National Context Impacts on SDG Mapping Needs and Approaches in Higher Education, a Tri-National Comparison

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached file 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents the comparative analysis of SDG integration in higher education institutions across Canadian (Québec), French, and English contexts. In sum, the following issues should be clarified.

The study presents valuable case studies on contextual governance drivers and institutional responses to SDG measurement. However, the analysis remains largely descriptive, cataloging national frameworks and university-led initiatives without advancing a robust critical evaluation. The paper lacks a clear theoretical or conceptual lens to interpret the comparative findings meaningfully. This limits its contribution to existing scholarship on SDG implementation in higher education.  

Methodologically, the criteria for selecting these specific universities and contexts are not adequately justified, raising questions about representativeness. The description of data collection and analysis is vague, particularly regarding how workshop outcomes or policy documents were systematically examined. Without transparent methodology, the reliability of the comparative conclusions is compromised.  

Furthermore, the extensive background on national policies overshadows the core comparative analysis of institutional tools. The discussion of challenges in SDG mapping (e.g., linguistic barriers, resource disparities) is underdeveloped and lacks synthesis with the case studies. Claims about the "top-down" or "bottom-up" nature of approaches lack sufficient evidence from the data presented.  

The paper also misses opportunities to articulate practical implications. While testing methods across contexts is noted, no actionable recommendations emerge for adapting tools or improving cross-institutional collaboration. The conclusion does not sufficiently address the research questions or highlight transferable insights for policymakers or HEIs.  

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

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

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Universities can contribute substantially to sustainable development, and, thus, it is worth studying this topic, which is of international importance. Your manuscript addresses SDG in universities of three major countries and examines the related framework. Indeed, your research question is internationally important, and the topic of the manuscript is suitable to “Sustainability”. Some findings and interpretations will be interesting to the broad audience. However, the methodological foundation is not explained, interpretations are scarce, and the awareness of general literature is too limited. Indeed, your manuscript is promising, but it needs substantial re-development. I hope my comments will help you.

• Key words should not contain the words already present in the title. Why you mention artificial intelligence – this is irrelevant to the manuscript.
• Introduction, first line: is often seen – by whom? Cite, please.
• Your section 2 can be called as “Object of Study”, and true “Materials and Methods” does not exist. Indeed, this section is essential, and it should be added as a section 3. There, you have to indicate all sources of the information and then all analytical procedures (also criteria) that permitted to receive findings specified in “Results”.
• I’m sure you have more information to extend “Results”.
• Discussion MUST be related to the previous research experience. This means that you have to link your findings and their interpretations to what is known from the literature.
• Discussion: please, try to explain some principal findings, as well as similarities and differences of the universities. And how specific are your findings to THESE universities? May be the latter have some peculiarities that determine the reported patterns?
• Conclusions: please, list the main findings and interpretations and then present the limitations of your study and the perspectives for future research.
• References: too poor in basic sources, i.e., articles published in international journals.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No comments 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I'm fully satisfied with your revisions and responses and do not have additional queries.

At the stage of proof check, please, check the numbering of subsections - now you have two 4.2.