employers (β = 0.159), Parents (β = 0.339).  This suggests that graduates and parents have a closer relationship with teachers than employers, and therefore perceive a stronger influence from teacher-related factors.
AR → USR (H2): Alumni (β = 0.152), Employers (β = 0.196), Parents (β = 0.147). The results show that administrative responsibility has a relatively similar level of influence across all stakeholder groups.

R&I → USR (H3): Alumni (β = 0.192), Employers (β = 0.272), Parents (β = 0.242). This indicates that research, development, and innovation activities have a stronger impact on employers and parents. It highlights the importance for universities to collaborate with industries and government bodies to boost their reputation and contribute more effectively to sustainable development.

CO → USR (H4): Alumni (β = 0.330), Employers (β = 0.330), Parents (β = 0.229). Internal and external collaboration is shown to be a significant factor for all stakeholders. Strengthening partnerships with domestic and international institutions, research centers, and industry players presents a valuable opportunity for universities to enhance their reputation and impact.

Comment 5: It is not sufficiently clear how the theoretical framework has been used to identify the factors that contribute to increase university social responsibility. Not enough effort has been made to show why and how these factors were selected. When referring to the limitations of the study, the authors list other factors that influence USR and could have been considered, without indicating why they were not taken into account in this research.

Response 5:  We have included a general theory content in lines 117–148 of the Literature Review and Hypothesis as you previously suggested. To identify the theoretical basis for each variable, we have structured the theory section as follows:

• Section 2.1: University Reputation  (UR)
• Section 2.2: University Social Responsibility (USR)

Additionally, we have outlined the key factors and their interrelationships in:

• Section 2.3: Teacher Reputation (TR) and University Social Responsibility
• Section 2.4: Alumni Reputation (AR) and University Social Responsibility
• Section 2.5: Research and Innovation (R&I) and University Social Responsibility (USR)
• Section 2.6: Cooperation (CO) and University Social Responsibility (USR)
• Section 2.7: University Social Responsibility (USR) and University Reputation (UR)

Following your advice, we have also added the following clarification in lines 294–310:

Based on the hypotheses and theories proposed by prior researchers (17-21), we identified the main factors that influence university social responsibility: teacher reputation, alumni reputation, research and innovation, and internal/external cooperation. For university stakeholders, the activities and outcomes of teaching and research are seen as the services and responsibilities the university provides to society. For instance, the professional contributions of teachers and alumni play a vital role in shaping society, organizations, individuals, and governments. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that reputable teachers and alumni enhance a university’s overall social responsibility. Furthermore, internal and external cooperation, along with innovative initiatives, are viewed as key factors of a university’s responsibility to society. By engaging in partnerships with industry, government, other academic institutions, and the broader public, universities can play an active role in addressing social and economic challenges. Based on this theoretical perspective, we present the following hypothetical model for our study.

Comment 6: The presentation of results is concise but should be better interpreted in the light of previous research and the working hypotheses.

Response 6: In the conclusion section of our study, we aimed to interpret the research findings by comparing them with the conclusions of previous researchers. Following your suggestion (lines 441–455), we have added additional explanations in lines 407-426.

PS: Please check the updated version maniscript which has been updated in response to the comments from all reviewers. Thank you for your time and support throughout this process.  

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is a case study on the influencing factors of the reputation of Mongolian universities. Based on the survey of alumni, employers and parents, through the analysis of the structural equation model, it explores the influence of factors such as teacher reputation, alumni reputation, research and innovation, and cooperation on the social reputation and overall reputation of the university, and emphasizes the mediating role of social responsibility in the reputation of the university. And it provided strategic suggestions for the sustainable development of higher education in Mongolia. There are the following problems in this article. It is suggested that the author make revisions.

1.The depth of the research background and literature review. Although the article mentioned the current situation of higher education in Mongolia and the importance of university reputation, the review of the existing literature was not in-depth enough, especially the international research on university reputation and social responsibility.

Suggestion: Further expand the literature review section to systematically summarize the latest research progress internationally on university reputation, social responsibility, and the perspective of stakeholders, in order to better identify the innovation points and contributions of this paper.

 

2. The theoretical basis of the research hypothesis. The proposal of some hypotheses lacks sufficient theoretical support, especially regarding the influence of factors such as teachers' reputation and alumni reputation on the social responsibility of universities.

Suggestion: When putting forward hypotheses, elaborate in detail on the theoretical basis of each hypothesis, for instance, by citing relevant theoretical frameworks (such as stakeholder theory, social exchange theory, etc.) to enhance the rationality of the hypotheses.

 

3. Representativeness of sample selection. The research sample is limited to 66 universities in Mongolia and mainly focuses on three stakeholder groups: alumni, employers and parents. The representativeness of the sample may be limited.

Suggestion: Discuss the limitations of sample selection and consider whether the universality of the research results can be enhanced by increasing the sample size or expanding to other types of higher education institutions.

 

4. The detail of data collection methods. The description of the data collection process in the article is rather brief, especially on how to ensure the validity and reliability of the questionnaire.

Suggestion: Provide a detailed description of the questionnaire design, pre-test and validation process, including how to ensure the reliability and validity of the questionnaire. Meanwhile, provide the specific time range and method details for data collection.

 

5. Interpretation of the structural equation model. Although the article used the Structural Equation Model (SEM) for data analysis, the explanation of the model was not detailed enough, especially the explanation of the mediating effect.

Suggestion: In the discussion section, explain the results of the structural equation model in detail, including the specific meanings of the path coefficients, R² values, and mediating effects. Meanwhile, further explain the significance of these results in combination with actual cases or data.

 

6. Balance from the perspective of stakeholders. The research only focused on the perspectives of external stakeholders (alumni, employers and parents), while ignoring the views of internal stakeholders (such as teachers, students and administrators).

Suggestion: In the subsequent research, consider incorporating the perspectives of internal stakeholders to obtain more comprehensive analytical results. If space is limited, this limitation can be raised in the discussion section and it is suggested that future research further explore it.

 

7. International comparison of research results. The research results are mainly based on higher education institutions in Mongolia and lack comparisons with other countries or regions.

Suggestion: In the discussion section, compare the research results with similar studies in other countries or regions to highlight the particularity and universality of higher education in Mongolia.

 

8. Practical significance of the empirical results. Although the research has made theoretical contributions, the discussion on practical significance is not in-depth enough.

Suggestion: In the discussion section, elaborate in detail on the specific practical significance of the research results for Mongolian higher education policymakers, university administrators and stakeholders. For example, how to formulate strategies to enhance the reputation and social responsibility of universities based on research results.

 

9. Verification of research hypotheses. Although all the hypotheses were supported, the article did not discuss in detail the possible situations where the hypotheses did not hold.

Suggestion: In the discussion section, conduct a more in-depth analysis of each hypothesis, including possible explanations when the hypothesis does not hold. This will help enhance the rigor of the research.

 

10. Limitations of the research methods. The article discusses less about the limitations of the research methods.

Suggestion: In the discussion section, the limitations of the research methods should be discussed in detail, such as the bias in sample selection, the limitations of data collection, and the hypothetical conditions of the structural equation model. Meanwhile, propose the directions that can be improved in future research.

 

11. Robustness test of Research results The article did not conduct a robustness test on the research results.

Suggestion: In the data analysis section, add the content of robustness tests, such as verifying the robustness of the results through cross-validation or using different statistical methods. This will help enhance the credibility of the research results.

 

12. The innovation and contribution of the research. Although the article points out that this is the first empirical study on university reputation in Mongolia, the summary of the innovation and contribution of the research is not prominent enough.

Suggestion: In the conclusion section, summarize the innovation points of this paper and its contribution to existing research more clearly. For example, emphasize the uniqueness of this paper in combining the stakeholder perspective and structural equation model analysis, as well as its specific contribution to the sustainable development of higher education in Mongolia.

Author Response

Comment 1: The depth of the research background and literature review. Although the article mentioned the current situation of higher education in Mongolia and the importance of university reputation, the review of the existing literature was not in-depth enough, especially the international research on university reputation and social responsibility.

Response 1: We have attempted to present the theoretical part of the study in sections 117-309. We have included additional explanatory sections 62-70, 294-306, as you suggested.

Comment 2: The theoretical basis of the research hypothesis. The proposal of some hypotheses lacks sufficient theoretical support, especially regarding the influence of factors such as teachers' reputation and alumni reputation on the social responsibility of universities.

Response 2:  We have included a general theory content in lines 117–148 of the Literature Review and Hypothesis as you previously suggested. To identify the theoretical basis for each variable, we have structured the theory section as follows:

• Section 2.1: University Reputation  (UR)
• Section 2.2: University Social Responsibility (USR)

Additionally, we have outlined the key factors and their interrelationships in:

• Section 2.3: Teacher Reputation (TR) and University Social Responsibility
• Section 2.4: Alumni Reputation (AR) and University Social Responsibility
• Section 2.5: Research and Innovation (R&I) and University Social Responsibility (USR)
• Section 2.6: Cooperation (CO) and University Social Responsibility (USR)
• Section 2.7: University Social Responsibility (USR) and University Reputation (UR)

Following your advice, we have also added the following clarification in lines 289–301:

“Based on the hypotheses and theories proposed by prior researchers [17,18,19, 20, 21], we identified the main factors that influence university social responsibility: teacher reputation, alumni reputation, research and innovation, and internal/external cooperation. For university stakeholders, the activities and outcomes of teaching and research are seen as the services and responsibilities the university provides to society. For instance, the professional contributions of teachers and alumni play a vital role in shaping society, organizations, individuals, and governments. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that reputable teachers and alumni enhance a university’s overall social responsibility. Furthermore, internal and external cooperation, along with innovative initiatives, are viewed as key factors of a university’s responsibility to society. By engaging in partnerships with industry, government, other academic institutions, and the broader public, universities can play an active role in addressing social and economic challenges. Based on this theoretical perspective, we present the following hypothetical model for our study". 

Comment 3: Representativeness of sample selection. The research sample is limited to 66 universities in Mongolia and mainly focuses on three stakeholder groups: alumni, employers and parents. The representativeness of the sample may be limited.

Response 3: As you suggested, section 3.2 of the article has been added as follows:

A total of 66 higher education institutions (HEIs) are currently engaged in providing higher education in Mongolia. As part of efforts to rank Mongolian universities in line with Sustainable Development Goal 4, a university reputation survey was conducted for the first time, with evaluations based exclusively on input from external stakeholders.

To ensure accessibility, inclusiveness, and reliability, the survey employed a convenience sampling method and was administered online via the platform https://high.eec.mn. Respondents included alumni, parents, and employers who were registered at the participating universities.

A total of 7,240 people participated in the survey, but data was cleaned up, including incomplete questionnaires, errors, ineligibility, and questionable age limits for some participants, and 5,902 original data were selected as a sample for analysis.

Therefore, we believe that the scope of the survey should be expanded to include internal stakeholders. By incorporating their feedback, addressing diverse needs, and implementing these insights into institutional practices, universities can further strengthen their contribution to sustainable development. We have included this idea in our limitation in line  497-505. 

Comment 4: The detail of data collection methods. The description of the data collection process in the article is rather brief, especially on how to ensure the validity and reliability of the questionnaire.

Response 4: Based on your suggestions, we have revised and improved section 3.2 of the article in lines 322-330.

A total of 66 higher education institutions (HEIs) are currently engaged in providing higher education in Mongolia. As part of efforts to rank Mongolian universities in line with Sustainable Development Goal 4, a university reputation survey was conducted for the first time, with evaluations based exclusively on input from external stakeholders. To ensure accessibility, inclusiveness, and reliability, the survey employed a convenience sampling method and was administered online via the platform https://high.eec.mn. Respondents included alumni, parents, and employers who were registered at the participating universities.

Comment 5: Interpretation of the structural equation model. Although the article used the Structural Equation Model (SEM) for data analysis, the explanation of the model was not detailed enough, especially the explanation of the mediating effect.

Response 5: We accepted your suggestion and added the following explanation to lines 406-424.

“Based on the study results, we were able to answer the second research question as follows. For the total sample, the following factors showed a positive and statistically significant influence on university social responsibility (USR): teacher reputation (TR: β = 0.307), alumni reputation (AR: β = 0.153), research and innovation (R&I: β = 0.235), and cooperation (CO: β = 0.267).

This finding was consistent across stakeholder groups: TR → USR (H1): Alumni (β = 0.297), Employers (β = 0.159), Parents (β = 0.339). This suggests that graduates and parents have a closer relationship with teachers than employers, and therefore perceive a stronger influence from teacher-related factors. AR → USR (H2): Alumni (β = 0.152), Employers (β = 0.196), Parents (β = 0.147). The results show that administrative responsibility has a relatively similar level of influence across all stakeholder groups. R&I → USR (H3): Alumni (β = 0.192), Employers (β = 0.272), Parents (β = 0.242). This indicates that research, development, and innovation activities have a stronger impact on employers and parents. It highlights the importance for universities to collaborate with industries and government bodies to boost their reputation and contribute more effectively to sustainable development. CO → USR (H4): Alumni (β = 0.330), Employers (β = 0.330), Parents (β = 0.229).  Internal and external collaboration is shown to be a significant factor for all stakeholders. Strengthening partnerships with domestic and international institutions, research centers, and industry players presents a valuable opportunity for universities to enhance their reputation and impact."

Comment 6: Balance from the perspective of stakeholders. The research only focused on the perspectives of external stakeholders (alumni, employers and parents), while ignoring the views of internal stakeholders (such as teachers, students and administrators).

Response 6: A total of 66 higher education institutions (HEIs) are currently engaged in providing higher education in Mongolia. As part of efforts to rank Mongolian universities in line with Sustainable Development Goal 4, a university reputation survey was conducted for the first time, with evaluations based exclusively on input from external stakeholders.

The survey was conducted using a convenience sampling method from alumni, parents, and employers registered at the participating universities and administered online via the platform https://high.eec.mn, taking into account the accessibility, inclusion, and reliability of the participants. However, the importance of more actively involving internal stakeholders in future research has been emphasized in lines 497-505.

Comment 7: International comparison of research results. The research results are mainly based on higher education institutions in Mongolia and lack comparisons with other countries or regions.

Response 7: Please note that this study is the first of its kind in the higher education sector in Mongolia, which limits our ability to make direct comparisons with other domestic research. 

However, we agree with your comment that future research should take comparisons into account.

Comment 8: Practical significance of the empirical results. Although the research has made theoretical contributions, the discussion on practical significance is not in-depth enough.

Response 8: Based on the results of the study, we have included this in the research conclusion section, but we believe that this is not sufficient to provide practical recommendations as you suggested, so we have made the following additional clarifications in the line 538-544,

In the future, this study offers the following two practical recommendations to higher education policymakers and higher education institutions. 

1. Adopt key influencing factors as criteria for evaluating university reputation. These may include:
   
   
• Teacher reputation (e.g., number of research publications, faculty with a high H-index, total citations)
  
  
• Alumni reputation (e.g., employment rate, salary levels, job positions, career longevity)
  
  
• National and international collaboration (e.g., joint training and research projects, student exchanges, external funding)
  
  
• Socially driven innovations (e.g., solutions addressing social challenges, educational innovations, technological contributions, measurable social impact)
2. Develop a strategic plan to enhance both university reputation and social responsibility. This includes focusing on improving the institution’s standing at national and regional levels, promoting high-quality research and innovation, and establishing partnership frameworks with government and public organizations. These partnerships can help initiate and implement community-based programs, particularly in areas related to environmental sustainability and social development.

To ensure transparency and reliability in evaluation, feedback should be collected through a convenience sampling approach, incorporating both external stakeholders (such as employers, alumni, and parents) and internal stakeholders (such as students, faculty, and administrators).

Comment 9: Verification of research hypotheses. Although all the hypotheses were supported, the article did not discuss in detail the possible situations where the hypotheses did not hold.

Response 9: This study has been summarized in sections 451-473 of the conclusions section. As you suggested, new conclusions have been included in lines 538-546.

Comment 10: Limitations of the research methods. The article discusses less about the limitations of the research methods.

Response 10: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have added the following content to the 3. Materials and Methods section of the article as suggested by you.

Social sciences have relied on complex models that examine the relationships between observed and latent variables through covariance analysis for decades. However, in recent years, there has been a growing shift toward the use of the PLS SEM (Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling) approach, as highlighted by Hair et al. (2017b) because the PLS SEM model provides the ability to analyze complex causal models and conduct path analysis. In addition, PLS SEM is very suitable for exploratory research with secondary data, it offers the flexibility needed for interplay between theory and data (Nitzl, 2016).  Akter et al (2017) noted that most prior research on sample size requirements in PLS-SEM overlooked the fact that the method also proves valuable for analysing large quantities. Indirect stakeholders evaluation is important in assessing the quality of education. We used external stakeholders in our research to determine the UR. UR is a representation of how stakeholders—such as alumni, employers, and parents—evaluate it. In Mongolia, there is limited research on this topic, and studies have yet to explore UR and USR through the perspective of these three stakeholders.

Comment 11:  Robustness test of Research results The article did not conduct a robustness test on the research results.

Suggestion: In the data analysis section, add the content of robustness tests, such as verifying the robustness of the results through cross-validation or using different statistical methods. This will help enhance the credibility of the research results.

Response 11: We conducted two types of analyses in the analysis of the research data: metrological and structural. The results of the metrological model analysis are presented in Tables 2 and 3. The results of the AVE and CR(rho_c) in these tables are explained in lines 367-409. The results of the structural model analysis are explained in the following analyses. For example, the results of the VIF analysis can be seen in Table 4. We conducted the analysis in section 434-440 as recommended by you and added explanations. 

“In addition, this study carried out a robustness check of the PLS-SEM model (Hair et al. 2018). To evaluate the model’s predictive accuracy, we used the method introduced by Shmueli et al. (2016), which applies PLS path modeling. Based on this approach, a PLSpredict/CVAT analysis was conducted (Table 7). The results showed that both the coefficient of determination (R²) and the cross-validated predictive ability (Q²) were significantly greater than zero, suggesting that the proposed model demonstrates strong predictive capability.”

Comment 12: The innovation and contribution of the research. Although the article points out that this is the first empirical study on university reputation in Mongolia, the summary of the innovation and contribution of the research is not prominent enough.

Response 12: We accepted your suggestion and added the following explanation to lines 496-499, 554-560, 508-516.

The results of the study confirm that universities can increase their social standing and thereby enhance their reputation through the reputation of their teachers and alumni, the benefits of internal and external cooperation of the institution, and the research and innovation work of academics and researchers. Our study demonstrates that it is possible to systematically measure university reputation based on participatory evaluation of stakeholders and is characterized by the innovative use of the PLS-SEM model in the research methodology. Furthermore, it is important to establish basic evaluation indicators for assessing university reputation in order to determine the contribution of higher education institutions to the sustainable development of the country.

< !--a=1-->

< !--a=1-->

< !--a=1-->

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The limitations of the research design. The research is based only on the perspectives of external stakeholders (alumni, employers, and parents), while ignoring the views of internal stakeholders (such as students, teachers, and administrators). This single perspective may limit the comprehensiveness of the research results.

2. The research adopted a convenient sampling method, which may not fully represent the actual situation of all higher education institutions in Mongolia. Furthermore, the proportions of alumni, employers, and parents in the sample vary greatly, which may affect the balance of the results.

3. Although the research has taken into account key factors such as faculty reputation, alumni reputation, research and innovation, and collaboration, the definitions and measurements of these variables may be too broad. For instance, "research and innovation" may encompass a variety of different activities and outcomes, which are not clearly distinguished in research.

4. Although the research verified the mediating role of university social responsibility (USR) between the independent variable and the dependent variable, it did not deeply explore its potential mediating mechanism. For instance, how does USR influence the reputation of universities through specific social responsibility activities (such as community service, environmental protection projects, etc.)?

5.It is suggested to quote, "How can generative artificial intelligence technology empower college teachers to improve teaching ability?" Journal of Modern Educational Theory and Practice, 2024; Challenges and strategies for university students’ ideological and political education in the digital economy era. Journal of Modern Education and Culture, 2024; Does the opening of high-speed rails improve urban carbon efficiency? Evidence from a spatial difference-in-difference method. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2023.

6.The research is limited to higher education institutions in Mongolia and lacks comparisons with other countries or regions. This might limit the universality and international influence of the research results.

7.The data collection for the research might have been completed within a relatively short period of time, which might not reflect long-term trends or dynamic changes. It is suggested that in future research, a longitudinal research design can be considered to collect data from different time periods in order to observe the changing trends of university reputation and university social responsibility over time.

8. Although the research has made theoretical contributions, the suggestions for practical application are rather general and lack specific implementation strategies. It is suggested that in the subsequent research, more operational practical suggestions should be put forward in combination with actual cases. For instance, it can be suggested how universities can enhance the reputation of their faculty, alumni, research and innovation capabilities, and level of collaboration through specific projects or activities.

9.Additionally, it is possible to consider collaborating with education policymakers to transform research results into specific policy recommendations in order to promote the sustainable development of higher education institutions in Mongolia.

Author Response

Comments 1: [The limitations of the research design. The research is based only on the perspectives of external stakeholders (alumni, employers, and parents), while ignoring the views of internal stakeholders (such as students, teachers, and administrators). This single perspective may limit the comprehensiveness of the research results.]

Response 1: [That's a great point. I completely agree with your suggestion to include both internal and external stakeholders in university reputation surveys. Just like with university quality surveys, involving both groups significantly broadens the scope and improves the quality of the research. Universities regularly conduct internal satisfaction surveys with their students and faculty, often collaborating to develop specific action plans based on the results. This is a requirement for the Mongolian National Education Accreditation Criteria. While our current research focused solely on external stakeholders, we plan to expand our approach to include both internal and external perspectives in the future. This will give us a much more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of university reputation.]

Comments 2: [The research adopted a convenient sampling method, which may not fully represent the actual situation of all higher education institutions in Mongolia. Furthermore, the proportions of alumni, employers, and parents in the sample vary greatly, which may affect the balance of the results.]

Response 2: [Yes, we can accept this situation. However, this study, conducted in collaboration with the Mongolian State Educational Evaluation Organization, is the first study to rank the HEIs in Mongolia, as explained earlier.]

Comments 3: [ Although the research has taken into account key factors such as faculty reputation, alumni reputation, research and innovation, and collaboration, the definitions and measurements of these variables may be too broad. For instance, "research and innovation" may encompass a variety of different activities and outcomes, which are not clearly distinguished in research.]

Response 3: [The theory of the above-mentioned variable used in the study was included in sections 146–300. While university research and innovation indicators are usually measured using multiple quantitative and qualitative metrics, in our case, we asked stakeholders to evaluate this based on the university's academic and research reputation, its contribution to knowledge creation, and participation in producing new products or innovations in the socio-economic context. This evaluation was collected using a 1–5 rating scale. Going forward, we plan to measure our research using both quantitative and qualitative indicators. Thank you for your advice.]

Comments 4: Although the research verified the mediating role of university social responsibility (USR) between the independent variable and the dependent variable, it did not deeply explore its potential mediating mechanism. For instance, how does USR influence the reputation of universities through specific social responsibility activities (such as community service, environmental protection projects, etc.)?

Response 4: [ In this study, we used university social responsibility as a mediator variable. This is because activities organized by academic staff in collaboration with students—such as tree growing, waste recycling, helping the elderly, and protecting wildlife—as well as research, projects, and programs implemented jointly with alumni based on social needs, play an important role in enhancing social responsibility. Therefore, our hypothesis—that the actions of university faculty and alumni, along with their academic work and both domestic and international collaborations, contribute to increased social responsibility and, consequently, enhance the university's reputation—was supported. Universities are evaluated based on how actively and proactively they participate in social activities. We have discussed this in the conclusion section of the study.]

Comments 5: [ It is suggested to quote, "How can generative artificial intelligence technology empower college teachers to improve teaching ability?" Journal of Modern Educational Theory and Practice, 2024; Challenges and strategies for university students’ ideological and political education in the digital economy era. Journal of Modern Education and Culture, 2024; Does the opening of high-speed rails improve urban carbon efficiency? Evidence from a spatial difference-in-difference method. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2023.]

Response 5: [ We have read the articles you suggested. Among them, the article “How can generative artificial intelligence technology empower college teachers to improve teaching ability?” by Dao Gao and Jiajie Cai appears particularly relevant and useful for our new paper. Therefore, we consider it a suitable source to cite in our study on university teacher leadership, teaching competency, and teacher satisfaction. Although the other articles you recommended are not directly related to our research, we will carefully consider the ideas and initiatives they present. Thank you for your suggestion.]

Comments 6: [ The research is limited to higher education institutions in Mongolia and lacks comparisons with other countries or regions. This might limit the universality and international influence of the research results.]

Response 6:[ We defined the objective of our study as follows:

“To identify an important indicator of sustainable development—namely, university reputation—determine the factors that influence it, and develop an evaluation model based on stakeholder evaluation and participation.”

The hypothesis proposed within the scope of this research objective was statistically supported. However, we were unable to compare our findings with university reputation evaluations from other countries due to differences in national development levels and socio-economic conditions. We acknowledge this limitation, and we sincerely thank you for your valuable feedback, which has helped us improve the quality of our article. We will take this into careful consideration in future work.]

Comments 7: [ The data collection for the research might have been completed within a relatively short period of time, which might not reflect long-term trends or dynamic changes. It is suggested that in future research, a longitudinal research design can be considered to collect data from different time periods in order to observe the changing trends of university reputation and university social responsibility over time.]

Response 7: [ In response to your suggestion, we would like to provide the following additional clarification:

1. The data collection for the study was conducted over a period of six months. In future research, a longitudinal research design will be considered important.
   
   

Comments 8: [Although the research has made theoretical contributions, the suggestions for practical application are rather general and lack specific implementation strategies. It is suggested that in the subsequent research, more operational, practical suggestions should be put forward in combination with actual cases. For instance, it can be suggested how universities can enhance the reputation of their faculty, alumni, research and innovation capabilities, and level of collaboration through specific projects or activities.]

Response 8:[ Following the recommendations provided by you and other reviewers, we have included a suggestion in the conclusion section (lines 555–559) proposing that universities, for instance, establish dedicated centers to implement sustainable development policies on a broader scale. From our perspective, the advice given is somewhat general, as it reflects the overall capacity and classification of universities.]

Comments 9: [Additionally, it is possible to consider collaborating with education policymakers to transform research results into specific policy recommendations in order to promote the sustainable development of higher education institutions in Mongolia.]

Response 9:[ Based on your recommendations, we have proposed that universities focus on increasing the number of organizations with internal and external collaborations and incorporate them into their strategic goals. Please see lines 539-558.]

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no other opinions on this paper.

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

1. The article mentions the importance of university reputation and social responsibility to sustainable development in the introduction, but does not clearly point out the specific objectives of the research and the innovation points of the research questions. It is suggested that the introduction should more clearly state the specific objectives of the research (e.g., how to fill gaps in existing research) and the innovative and unique nature of the research question, especially its special significance in the context of higher education in Mongolia.
2. Although the model of university reputation and social responsibility is proposed in this paper, the theoretical basis is relatively weak, and relevant theories are not sufficiently cited to support the model construction. It is suggested to further improve the theoretical framework and reference more literatures on university reputation, social responsibility and stakeholder theory to enhance the theoretical basis and logic of the model.
3. The research samples are mainly from 66 universities in Mongolia, and the sample range may be narrow, and the randomness and representativeness of the samples are not mentioned. It is recommended to detail the randomness and representativeness of the sample selection and consider whether the generalizability of the findings can be enhanced by expanding the sample size (for example, increasing international comparisons).
4. Although structural equation modeling (SEM) and Smart PLS tools are mentioned, the specific steps of data processing and testing of model hypotheses are not explained in detail. It is recommended to describe in detail the data processing process, the testing of model hypotheses (such as polycollinearity tests, model fitting indicators, etc.) in the methods section, and explain why particular statistical tools and methods were chosen.
5. Although the mediating effect analysis verifies the mediating effect of university social responsibility, it does not deeply discuss the type of mediating effect (partially mediating or completely mediating). It is recommended to further analyze the types of mediating effects and discuss the differences in mediating effects among different stakeholder groups (alumni, employers, parents).
6. The article lacks references to sustainable development. It is recommended to quote Unlocking Carbon Reduction Potential of Digital Trade: Evidence from China’s Comprehensive Cross-border E-Commerce Pilot Zones. SAGE Open, 2025; Does the opening of high-speed rails improve urban carbon efficiency?  Evidence from a spatial difference-in-difference method[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2023; Tax policy and total factor carbon emission efficiency:  evidence from China’s VAT reform. International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022
7. The depth of the necessary condition analysis. This paper only draws the conclusion that there is no single necessary condition through consistency analysis, but does not further explore the potential necessity of each condition variable. It is suggested that in the necessary condition analysis, besides the consistency calculation, the performance of each condition variable under different thresholds should be deeply analyzed by combining the coverage and other indicators.
8. Configure the path interpretation function. This paper identifies a variety of configuration paths, but the explanation of these paths is more general, and the specific mechanism is not deeply discussed. You are advised to analyze the driving mechanism behind each configuration path based on actual cases or regional features.
9. Analysis of regional differences. Although different paths are identified in this paper, the impact of regional differences on industrial structure upgrading is not fully discussed. It is suggested that the discussion of regional differences should be added to the result analysis, such as whether there are significant differences in the upgrading paths of industrial structure in the eastern, central and western regions. This can be further validated by grouping analysis or case studies.
10. Diversity of robustness tests. The robustness test is carried out only by raising the consistency threshold, and the method is relatively simple. It is recommended to increase the diversity of robustness tests, such as by changing sample selection, introducing new condition variables, or adjusting data processing methods, to enhance the reliability of conclusions.
11. Pertinence of policy recommendations. The paper puts forward some policy suggestions in the discussion part, but it lacks pertinence and operability. According to the status quo of industrial structure and development goals of different regions, more targeted policy suggestions are proposed. For example, for areas with "weak infrastructure", it is suggested to start with basic education and infrastructure construction; For the "combination of science and technology and foreign trade" areas, it is recommended to strengthen the transformation of scientific and technological achievements and international market expansion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language of the article will benefit from a professional person or institution polishing

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposes an interesting model for assessing the reputation and social responsibility of a university based on specific factors. The results of the study are clearly presented and relevant and represent an interesting endeavor. However, I have some comments, which can be summarized as follows:

The introduction only mentions the issues to be examined, not the novelty or purpose of the study. The authors should state what is new and what specific hypotheses are being tested.

The presentation of results is concise but should be better interpreted in the light of previous research and working hypotheses. The paper relies on relevant scientific literature but does not make sufficient connections to it.

The limitations of the paper are well highlighted, but the implications of this study should be discussed in a broader context.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Introduction - The distinctiveness from existing literature is not sufficiently highlighted. There is a need to present more clearly the originality of this study in relation to previous research on university reputation. In particular, the significance of this research in the context of Mongolian higher education should be emphasized.

2. Methodology -
2-1) Although structural equation modeling technique was used, reporting of model fit indices (e.g., CFI, TLI, RMSEA) is missing. This is important information for assessing the validity of the model.

2-2) While mediation effect analysis results are presented, there is insufficient discussion on the comparison of direct and indirect effects sizes and total effects. This is necessary for a deeper understanding of the mediating role of university social responsibility. Results of significance testing for indirect effects through bootstrapping method should also be added.

3. The conclusion should be structured as key findings / academic implications and theoretical implications / limitations and future research.

4. The theoretical foundation of the paper is somewhat weak. There is a need to review existing theories on university reputation and social responsibility more in-depth, and to refine the research model based on this. Additionally, the operational definitions of key concepts (university reputation, social responsibility, etc.) are not clear. A discussion is needed on how these concepts are understood and applied in the context of Mongolian higher education.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Declarative nature of the abstract. The first and second sentences of the abstract are interrelated, but do not provide an evidence base.
The choice of factors influencing the reputation of the university is not substantiated. The paper researched only 2 papers (10 and11 from the reference list, lines 78-80 of the paper) on the factors. However, this is the key question of the paper and a proper selection of factors ensures objective conclusions in the study.
Very weak literature review in the area of university reputation. There are quite a lot of publications on the topic in serious scientific publications. The authors start the review with the concept of organization reputation, which worsens the perception of the article. We believe that the readers of the journal are quite literate people and do not need an introduction as for the level of a 1st year student.
The literature review on the topic of university social responsibility presents conclusions (lines 113-116) without relying on data sources.
The conclusion presented on lines 209-212 is not clear where it is drawn from. There was no mention of identity before these lines.
Figure 1 shows the proposed model of university reputation. It is not clear in the model how the reputation of the university is obtained from the social responsibility of the university by adding hypothesis 5. The model is not visual and not clear.
Paragraph 3 is not disclosed. The research methods are not presented. Only the tools are specified.
П. 4.1. No assessment of the representativeness of the sample population (respondents).
The scheme presented in Table 4 is not clear. It is not clear from the text of the article how to interpret these data.
According to the findings presented after Table 6, the authors believe that 75% of the university's reputation is ensured by the social responsibility of the university. As a reviewer, I cannot agree with this formulation, as there are other important reputational factors assessed by international ratings. In this regard, I believe that either the choice of factors was not objective, or the resulting factor in the study should be the social reputation of the university, as it is only one of the elements of the overall reputation of the university.