Connecting SDG 2: Zero Hunger with the Other SDGs—Teaching Food Security and the SDGs Interdependencies in Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript Connecting SDG 2: Zero Hunger with other SDGs appears to be a research project undertaken 'in house' i.e. reporting on data collected from students during tutorials. This has not been included in the abstract, nor is there any ethics approval number (that I can see) in the manuscript. Data cannot be published without ethics approval. 

Author Response

Dear REVIEWER 1,

Thank you for your valuable comments, which have helped us improve the quality of our article. 

Comment

The manuscript Connecting SDG 2: Zero Hunger with other SDGs appears to be a research project undertaken 'in house' ie reporting on data collected from students during tutorials. This has not been included in the abstract, nor is there any ethics approval number (that I can see) in the manuscript. Data cannot be published without ethics approval.

 

Response

Thank you for your observation. We have revised and supplemented the abstract of the paper so that it clearly reflects the fact that the manuscript is based on an educational activity carried out over two academic years, within the seminars in the subject "Food Security", in a bachelor's specialization. Following this activity, the students completed an anonymous and voluntary questionnaire, solely to evaluate the teaching method used.

Regarding ethical approval, we would like to specify that, following the Regulation of the Bioethics Commission of the University of Life Sciences of Timișoara (Art. 14) https://www.usab-tm.ro/utilizatori/calitate/file/regulamente/r084/USVT_R084%20ed%202%20rev%201%20%2028_01_25.pdf ,  educational research of the type presented in the manuscript does not require ethical approval because:

• does not involve studies of a socio-psychological nature,
• does not involve access to personal data or sensitive information,
• does not involve interventions on participants.

The data collected are completely anonymous and were used exclusively for didactic and scientific purposes, to analyze the efficiency of an innovative pedagogical method. At the beginning of the questionnaire, students were informed that:

• participation is voluntary and anonymous,
• no personal data is collected,
• The answers will be used for educational purposes only and in compliance with current data protection legislation.

We have included these clarifications in the manuscript at the end of the Materials and Methods section. We have also attached, at the editor's request, a complete copy of the questionnaire.

We hope that these clarifications are sufficient to demonstrate compliance with ethical principles and to justify the inclusion of the data in the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study proposes an innovative educational approach that analyzes the interconnections between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and other Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in higher education. The approach effectively contributed to developing students' systemic thinking, sustainability literacy, and ethical responsibility.

1. The English language quality of this paper is generally clear, professional, and suitable for publication in an academic journal. However, minor refinements in phrasing could further enhance clarity and readability. for example: 

• p.1 line 17–18 "an innovative educational approach, applicable in any university context" -> across diverse

• p.2 line 41–42 "sustainability education is essential for individuals to acquire knowledge, skills, values and attitudes" -> crucial 

• p.3  line 64 "will remain fragmented, isolated, and unable to produce real change" -> 

  may

• p. 4 line 161-3 "preparing students to become not only specialists in their field, but future responsible citizens" -> also responsible global citizens
• p.8 line 304-308 "visual activities: posters, charts, diagrams; presentations and debates in seminars" -> visual activities (posters, charts, and diagrams), along with presentations and seminar debates

2. the manuscript is well contextualized with respect to previous and current theoretical backgrounds, citing UNESCO, SDSN, FAO, and other major organizations. However, some sections could benefit from being more succinct, as explanations are occasionally repetitive.

3. The discussion is coherent and consistently relates back to the stated objectives. The arguments are persuasive but sometimes could be better balanced by acknowledging possible limitations of the educational method.

4. The arguments are logically coherent and supported by appropriate references. However, the paper would be even stronger if it briefly acknowledged potential limitations of the proposed educational approach.

Author Response

Dear REVIEWER 2,

Thank you for your valuable comments, which have really helped us improve the quality of our article. The time you have taken for these comments is highly appreciated by all the authors.

 

COMMENT 1. The English language quality of this paper is generally clear, professional, and suitable for publication in an academic journal. However, minor refinements in phrasing could further enhance clarity and readability. for example: 

• p.1 line 17–18 "an innovative educational approach, applicable in any university context" -> across diverse
• p.2 line 41–42 "sustainability education is essential for individuals to acquire knowledge, skills, values and attitudes" -> crucial 
• p.3  line 64 "will remain fragmented, isolated, and unable to produce real change" -> 

may

• p. 4 line 161-3 "preparing students to become not only specialists in their field, but future responsible citizens" -> also responsible global citizens
• p.8 line 304-308 "visual activities: posters, charts, diagrams; presentations and debates in seminars" -> visual activities (posters, charts, and diagrams), along with presentations and seminar debates

Response 1

Thank you for your insightful comments on the clarity of the English language and your suggestions for rewording. We have carefully reviewed all of the examples mentioned and have incorporated the suggested changes into the manuscript as follows:

On p.1, lines 17–18, the wording has been replaced with “across diverse university contexts” to increase the precision of the expression.

On p.2, lines 41–42, the word “essential” has been replaced with “crucial”.

On p.3, line 64, the verb “will remain” has been replaced with “may remain” to suggest a more balanced tone.

On p.4, lines 161–163, the phrase “future responsible citizens” has been rephrased as “also responsible global citizens”, as suggested.

On p.8, lines 304–308, we reformulated as: "visual activities (posters, charts, and diagrams), along with presentations and seminar debates".

 

COMMENT 2. the manuscript is well contextualized with respect to previous and current theoretical backgrounds, citing UNESCO, SDSN, FAO, and other major organizations. However, some sections could benefit from being more succinct, as explanations are occasionally repetitive.

Response 2

Thank you for your appreciation of the theoretical context and the references used. We have revised the manuscript in its entirety to identify any repetitions and have made changes that aim to ensure a more concise expression, without affecting the clarity or coherence of the argument.

We have synthesized the passages where the explanations were redundant, especially in the introductory sections and those relating to the importance of education for sustainable development, keeping only the essential ideas for the message of the paper. We consider that, in its current form, the manuscript is more balanced in terms of structure and fluency.

 

COMMENT 3. The discussion is coherent and consistently relates back to the stated objectives. The arguments are persuasive but sometimes could be better balanced by acknowledging possible limitations of the educational method.

Response 3

Thank you for your observation. We appreciate the fact that you have pointed out the importance of highlighting the limitations of the proposed educational method. Although these aspects have already been analyzed in the paper, in subsection 4.5 Limits and future development prospects , we realized that its title did not reflect the content clearly enough. Therefore, to respond to your suggestion and to highlight this component more clearly, we have modified the title of the subsection to: 4.5 Limitations, shortcomings and opportunities for future development. This section details the main limitations of the research, such as the small sample size, the application of the method in a singular educational context, the potential subjectivity of the responses and opens clear directions for future development, in accordance with the principles of education for sustainability.

 

COMMENT 4. The arguments are logically coherent and supported by appropriate references. However, the paper would be even stronger if it briefly acknowledged potential limitations of the proposed educational approach.

Response 4

Idem Reponse 3. The limitations of the educational method are addressed in a separate subsection (4.5), the title of which has been updated to “Limitations, Shortcomings and Opportunities for Future Development” for greater clarity.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents a case study of an innovative, systems-based teaching approach in which Romanian undergraduates work in small teams to map the bidirectional links between SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and each of the other 16 SDGs. However, to be suitable for publication, considerable work remains to be done: the structure of the manuscript requires refinement (particularly the introduction and methods sections), greater methodological clarity is needed regarding participants and procedures, and key academic conventions—such as concise writing, integration of citations, and clear subheadings—should be more rigorously followed. With targeted revisions, this study has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the field of sustainability education.

1. Use fewer lists and more narrative, story-like paragraphs. I've counted more than 20 bulleted lists. E.g., p.24, instead of the bulleted list "The fundamental principles of the proposed educational model", you could have used this form of a story-like style:
   

   From the very first session, students dive into an active, participatory experience that goes far beyond passive lectures. They explore global challenges through systemic, multidimensional analyses, examining how one decision in a food system can ripple across economies, health and the environment. Working in small teams, learners engage in thoughtful debates and apply creative freedom to craft visual case studies that bridge abstract theory with real-world scenarios. Along the way, they develop not only critical thinking and collaboration skills but also a genuine sense of social and food responsibility as they see firsthand how their ideas could shape more sustainable futures.

   It's more engaging and less technical-looking. 

2. Add limitations and a Further Research section. There were limitations, no doubt (a case study based mainly on a questionnaire, no interviews, no other data collection method, e.g.)
3. L.25: Use a colon instead of a comma. 
4. At the the Abstract explicitly identify your work as a case study—for example:
   ‘This case study presents an innovative educational approach…’—so readers immediately grasp your research design
5. L35 - Introduction. 
   Please split the Introduction into sub-headings—e.g.:
   1. Global Context and Rationale.
   2. Educational Innovation.
   3. Study Aim and Scope’
   —to improve navigability.
6. L.40: Please add a citation here. Such an assertion needs a source.
7. L.46-47: "...but also the formation of systemic awareness, critical thinking, and skills to analyze the interdependencies between seemingly different fields." After systemic awareness add citation https://doi.org/  10.3390/educsci13030308, and after critical thinking add citation doi:10.3390/su10103366.
8. L.60: SDSN - use the full meaning in the first appearance 

9. Lines 135–186 read more like Methodology than Introduction. I recommend you:

   Relocate the detailed description of your conceptual model and Figure 1 into Section 2 (Methods).

   Condense the text in the Introduction to a brief 3–4-sentence overview of your pedagogical framework.

   End the Introduction with a concise statement of your research objectives, rather than a 50-sentence methods narrative.

10. L.184: "Creativity used in teaching is not an goal" --> "is not a goal"
11. In Section 2.1, please trim the literature overview to a very concise summary—limit it to 6–7 sentences—and focus on information that directly informs your methods rather than broader theoretical background.
12. At the start of the Case Study context (L. 249–254), add details on academic level (e.g. sophomore/junior), degree program (e.g. BSc in Food Security), and faculty/department (e.g. Faculty of Agriculture), plus any demographic or selection criteria you used.
13. L284 - please convert the unnumbered bullet list into a numbered sequence so that each step clearly reflects its chronological order.
14. L.341: Enjoying instead of Enjoyning
15. L360 - Please present this data (time allocation, five work stages, and method) in a table instead of bullets.
16. In Section 2.6 (line 417), please add one or two specific references to each bullet point to document the sources you relied on when developing the teaching activities.
17. At the end of your Methodology, include a paragraph on trustworthiness, explicitly citing Guba’s (1981) four criteria (credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability) and describing what steps you took for each, if at all.
18. L458 - "These exercises were designed to stimulate students' systemic thinking, ..."
    _________________
    On the one hand, you linked SDG2 to all the other SDGs, but systems/systemic thinking includes a more holistic picture rather than isolating pairs of connections. Please edit this sentence accordingly or qualify it.
19.  

Author Response

Dear REVIEWER 3,

Thank you for your valuable comments and appreciation of the article. Thank you for taking the time to help us improve our manuscript.

COMMENT 1

1. Use fewer lists and more narrative, story-like paragraphs. I've counted more than 20 bulleted lists. E.g., p.24, instead of the bulleted list "The fundamental principles of the proposed educational model", you could have used this form of a story-like style:

From the very first session, students dive into an active, participatory experience that goes far beyond passive lectures. They explore global challenges through systemic, multidimensional analyses, examining how one decision in a food system can ripple across economies, health and the environment. Working in small teams, learners engage in thoughtful debates and apply creative freedom to craft visual case studies that bridge abstract theory with real-world scenarios. Along the way, they develop not only critical thinking and collaboration skills but also a genuine sense of social and food responsibility as they see firsthand how their ideas could shape more sustainable futures.

It's more engaging and less technical-looking. 

Response 1

Thank you for this pertinent observation. Indeed, the original form of the manuscript contained a large number of bulleted lists, intended to clarify and systematize the information. However, I understood your suggestion to opt for a more attractive and less technical narrative style. Thus, we have reformulated the entire section in a narrative style, as you suggested, and we have significantly reduced the number of lists in the entire article. We have also evaluated each list in the article and have retained only those structures where the presentation in a bulleted format provides essential didactic clarity. We believe that in the current form, the balance between clarity and narrative style is much improved.

 

COMMENT 2

1. Add limitations and a Further Research section. There were limitations, no doubt (a case study based mainly on a questionnaire, no interviews, no other data collection method, e.g.)

Response 2

Thank you for your valuable observation. We recognize the importance of highlighting the limitations of the proposed educational method. Although these aspects were already analyzed in the previous version of the manuscript, in subsection 4.5 Limits and future development prospects, we found that its title did not reflect the content clearly enough. Therefore, to respond to your suggestion and to better highlight this component, we have changed the title of the section to: “4.5 Limitations, shortcomings and opportunities for future development.”

In addition, as a direct result of your comment, we have completed this section with a new paragraph, in which we explicitly included an essential limitation related to the nature of the data collected. We have emphasized that the evaluation was carried out exclusively through a structured questionnaire, applied on paper, voluntarily and anonymously, without the collection of personal or sensitive data, and without complementary qualitative methods (interviews, focus groups). Although this instrument provided useful information on student perceptions, we acknowledge that the exclusive use of self-reported data introduces a degree of subjectivity. This is why we argued in the text that the repeatability of responses over two consecutive academic years provides additional credibility to the results obtained.

We believe that these additions strengthen the rigor and transparency of the limitations section and provide a solid basis for future developments of the method.

 

COMMENT 3

1. L.25: Use a colon instead of a comma. 

Response 3

The L25 is in the Abstract, and it is not such a situation of enumeration. But if it is in another place, at proofreading, it will be resolved with certainty.

 

COMMENT 4

1. At the the Abstract explicitly identify your work as a case study—for example:
   ‘This case study presents an innovative educational approach…’—so readers immediately grasp your research design

Response 4

Thank you for your pertinent observation. We have reworded the Abstract to explicitly include the fact that the paper is a case study, right from the beginning of the sentence:

“The case study presents an innovative educational approach and includes a component to evaluate student perceptions by applying an anonymous questionnaire without collecting personal data.”

We believe that this change provides additional clarity on the research design and fully corresponds to the recommendation made by both you and the other reviewers.

 

COMMENT 5

1. L35 - Introduction. 
   Please split the Introduction into sub-headings—e.g.:
   1. Global Context and Rationale.
   2. Educational Innovation.
   3. Study Aim and Scope’
   —to improve navigability.

Response 5

Thank you for your observation regarding the structuring of the introductory section. We have taken your suggestion into account and added subheadings within the Introduction section, to facilitate the readability and navigation of the text for readers. Thus, the Introduction is now organized into the following three sub-sections:

• Global context and rationale – which presents the global challenges related to the SDGs and the importance of transformative education;
• Educational innovation and methodological framework – which highlights the novelty of the proposed educational approach;
• Study aim and scope – which defines the purpose and scope of the presented study.

This organization brings added clarity and logical coherence to the text, without modifying the initial content.

 

COMMENT 6

1. L.40: Please add a citation here. Such an assertion needs a source.

Response 6

Thank you for your justified observation. We have added the citation [1] immediately after the statement in line 40, to directly support the idea presented. The UNESCO document cited by us in the following paragraph, provides a clear framework for the importance of education for sustainable development and supports the statements made.

 

COMMENT 7

1. L.46-47: "...but also the formation of systemic awareness, critical thinking, and skills to analyze the interdependencies between seemingly different fields." After systemic awareness add citation https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13030308, and after critical thinking add citation doi:10.3390/su10103366.

Response 7

We added, as you suggested.

 

COMMENT 8

1. L.60: SDSN - use the full meaning in the first appearance 

Response 8

Thank you for your observation regarding the full use of the acronym SDSN at the first mention in the text. We would like to point out that the initial paragraphs you refer to have been reworded in the revised manuscript so that the first occurrence of the term SDSN no longer occurs in the same context or on line 60. However, we have taken your recommendation into account and have introduced the full form — Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) — at the first mention in the new version of the text.

 

COMMENT 9

1. Lines 135–186 read more like Methodology than Introduction. I recommend you:

Relocate the detailed description of your conceptual model and Figure 1 into Section 2 (Methods).

Condense the text in the Introduction to a brief 3–4-sentence overview of your pedagogical framework.

End the Introduction with a concise statement of your research objectives, rather than a 50-sentence methods narrative.

Response 9

Thank you for your valuable comment. We fully agree that the original version of lines 135–186 included detailed methodological content, which would have been better suited in the Methods section.

• We have implemented all your recommendations, as follows:
• We have moved the entire subsection “1.2 Educational innovation”, including the description of the conceptual model and Figure 1, in section 2, to a newly created subsection, titled 2.7 Conceptual pedagogical model and learning environment.
• We have rewritten subsection 1.2 of the Introduction in a condensed form, consisting of three short paragraphs, that summarizes the pedagogical philosophy and theoretical anchoring of the proposed method, without including methodological details.
• We have kept subsection 1.3 (Purpose and objectives of the study) as a structured and clear conclusion to the Introduction, which formulates the research rationale and objectives in a concise and well-focused manner.

We hope that these changes contribute to a clearer and more coherent structure of the manuscript.

 

COMMENT 10

1. L.184: "Creativity used in teaching is not an goal" --> "is not a goal"

Response 10

We have corrected. Thank you

 

COMMENT 11

1. In Section 2.1, please trim the literature overview to a very concise summary—limit it to 6–7 sentences—and focus on information that directly informs your methods rather than broader theoretical background.

Response 11

Thank you for your suggestion. We have completely reworded Section 2.1, keeping the structure in three subsections, but reducing the content to a concise summary. The new version focuses exclusively on relevant information that directly underpins the methodology used in the study, avoiding expansion on the general theoretical background.

We believe that this adjustment brings added clarity and coherence to the organization of the text.

 

COMMENT 12

1. At the start of the Case Study context (L. 249–254), add details on academic level (e.g. sophomore/junior), degree program (e.g. BSc in Food Security), and faculty/department (e.g. Faculty of Agriculture), plus any demographic or selection criteria you used.

Response 12

Thank you for this clear and welcome recommendation. We have supplemented the beginning of subsection “2.2. Case Study Context” with the information you recommended.

We believe that these additions provide a more rigorous contextualization and provide a more precise understanding of the educational setting analyzed.

 

COMMENT 13

1. L284 - please convert the unnumbered bullet list into a numbered sequence so that each step clearly reflects its chronological order.

Response 13

Thank you for this clear and useful suggestion. We have transformed the original list in lines 284–294 into a numbered sequence, which explicitly reflects the chronological order of the stages carried out in the didactic activity. We have also kept the pedagogical objectives and the tools used as distinct sections, in order to maintain the logical coherence and clarity of the text structure.

We hope that this change fully responds to your observation.

 

COMMENT 14

1. L.341: Enjoying instead of Enjoyning

Response 14

We have corrected.

 

COMMENT 15

1. L360 - Please present this data (time allocation, five work stages, and method) in a table instead of bullets.

Response 15

Thank you for this clear and constructive suggestion. We have replaced the previous list with a tabular format that summarizes the five stages of the teaching activity, their description and the time allocated to each stage. The new Table 1, titled “Structure of the teaching activity: stages, description and time allocation”, provides a clearer and easier to follow presentation of the method applied in the case study.

 

COMMENT 16

1. In Section 2.6 (line 417), please add one or two specific references to each bullet point to document the sources you relied on when developing the teaching activities.

Response 16

Thank you for your observation. I have completed each point in the list with a few relevant references, which document the sources used in the development of the analyzed teaching activity.

 

COMMENT 17

1. At the end of your Methodology, include a paragraph on trustworthiness, explicitly citing Guba’s (1981) four criteria (credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability) and describing what steps you took for each, if at all.

Response 17

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. I have added a paragraph at the end of the Methodology section explicitly dedicated to the trustworthiness criteria formulated by Guba (1981), describing the measures applied in this study to ensure credibility, transferability, reliability and confirmability. I have also inserted the corresponding reference in the reference list.

 

COMMENT 18

 

1. L458 - "These exercises were designed to stimulate students' systemic thinking, ..."
   _________________
   On the one hand, you linked SDG2 to all the other SDGs, but systems/systemic thinking includes a more holistic picture rather than isolating pairs of connections. Please edit this sentence accordingly or qualify it.

Response 18

Thank you for your insightful comment. I have rephrased the sentence to emphasize that the analysis of the connections between SDG 2 and the other goals was used as a starting point for developing a broader systemic perspective on the interdependencies within the 2030 Agenda.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

sentences and spelling good, paragraph structure needs work (explained in the attached)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

Thank you for your valuable comments, which have really helped us improve the quality of our article. The time you have taken for these comments is highly appreciated by all the authors.

Below are our responses, point by point.

1. Organization
2. A clear statement of the goals and objectives (or research questions) for this manuscript and a brief statement of the scope of work are required.

RESPONSE

Thank you for your pertinent observation. We have integrated the recommendation provided and introduced a new section, entitled 1.3. Study Aim and Scope, which clearly formulates the objectives of the study and its scope. This section was developed following suggestions received during the peer-review process to provide readers with an immediate understanding of the purpose of the paper, the pedagogical value of the proposed method, and the context in which it was applied.

1. 
   L135 – the originality of the approach is discussed before it is clear what the approach really is. This entire section (L135–178) talks about “this approach” without really defining what it is. Addressing comment 1a before this section would help.

RESPONSE

Thank you for your observation. Following comments received during the peer-review process, we have restructured the introduction so that the description of the method and the formulation of the objectives are presented before the analysis of the originality of the approach. This aspect is now covered in sections 1.1. Global context and rationale, 1.2. Educational innovation, and 1.3. Study Aim and Scope, which clarifies the proposed method before discussing its innovative contributions.

1. 
   There should be a separate background section; it should not be integrated into the methods section.

RESPONSE

Thank you for your observation. The section dedicated to the theoretical context and specialized literature (2.1. Background – Literature and Global Context) also existed in the initial version, but we have revised the general structure of the manuscript to more clearly highlight the delimitation between background and methodology. In the current form, the background appears in a distinct subsection, clearly separated from the actual methods, in accordance with your recommendation.

2. 
   Sect 2.1.3 – most of this content had already been stated; this seemed to be repetitive.

RESPONSE

Thank you for your comment. We have revised and condensed the content of section 2.1.3 to avoid redundancy with previous subsections. In its current form, this section is much more concise and clearly expresses, without repetition, the idea of ​​the need for systemic education in the field of food security.

1. 
   The case study – yes, an important aspect of the Methods. It would be good to add the grade level of the students and number of credits.

RESPONSE

Thank you for this very practical suggestion. In the revised version, we have clearly specified that the activity was carried out with second-year undergraduate students and added information regarding the number of credits for the Food Security discipline (4 ECTS credits).

2. Sections 2.3 and 2.5 have a lot of overlap. They should be condensed into one section that is presented before the assessment section. For example, some details – including the set of classes (L) used for introduction – would be valuable to know before just defining the activity (starting L284).

RESPONSE

Thank you for your observation. Following the comments received from all reviewers, we have revised and clarified the structure of the method section. While we have kept sections 2.3 and 2.5 as distinct, we have eliminated overlaps and repetitions between them, as suggested by you. We have rearranged the content so that all details regarding the educational context, the applied methodology and the time allocation are presented before the assessment section, in line with the recommendations received from the reviewers. We believe that this improved structure ensures both clarity and coherence in the presentation of the didactic approach.

2. 
   In Sect 2.4 – L323–330 are repetitive with info presented in Sect 2.3 (and 2.5).

RESPONSE

Thank you for your observation. We have revised the content of section 2.4 and eliminated the repetitions reported with respect to sections 2.3 and 2.5. In its current form, this section includes only a clear synthesis of the pedagogical tools used, without repeating information already presented previously.

1. 
   L394–407 – this provides more detail than in the prior list, but seems to be repetitive. Best to integrate a few of these details into the prior list.

RESPONSE

Following recommendations from several reviewers regarding the need for clarity and conciseness, we have restructured this part of the manuscript. We have integrated essential information about the pedagogical objectives directly into the list of activities and Table 1, avoiding repetition in subsequent paragraphs. We believe that this new form is more coherent and easier for the reader to follow. Thank you for this observation

1. 
   L458–471 are a repeat of the methods section. Could greatly reduce this repetition.

RESPONSE

Thank you for your observation. We have revised the relevant section and considerably reduced the repetition of the methodology already presented previously. The current text includes only a transitional phrase, necessary to introduce the results, without repeating the detailed description of the method. This change was also made in accordance with the suggestions of other reviewers regarding conciseness and clarity of style.

1. 
   L982–999 – third time this has been explained. Not all needed.

RESPONSE

We have revised and condensed the indicated section, eliminating repetitions from previous parts of the manuscript. The essential ideas regarding the impact of the activity have been preserved in the relevant areas of the text, but without repeating the formulations already mentioned. We have thus applied your recommendation to avoid redundancies and improve reading fluency. Thank you for your observation

4. 
   Should not include new material in the conclusion. Test related to ethics (L1187–1199) should be integrated into sect. 4.3, with just a brief mention of this value in the conclusions.

RESPONSE

Thank you for this observation. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have integrated the component related to the development of ethical thinking in section 4.3, so that the ideas presented in the conclusion no longer constitute a new element, but a natural synthesis of the results discussed previously. We considered it important to mention this aspect also in the CONCLUSIONS section, because it reflects one of the most valuable contributions of the educational activity analyzed.

2. Paragraph Structure

The entire manuscript could use an effort to improve the paragraph structure. There are many sequential 1–2 sentence paragraphs that would be better synthesized into one longer (but not too long) paragraph.

1. Examples – L65–90 could be reworked and synthesized into a more concise paragraph.
   b. Similarly, L215–234 could be condensed, avoiding repetition like L234, which is a statement already well described in preceding paragraphs.

RESPONSE

Thank you for this relevant observation regarding paragraph structure. In the revised version, we have restructured and synthesized the mentioned fragments (L65–90 and L215–234 of the original version), regrouping the sentences into more fluent paragraphs and eliminating redundant wording. We have aimed to maintain a balance between clarity, reading pace and conciseness, in line with your recommendation and similar observations received from other reviewers.

3. Theoretical Framework

In general, there is a good development of the need and background for this project. Additional literature that focuses on sustainability competencies would help to expand the understanding of the learning outcomes expected from this class activity.

For example: Competencies for Advancing Transformations Towards Sustainability (Redman & Wiek, 2021).

RESPONSE

Thank you for your suggestion. We have completed the reference list with relevant works on developing competences for sustainability in higher education, including your recommendation regarding the work "Redman A and Wiek A (2021) Competencies for Advancing Transformations Towards Sustainability. Front. Educ. 6:785163. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.785163". This contributes to a deeper understanding of the outcomes pursued within the analyzed teaching activity and directly supports the formative component of the proposed approach.

4. Assessment – Methods
5. It would be good to include the rubricfor the assignment (some explanation here, rubric in Supplemental Materials (SM)) and results of the grading.

RESPONSE

Thank you for your observation. We would like to mention that this teaching activity was not evaluated by a formal grid-type rubric, but by a qualitative assessment of each student's performance, within the colloquium related to the discipline. The evaluation took into account the quality of the argumentation, the coherence of the systemic thinking, the creativity and the involvement in the seminar discussions. The final grade was formed by the average between the grade from the theoretical exam and the one obtained for the practical activity described in this article. For this reason, there is no scoring rubric that can be included in the Supplemental Materials, nor are there grading results presented separately.

RESPONSE

1. 
   The questionnaireshould also be included in the SM. Questions specifically used to evaluate the project (Sect 2) vs. assessing attitude vs. behavior (both in Sect. 3) could be better defined. Note: Q10 is really more evaluation than assessment of attitude and behavior.

RESPONSE

Thank you for this pertinent observation. We would like to mention that the questionnaire was not officially requested to be included in the Supplemental Materials, and the original questionnaire was developed in Romanian, according to the language of instruction of the study programs. In the event that it would be necessary to publish it, only an English translation could be included, not the original version.

We would also like to inform you that the editors have already requested the questionnaire, and it was sent to them in both versions: the original in Romanian and the complete English translation. The purpose was to demonstrate that no personal or sensitive data were collected and that the respondents could not be identified in any way.

We have included the following data availability statement in the manuscript:

“Data Availability Statement: Most of the data supporting the findings of this study are included within the article. Additional data or details of the data processing, including the original or translated version of the questionnaire, are available from the corresponding author upon request.”

We also accept the observation regarding question Q10 and have reclassified this question in the interpretation of the results as an element of evaluation of the educational activity, and not as an indicator of the students' personal attitudes or behaviors, as it aims at the general appreciation of the proposed method. This was explicitly reflected in the text of the manuscript, in section 4.3, where we introduced the phrase:

“Also, question Q10 in the questionnaire was analyzed as an element of evaluation of the educational activity, and not as an indicator of the students' personal attitudes or behaviors, as it aims at the general appreciation of the proposed method.”

 

1. With the small sample size, it would be better to lump students togetherfor the two years and just present in one graph and discuss results once; some identification of any differences could be included in the discussion.

RESPONSE

Thank you for your suggestion. We considered the option of aggregating the results of the two generations in a single graph, but decided to keep the presentation separate, as the data reflect real differences between the two sets of students in terms of perceptions of the activity and attitudes towards sustainability. We believe that this approach provides a more accurate picture of the impact of the teaching method and allows for a nuanced understanding of the evolution of the results over time. We have also highlighted these aspects in the discussion section. Furthermore, this structure has been appreciated and accepted by all other reviewers in previous evaluations, and a change in the presentation would mean changing elements that they already considered coherent and relevant.

5. Assessment – Results
6. A substantial amount of the results are a synthesis of the students’ work showing the interconnections between SDG 2 and SDG X. Given the extent of these results (p.11–p.21), and the reworking of student work into author-written text, it would seem that the objective of this work would be to define these interrelationships. These pages should be cut—they do not show student work. Instead, please include example images from the student work(not for all 15 SDG pairs – additional examples could be in the SM) and how they were graded to assess your learning outcomes. The overall grading and interpretation of what the students achieved in their work is needed, especially to support statements such as in L1002–1003.

RESPONSE

Thank you for your observation, which helped us clarify the role and nature of the results presented in the section dedicated to the connections between SDG 2 and the other Sustainable Development Goals.

The text on pages 11–21 is not a simple theoretical restatement, but an analytical synthesis carried out by the author based on the practical activity carried out by the students, the materials produced by them (posters, presentations), the discussions in the seminars and the ideas argued in the plenary. This approach was appreciated and accepted by the other reviewers, who considered it relevant for illustrating the results of the proposed educational method.

Following your recommendation, we have included in the article a composite image (Figure 21) that brings together six authentic posters produced by the students within this activity. These posters reflect the systemic thinking, critical spirit and creativity developed through this pedagogical method and visually illustrate how the students understood the interdependencies between SDG 2 and other SDGs.

The posters are written in Romanian, as the teaching activity was carried out within university study programs in Romanian, but their visual content and graphic structure make them easy to interpret even in an international context.

They are presented in a completely anonymized form, without personal data or identifying elements, thus respecting the ethics of educational research. If the editors consider it appropriate, we can also make other additional examples available in the form of additional material (Supplemental Materials).

Regarding the evaluation of the activity, the process was qualitative, focused on the following criteria: coherence of reasoning, relevance of identified connections, quality of argumentation, use of sources and originality of presentation. These indicators were explained to the students, and the activity was evaluated as part of the practical colloquium, contributing to the final grade.

The global interpretation of what the students achieved, including the impact of the method on the development of systemic thinking, is supported both by the analysis of the content of the produced materials and by the answers provided in the applied questionnaire.

We also introduced an explicit mention in the text that question Q10 in the questionnaire was treated as an element of activity evaluation, and not as a measure of personal attitudes.

6. Section 3.2 – Specific Issues
7. There are insufficient numbers of studentsin each class to justify separate assessment (Figs 18–19) and comparison. Better to integrate into an overall assessment.

RESPONSE

Thank you for your observation. We have considered this suggestion previously (in comment 4c) and have decided to maintain the separate presentation of results for the two generations of students, as we have found relevant differences in perceptions and attitudes, even with a small sample size.

We believe that this approach provides a more nuanced understanding of the educational impact of the proposed method and is supported by the qualitative analysis of the data.

Furthermore, this choice was accepted by the other reviewers, and changing it would imply changing the structure of an already validated section.

We have also explicitly mentioned this limitation in section 4.5 Limitations, shortcomings, and opportunities for future development of the article, acknowledging that the sample size and the division by generations represent a possible methodological shortcoming, but we considered it justified in the given context.

 

1. When presenting the results, best to provide a synthesis of the findings(e.g., what the results indicate about the attitude of the students) rather than a bullet point for each of the questions (this is especially repetitious with parallel writing for each of the two years).

 

RESPONSE

Thank you for your observation. We have already integrated a summary of the questionnaire results in the introduction to the section dedicated to student perception, in which the main directions identified are presented: receptivity to the activity, the development of systemic thinking and awareness of the ethical dimension of food security.

We have kept the punctual presentation of each question precisely to ensure transparency and clarity in the interpretation of the differences between the two generations of students, which corresponds to the educational objective of analyzing the impact of the proposed method in a nuanced way. This was accepted, without receiving any comments, by the other reviewers

 

iii. Reference to the Figures should come near the start of the results, not at the end.

RESPONSE

Thank you for your observation. We confirm that the references to the figures (Figures 2-17) are already placed at the beginning of each respective subsection in the Results section (3.1.1 - 3.1.16), immediately after the description of the connections between SDG 2 and each of the other SDGs. Therefore, the current structure already aligns with your suggestion. No further changes were required.

1. 
   If you want to use item #s in the text, the questions on the graph should also be numbered.

RESPONSE

Thank you for your observation. We have completed the titles of Figures 18 and 19 by explicitly including the mention “based on responses to Items 1–10”, to ensure a clear correspondence between the numbered items in the text and the corresponding figures. We believe that this adjustment contributes to the coherence of the presentation of the questionnaire results.

1. 
   L905 – the survey does not provide any evidence of true cognitive impact(one self-reported question is not sufficient for cognitive gain). Presentation of the actual student artifacts and assessment of those can at least indicate that they met the learning objectives.
   
   

RESPONSE

Thank you for your observation. Indeed, a single self-assessment item in the questionnaire cannot fully reflect the cognitive impact of the proposed method. For this reason, following your recommendations, we have supplemented the manuscript with the concrete presentation of the results produced by the students (Figure 21), consisting of posters made within the educational activities.

We have also detailed the evaluation criteria applied (coherence, argumentation, quality of connections, use of sources, creativity), as well as the way in which they reflect the achievement of the pedagogical objectives pursued. We believe that this addition covers your request and strengthens the applicative dimension of the method.

 

1. L937 – this is important, but must acknowledge that this is self-reported gain, not a real assessment of change.

RESPONSE

Thank you for your observation. We have added an explicit statement in section 3.2.3 of the manuscript, stating that these results are based on self-reported perceptions and do not represent an objective assessment of cognitive change. We believe this addition provides clarity regarding the nature of the data analyzed.

vii. Sect 3.2.3 – this section could be greatly reduced.

RESPONSE

Thank you for the suggestion to reduce this section. However, we believe that section 3.2.3 – Comparative analysis of student perception in the two university years, in its current form (218 words), provides a necessary and well-structured synthesis of the results obtained in two different university years. This comparison contributes significantly to the validation of the educational method, by confirming the consistency of the perceptions expressed by the students.

We have also included in the text the recommended mention regarding the self-reported nature of the responses, in order to avoid any overinterpretation of the results. For these reasons, we have chosen to keep this section in a complete but concise form, without unnecessary redundancies or repetitions.

However, on the other hand, we believe that in this case there may have been some confusion, section 3.2.3 — Comparative analysis of student perception in the two university years , being short and written in a concise form, without repetitions.

This section summarizes the comparative results obtained over two academic years and contributes to the validation of the educational method, thus being relevant to the overall structure of the article.

We believe that the observation actually refers to the former section 3.4, which included an extensive commentary on the questionnaire results. This has been substantially modified following the comments of the other reviewers, being replaced by a much more concise and clearly structured presentation.

Detailed Comments

• L60 – define the acronym SDSN

RESPONSE

We defined, thank you!

• L135–138 – the role of the three universities is not at all clear. Some explanation needed.

RESPONSE

Thank you for your observation. Following the recommendations received, we have clarified in the text that the educational activity was carried out within the Food Safety discipline in three public universities in Romania (USVT Timișoara, USAMV Bucharest and UAV Arad), as part of the bachelor's degree programs in the agri-food field. The proposed method was applied in a unitary manner, over two academic years, and the students' responses reflect the perceptions of the same activity, carried out in similar educational contexts.

• Figure 1 – this does not really add a lot of value.

RESPONSE

Thank you for your observation. We believe that Figure 1 brings value through its illustrative and applicative character: it provides a concrete example of how the seminar room was specifically organized to visually support the systemic understanding of the SDGs. This visual approach was considered a positive and transferable example, with the potential to inspire teachers in other institutions to use similar methods in the educational process.

• L287 – do not need “excluding SDG 2”.

RESPONSE

We deleted. thank you

• L293 – the phrase “oral supporting” is awkward.

RESPONSE

We corrected. Thank you

• L341 – “enjoying” is misspelled.

RESPONSE

We corrected. Thank you

• L372 – not clear what “documentation of the team-based...” means. Should this be “by” instead of “of”?

RESPONSE

We changed and corrected the entire paragraph by including Table 1. Thank you

• L975 – reference to “proposed model” – not clear what that is referencing – you implemented this – why refer to it as a “proposed” model?

RESPONSE

Thank you. We have reformulated that subsection.

• L1004 – cannot conclude that “lasting” impact was achieved, no longitudinal study.

RESPONSE

Thank you. Idem, we have reformulated that subsection.

• L1207–1208 – the use of student answers on questionnaires typically needs IRB approval and student consent. Is this not expected in Romania?

RESPONSE

Thank you for raising this important issue of research ethics. We confirm that, in accordance with national legislation and the internal regulations of our university, educational research of the type presented in our manuscript does not require prior ethical approval (IRB), as long as:

- does not involve access to personal or sensitive data,

- does not include interventions on participants,

- does not address socio-psychological vulnerabilities.

The activity was carried out within the framework of regular seminars of the Food Security discipline, and the questionnaire was used exclusively for educational and evaluative purposes, anonymously and voluntarily, without collecting personal or sensitive data.

In addition, as already mentioned in the manuscript (see Institutional Review Board Statement), we have specified that:

“Ethical approval was not required for this type of study according to national legislation and institutional regulations.”

At the beginning of the questionnaire, students were clearly informed that:

- their participation is voluntary,

- no personal or identifying data will be collected,

- the answers will be used only for scientific and educational purposes, in accordance with applicable data protection legislation.

These clarifications were also made in response to a previous comment by the reviewer and have already been inserted into the manuscript accordingly

Indeed, in Romania, educational activities carried out within universities, which involve the collection of anonymous study data for didactic or educational research purposes, do not require the approval of an ethics committee (IRB), as long as no personal or sensitive data are collected and participation is voluntary.

To support this statement, the “King Mihai I” University of Life Sciences of Timișoara (USVT) has a Regulation of the University Ethics Commission that establishes the general framework for the organization and functioning of the university ethics commission. This regulation states that educational activities that do not involve personal or sensitive data and that are carried out with the voluntary participation of students do not require the approval of the ethics committee.

Therefore, in the context of the activity described in the article, where students completed questionnaires anonymously and voluntarily, without providing personal or sensitive data, the approval of an ethics committee was not necessary.

We hope this explanation is sufficient to confirm compliance with ethical principles as required.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The word count is 16,288. The word count needs to be reduced; check with the Editors what the maximum is;  the structure needs to be tightened up. There are many repeated sections evident. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We sincerely thank you for this constructive recommendation, which helped us significantly improve the structure and focus of the manuscript.

Thank you for your observation regarding the manuscript length. Following the suggestion, we conducted a comprehensive review of the entire text and reduced the word count significantly, while preserving the depth and relevance of the content.

Comment

The word count is 16,288. The word count needs to be reduced; check with the Editors what the maximum is;  the structure needs to be tightened up. There are many repeated sections evident. 

Response

The current version of the manuscript includes:

• 11,675 words for the main text (excluding References and standard declarations),

and

• 14,354 words in total, including References, Author Contributions, Funding, Institutional Review Board Statement, Data Availability Statement, and Conflicts of Interest.

This represents a substantial reduction from the initial 16,288-word version, as you mentioned.

The decrease was achieved through several actions:

• Merging the analysis of the two academic years into a merged one (n = 46 students);
• Eliminating redundancies in the Results and Discussion sections;
• Condensing explanations and clarifying some methodological passages;
• Streamlining expressions throughout the text without affecting the scientific value or clarity.

We also reviewed the journal’s policies regarding manuscript length, and we confirm that the revised version is within the acceptable range.

https://blog.mdpi.com/2021/10/27/submission-questions-answered/#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20limit%20to,the%20Editorial%20Office%20in%20advance.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful revisions to your manuscript, “Connecting SDG 2: Zero Hunger with the Other SDGs - Teaching Food Security and the SDGs Interdependencies in Higher Education” I have reviewed the updated version and am happy to report that all suggested changes have been implemented satisfactorily. I have no further comments, and the paper is now fully ready for publication.

Congratulations on bringing this vital study to its final form. I look forward to seeing it in print.

Warm regards,

Dr. Roee Peretz
MorTech – Center for Technology Teachers
Technion – Israel Institute of Technology

Author Response

Dear Dr. Peretz,

Thank you very much for your kind and encouraging feedback. We truly appreciate your support throughout the review process, and we are honored by your positive evaluation of our work.

Your thoughtful words and warm congratulations mean a lot to us.

With sincere gratitude,

The authors

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript represents a very interesting case study that does not rise to the expectations expectedin a research publication. The authors did not take the first review comments seriously and only made superficial changes to their manuscript.  

Most of the significant comments made in my first review are still vallid.  Most importantly:

• There are no research questions or objectives stated in this manuscript
• The student numbers are too small to justify two separate years of analysis. 
• There is no explanation in the manuscript about how the student work was qualitatively evaluated and the overall results of that evaluation (okay by me that there was no formal quantitative rubric, but there still should have been some reporting of the studnet work).  The presentation of posters does add value, but it should be early in the results with an explanation of the criteria used to assess the work to evaluate if the leraning objectives for the class were achieved and then how this helps to support your research questions
• The manuscript is still way linger than it needs to be.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

We sincerely thank you for your second round of comments and for the time and effort dedicated to reviewing our manuscript once again. We have carefully considered each of your observations and revised the manuscript accordingly. Your feedback helped us realize the need to improve both the clarity of our research design and the structure of the reported results. We address each of your comments in detail below, explaining the revisions implemented and our reasoning.

This manuscript represents a very interesting case study that does not rise to the expectations expected in a research publication. The authors did not take the first review comments seriously and only made superficial changes to their manuscript.  

Most of the significant comments made in my first review are still vallid.  Most importantly:

Comment 1

• There are no research questions or objectives stated in this manuscript

Response 1

Thank you for this valuable observation. While the general aim of the study was already included in the previous version, under Section 1.3 (Study Aim and Scope), your comment made us realize that the research objectives and questions were not expressed clearly and explicitly enough.

As a result, we have revised both the title and the content of this section. We have now renamed it “Research Objectives and Questions” and reformulated its content to explicitly state the purpose of the study, the main research questions, and the way they connect to the methodological design and expected results. We believe this revision significantly improves the academic clarity and the logical flow of the manuscript.

Comment 2

• The student numbers are too small to justify two separate years of analysis. 

Response 2

We acknowledge your observation and have addressed it by aggregating the responses from both academic years (2023/2024 and 2024/2025), thus analyzing the data for the entire sample of 46 students. We created a unified figure (Figure 18 in the revised manuscript), which synthesizes the answers to all 10 items of the questionnaire on a single scale. This approach avoids artificial separation and better reflects the general trends in student perception.

The decision to previously report the two cohorts separately was based on the educational structure (two different academic years), but we fully understand your recommendation and adjusted the manuscript accordingly. Thank you.

Comment 3

• There is no explanation in the manuscript about how the student work was qualitatively evaluated and the overall results of that evaluation (okay by me that there was no formal quantitative rubric, but there still should have been some reporting of the studnet work). 

Response 3

Thank you for highlighting the need for more clarity. We have now added a paragraph in the Materials and Methods section detailing how the students' artifacts (posters and presentations) were evaluated by the teaching staff. Although we did not apply a formal rubric, the evaluation focused on four main elements: accuracy, originality, clarity of the interlinkages identified between SDGs, and the depth of critical reflection. Each student’s practical activity was graded on a pass/fail basis, and only students who passed were allowed to attend the final theoretical exam. This ensured that the practical component effectively contributed to both their understanding of SDG interconnections and to addressing the research questions proposed in our study.

Comment 4

• The presentation of posters does add value, but it should be early in the results with an explanation of the criteria used to assess the work to evaluate if the leraning objectives for the class were achieved and then how this helps to support your research questions

Response 4

Thank you for this thoughtful suggestion. We fully agree that the student posters and presentations are valuable components of the learning activity, and that their evaluation contributes directly to understanding whether the intended learning outcomes were achieved.

In response, we have revised the Results section by introducing the posters  subsection 3.1 Visual diagrams for the main connections between SDG 2 and the other SDGs placed at the beginning of the section. This new placement emphasizes the importance of students' practical work. Within this subsection, we now describe how the posters and presentations were developed as part of the practical activity of the Food Security course and how they helped foster systemic thinking and critical reflection.

Additionally, as we mentioned before at Response 3, we have revised the Materials and Methods section to include a paragraph detailing the criteria used to qualitatively assess students’ work.

Comment 5

• The manuscript is still way linger than it needs to be.

Response 5

As we merged the analysis of the two academic years into a single dataset, this has led to a substantial reduction in the Results section, as you suggested. Therefore, we believe the current version of the manuscript, following the changes you suggested, is now appropriately concise. Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Connecting SDG 2 with other SDGs

Overall, this is an important piece of research that will benefit both the global north and global south education sectors; the structure and writing has been greatly improved but there are some sections that need tightening up. For this reviewer, while the detail in explaining the research is commendable, the length of the manuscript is still quite extensive. There is significant information at the end of the manuscript that ought to be placed under the Methods section while other sections need to be deleted as they are unnecessary, repeated information and increasing the unnecessary word count. Please refer to the feedback with regard to grammatical errors that require corrections and other comments to tighten up the manuscript. 

Abstract: Line numbers and corrections to be made:

22-23: insert ‘were’ after public presentations

23: remove ‘without collecting personal data’ as this is already inferred as being an anonymous questionnaire.

26: remove ‘that’

31: remove ‘that’

32: remove ‘formatting’

34-36: There are too many key words. Recommend reducing to:

Food ethics; SDG interdependencies, sustainability, active learning, university pedagogy.

54: remove ‘the other’

216: should be written as: this discipline

        Should be written as: contribute to

227: should be written as: proposed in this discipline

229: should be written as: the challenge for students

253: Should be written as: hold the conclusions in a dedicated seminar

257-261: grammatical errors evident. Rewrite as the following:

• Stimulate
• Develop
• Promote
• Develop
• Raise

269: Remove ‘of involvement’

Naming of the figures is rather lengthy when it is not necessary given there are adequate explanations below the figures:

423: Figure 1: Remove ‘, supporting students’ systemic understanding of food security and sustainability.’

470-471: Remove ‘as part of the activity of analyzing the interdependencies between SDG 2 and the other SDGs’

867-868: Remove and replace in the paragraph below: ‘learning activity based on merged responses to Items 1–10 during the academic years 2023/2024 and 2024/2025’

1107-1109: Given the participants remain anonymous, the universities involved should also remain anonymous. Having said that, your universities will be listed under the author names once they are accepted for publication. Additionally, this would help reduce the word count (as per other recommendations).

1146-1151: Eliminate all author contributions, as the manuscript title already identifies the authors and does not necessitate this specific information about their roles.

1150: It is noted there was funding acquisition. This assertion is at odds with the statement made: Funding: This research received no external funding. If this project was or was not internally funded, that information ought to be provided under the Methods section.

1153-1166: Delete: The Institutional Review Board Statement and insert the following into the Methods section:

Institutional Review Board Statement: The activity described in this article did not require approval. According to Article 14 (1) of the Regulation of the Bioethics Committee 1154 (available at https://www.usab-tm.ro/utilizatori/calitate/file/regula-1155 mente/r084/USVT_R084%20ed%202%20rev%201%20%2028_01_25.pdf)

1167-1168: Delete the Informed Consent Statement in its entirety and insert the following into the Methods section:

All subjects involved in the study provided informed consent. For confidentiality purposes, you also need to make the storage of this information more transparent. e.g. password protected on your computer or coded on the hard copies and stored in a lockable cabinet.

1170-1172: Data Availability

Delete this offering! This reviewer advises exercising caution when sharing unpublished data, as it creates a potential risk of intellectual property theft and misrepresentation. I recommend saving any unpublished data for a future publication with your colleagues who were involved in this project.

 

Author Response

Dear REVIEWER 1

We sincerely thank you for the thoughtful, encouraging, and constructive feedback. We deeply appreciate your recognition of the manuscript’s potential to support both Global North and Global South education systems, as well as your acknowledgement of the structural and stylistic improvements already made.

We also acknowledge your concern regarding the overall length of the manuscript and agree that clarity and conciseness are essential for communicating the study’s contributions effectively. In response, we have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript once again. However, we respectfully note that the current length of the manuscript (32 pages, including references) does not exceed typical standards for detailed, case-based or education-focused studies published in Sustainability. In support of this, we provide below a few examples of published articles in Sustainability that are similar or even longer in length:

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/13/5908#:~:text=The%20results%20show%20that%20representative%20urbanization%20factors%2C,particularly%20in%20regions%20with%20higher%20efficiency%20levels. -32 pages

https://www.mdpi.com/2309-608X/11/1/60 - 37 pages

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/11/4820 - 31 pages

As you recommended, we have also revised all parts of the text flagged for grammatical or stylistic issues and have made targeted reductions in word count without compromising the integrity of the research or the clarity of the results.

Attached you will find our point-by-point responses addressing each of your comments, along with a clear explanation of the changes made to the manuscript.

Thank you again!

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript has been significantly improved, though is still quite long. 

Some minor comments for improvement:

• L56-61 - really one topic, should be one paragraph
• line 247 - acronym ODD needs to be defined
• L252 - wording could be improved (create instead of elaborate)
• L253 - wording needs to be improved - I do not understand the intent of this staement enough to suggest an alternative
• L281-284 - this is a result/conclusion, should not be in this section
• L304-316 - seeral of these are poorly worded. Better to use the same phrases as in Fig. 18
• L303 - better to include the scale explanation here, currently not defined until L 319
• L366 - should include in this paragraph the role of the two universities. It is not clear where it is currently included much later (L415-420)
• Table 1. - The !s in the first column should be aligned with the top row of the associated description. It took me a long time to figure out how to read this.
• The section starting L480 should be a new section (3.2).  This section is still very long and not really integral to your research questions
• Results starting in L875 - better to use a percent number rather than subjective words like many, high, etc.
• Section 3.3 - this is really the start of your discussion
• L917-925 - this paragraph is reptitive, do not need as many details
• The conclusions are quite broad, really more discussion oriented.  The current text does not really have added value, consider cutting and leaving your manuscript with the discussion.

 

Author Response

Dear REVIEWER 4,

Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive comments, which have significantly contributed to improving the structure and clarity of our manuscript. We have carefully considered each suggestion and made the necessary changes to address the feedback received.

We acknowledge your comment regarding the length of the article. However, we respectfully note that the current length of the manuscript (32 pages, including references) does not exceed typical standards for detailed, case-based or education-focused studies published in Sustainability. In support of this, we provide below a few examples of published articles in Sustainability that are similar or even longer in length:

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/13/5908#:~:text=The%20results%20show%20that%20representative%20urbanization%20factors%2C,particularly%20in%20regions%20with%20higher%20efficiency%20levels. -32 pages

https://www.mdpi.com/2309-608X/11/1/60 - 37 pages

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/11/4820 - 31 pages

Attached we provide point-by-point responses, indicating how the manuscript has been revised accordingly.

Thank you again.

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf