Research on the Evaluation of College Students’ Information Literacy Under the Background of Sustainable Development: A Case Study of Yancheng Institute of Technology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The direction in which the article is written is of great interest for research. The authors have done quite a lot of work, especially when getting acquainted with the literature. The literature review is quite thorough. However, other sections of the article raise certain doubts about the qualifications of the authors. This is especially evident where mathematical research methods are discussed. At the same time, the English language of the article makes it difficult to understand its content. I believe that the article should be rejected in this form. However, I would like to help the authors in their further work, so below are the comments that the authors should pay attention to

1. The article does not formulate the research questions that the results of the article answer. Therefore, the final goal of the article is not entirely clear: either it is a proposal of a mathematical model of information literacy (IL) and its experimental testing, or a clarification of the structure of information literacy, or a method for measuring information literacy and testing this method for students from the Yancheng Institute of Technology. 2. Note "my country's information literacy" in line 302 and "domestic research" in line 328. It would be better to point to China here.
3. Part 3 "Methodology" is written concisely and sloppily. The hierarchical structure model is not provided, so it is unclear what n means in formula (1), which apparently denotes a matrix of judgments. What indicators and five matrices are mentioned in line 381? Unfortunately, I was unable to understand the reasoning in paragraph 3.3. It seems that the authors tried to briefly outline the analytical hierarchy process. The authors should pay attention to the hieroglyphs in formula (2). This part should be completely reworked.
4. Although line 439 talks about five aspects of information literacy, and line 443 also talks about 20 second-level indicators, in fact, tables 1 and 2 talk about 4 and 16 indicators.
5. Point 4.1.2 is presented quite well, but I would like to have more information about the experts.
6. Point 4.3 requires complete revision. Firstly, 10 students are clearly not enough for an experimental test. Secondly, the text is so illegible that it is impossible to understand.

Author Response

Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “3881973”. Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Revisions in the text are shown using red highlight for additions, and strikethrough font for deletions. The responses to the reviewer's comments are marked in red and presented following.

Reviewer #1:

1. The article does not formulate the research questions that the results of the article answer. Therefore, the final goal of the article is not entirely clear: either it is a proposal of a mathematical model of information literacy (IL) and its experimental testing, or a clarification of the structure of information literacy, or a method for measuring information literacy and testing this method for students from the Yancheng Institute of Technology.

Response:

We are grateful to you for your valuable comments. The research questions are further elaborated in the introduction, which can be found in lines 53 to 76 of the manuscript. Through a systematic review and summary of existing literature, this paper constructs a framework for evaluating the information literacy capabilities of Chinese college students. By integrating expert consultation, questionnaire surveys, and the analytic hierarchy process, this paper establishes an evaluation index system for the information literacy capabilities of Chinese college students, comprising both primary and secondary indicators. Furthermore, corresponding quantitative standards were developed. To verify the correctness and rationality of the evaluation indicators, Section 4.3 of the manuscript conducts a quantitative evaluation of the information literacy capabilities of college students from different majors and grades at Yancheng Institute of Technology, verifying the rationality of the information literacy evaluation index system.

2. Note "my country's information literacy" in line 302 and "domestic research" in line 328. It would be better to point to China here.

Response: Thank you for your kind suggestions and comments. The manuscript has been revised, and similar issues have been addressed and improved.  (page 7-8)

3. Part 3 "Methodology" is written concisely and sloppily. The hierarchical structure model is not provided, so it is unclear what n means in formula (1), which apparently denotes a matrix of judgments. What indicators and five matrices are mentioned in line 381? Unfortunately, I was unable to understand the reasoning in paragraph 3.3. It seems that the authors tried to briefly outline the analytical hierarchy process. The authors should pay attention to the hieroglyphs in formula (2). This part should be completely reworked.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestions. We had added a specific definition of n to Formula (1), as detailed in line 380. In fact, in Section 4, Formula (2) was used to calculate one judgment matrix for the first-level indicators and four judgment matrices for the second-level indicators, for a total of five judgment matrices. The authors had reorganized and rewritten Section 3, as shown in lines 341–348 and lines 388–399. The typographical errors have been corrected accordingly, as detailed in line 384.

4. Although line 439 talks about five aspects of information literacy, and line 443 also talks about 20 second-level indicators, in fact, tables 1 and 2 talk about 4 and 16 indicators.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. Table 1 shows the preliminary evaluation index system for college students' information literacy (five first-level indicators and 20 second-level indicators) that the authors constructed. Table 3 presents the experts' revised comments on the index system in Table 1. Based on these experts' revised suggestions, the final evaluation system for college students' information literacy was determined to include 4 first-level indicators and 10 second-level indicators, as shown in Table 4.

 

5. Point 4.1.2 is presented quite well, but I would like to have more information about the experts.

Response:

We thank you for your more rigorous suggestions. The revisions have been improved and detailed in Table 2 (lines 459 to 470).

6. Point 4.3 requires complete revision. Firstly, 10 students are clearly not enough for an experimental test. Secondly, the text is so illegible that it is impossible to understand.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestions. As you noted, the sample size was indeed insufficient. The authors identified previous questionnaires, eliminated those that did not meet the requirements, and ultimately determined a valid sample size of 151. We reorganized and recalculated the data and updated this section to enhance the rigor of the manuscript. See pages 16-17 and 22-24 for details.

Thank you for your careful review. We really appreciate your efforts in reviewing our manuscript during this unprecedented and challenging time. We wish good health to you, your family, and your community. Your careful review has helped to make our study clearer and more comprehensive.

 

Sincerely,

Houchao SUN

Yancheng Institute of Technology

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled “Research on the evaluation of college students' information literacy under the background of sustainable development: A case study of Yancheng Institute of Technology.”

I have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript. The study addresses an important topic with strong methodological grounding. However, revisions are needed to improve clarity and presentation. In particular, I encourage you to:

• Refine the abstract to highlight the gap, contribution, and implications more clearly.

• Narrow and sharpen the keywords for better indexing.

• Strengthen the introduction by explicitly stating the research problem, gap, and objectives.

• Make the literature review more critical by linking gaps to your study.

• Clarify and streamline the methodology while justifying the choice of AHP–fuzzy methods.

• Expand the discussion to interpret results and connect them with prior research and practice.

• Revise the conclusion, replacing “suggestions” with “recommendations”, and add limitations/future research.

• Improve the English language for conciseness and clarity.

With these revisions, the manuscript will be significantly strengthened.

Kind regards,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

• The manuscript is readable but requires thorough proofreading to correct minor grammatical issues (articles, plurals, and verb tense), punctuation, and sentence flow.
• English Language: Meticulous proof reading is required

Author Response

Ref #.: 3881973

Title: Research on the evaluation of college students' information literacy under the background of sustainable development: A case study of Yancheng Institute of Technology

 

Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “3881973”. Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Revisions in the text are shown using red highlight for additions, and strikethrough font for deletions. The responses to the reviewer's comments are marked in red and presented following.

 

Reviewer #2:

1. Refine the abstract to highlight the gap, contribution, and implications more clearly.

Narrow and sharpen the keywords for better indexing.

Response: We are grateful to you for your valuable comments. We have revised the abstract and keywords, which can be found in lines 9 to 25 of the updated manuscript.

2. Strengthen the introduction by explicitly stating the research problem, gap, and objectives.

Response:Thank you for your valuable advice. The authors have revised and supplemented the Introduction section. Please see lines 53 to 76 for the specific changes.

3. Make the literature review more critical by linking gaps to your study.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised the literature review to more explicitly critique existing research and directly connect the identified gaps to the aims and contribution of our study. For revisions, please refer to lines 209-222 and 320-339.

4. Clarify and streamline the methodology while justifying the choice of AHP–fuzzy methods.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions. We have revised this section of the manuscript, as detailed in lines 341-348 and 388-399.

5. Expand the discussion to interpret results and connect them with prior research and practice.

Response: We sincerely thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have thoroughly revised Section 4.3.3 to provide a deeper interpretation of the empirical findings and explicitly connect them with relevant prior research and practical implications. Please see Section 4.3.3 in the manuscript.

6. Revise the conclusion, replacing “suggestions” with “recommendations”, and add limitations/future research.

Response: Thank you for your comments. The suggested revisions have been addressed in the manuscript, as detailed in lines 780-785.

7. Improve the English language for conciseness and clarity.

With these revisions, the manuscript will be significantly strengthened.

Response: We thank you for your constructive suggestions. The manuscript has been thoroughly reviewed and revised accordingly.

8. The manuscript is readable but requires thorough proofreading to correct minor grammatical issues (articles, plurals, and verb tense), punctuation, and sentence flow.

English Language: Meticulous proof reading is required

Response: Thanks for your comments. The manuscript has been carefully proofread and corrected.

 

Thank you for your careful review. We really appreciate your efforts in reviewing our manuscript during this unprecedented and challenging time. We wish good health to you, your family, and your community. Your careful review has helped to make our study clearer and more comprehensive.

 

Sincerely,

Houchao SUN

Yancheng Institute of Technology

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for your interesting manuscript. The paper sets out a practical indicator framework for students’ information literacy and combines Delphi, AHP and fuzzy evaluation in a way that is promising and easy to follow. However, the empirical basis is currently small and there are some methodological and reporting issues that need to be fixed before the paper can be accepted. I recommend a major revision addressing the points below.

- Please state clearly whether you used AHP or factor analysis. If AHP was used, include all pairwise comparison matrices (every level), priority vectors, and CI/CR values, and explain how expert judgments were aggregated.

- A 10-student pilot from one institution is useful as a demonstration but does not support broad claims about students nationally. Either expand the empirical sample (multi-institution, larger N) or limit the conclusions to a pilot study and frame recommendations accordingly. 

- I recommend align scale wording with the constructs. Replace “satisfaction” anchors with competence-appropriate wording. For example “very low - very high” and explain how Likert responses were converted into fuzzy membership degrees.

- If the paper claims a contribution to sustainable development, either add explicit sustainability sub-indicators: digital footprint or energy use, inclusion or tone down the claim. 

Finally, a few minor editorial requests: remove missing DOI, unify terminology across tables, and add a short description of who evaluated students B2-B10.

Thank you for this valuable work. The approach is promising and worth strengthening. 

Author Response

Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “3881973”. Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Revisions in the text are shown using red highlight for additions, and strikethrough font for deletions. The responses to the reviewer's comments are marked in red and presented following.

 

Reviewer #3:

1. Please state clearly whether you used AHP or factor analysis. If AHP was used, include all pairwise comparison matrices (every level), priority vectors, and CI/CR values, and explain how expert judgments were aggregated.

Response: We sincerely thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. The weights for the first-level and second-level indicators of the undergraduate information literacy evaluation framework were calculated using the AHP. The revised manuscript now includes the judgment matrices for the second-level indicators (Tables 8, 9, 10, and 11). We have addressed with corresponding modifications and additions, as detailed on pages 503 to 506 of the manuscript.

2. A 10-student pilot from one institution is useful as a demonstration but does not support broad claims about students nationally. Either expand the empirical sample (multi-institution, larger N) or limit the conclusions to a pilot study and frame recommendations accordingly.

Response: We thank you for your constructive suggestions, which have been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our manuscript. In response, the authors re-examined all the survey questionnaires, identified 151 valid responses, and performed the necessary consolidation and calculations. These updates are detailed in the revised manuscript on lines 556 to 564 and in Table 16.

3. - I recommend align scale wording with the constructs. Replace “satisfaction” anchors with competence-appropriate wording. For example “very low - very high” and explain how Likert responses were converted into fuzzy membership degrees.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions, which have been addressed in the manuscript. The fuzzy membership degrees (Table 14) were derived from Equation 8.

4. - If the paper claims a contribution to sustainable development, either add explicit sustainability sub-indicators: digital footprint or energy use, inclusion or tone down the claim.

Response: Thanks for your constructive comments. The authors have now emphasized, throughout the Abstract, Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion sections, that enhancing students' information literacy skills significantly impacts their capacity for lifelong learning and contributes to the sustainable development of higher education.

Finally, a few minor editorial requests: remove missing DOI, unify terminology across tables, and add a short description of who evaluated students B2-B10.

Response: We thank you for your constructive suggestions. All points have been addressed point-by-point in the revised manuscript.

 

Thank you for your careful review. We really appreciate your efforts in reviewing our manuscript during this unprecedented and challenging time. We wish good health to you, your family, and your community. Your careful review has helped to make our study clearer and more comprehensive.

 

Sincerely,

Houchao SUN

Yancheng Institute of Technology

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an interesting research on the evaluation of college students' information literacy under the background of sustainable development. The results of the study are relevant and represent an interesting endeavor.

However, some improvements should be considered:

1. The abstract should describe more clearly the main methods applied, including relevant data such as the sample.
2. The introduction mentions the topics that will be examined, but does not indicate the objectives of this research, nor the gap that this study fills.
3. The description of the method states that a questionnaire survey was conducted to test the rationality, effectiveness, and feasibility of the evaluation system. The authors should explain more clearly when the questionnaire was administered, what was the sample, how the questionnaire was designed, etc.
4. It is also stated that the opinions of experts, researchers, and professors were heard via telephone, internet, and interviews. How many experts, researchers, or professors were interviewed? How were they selected? Who conducted the interviews? Was there an interview guide? The "Results and discussions" section states that 30 experts in related higher education fields with experience in library science, education, and computer science, were invited to conduct expert consultations and questionnair surveys, both online and offline, but for greater clarity, these details should be included in the "Methodology" section along with the answers to the above questions.
5. I recommend a revision of the "Methodology" section to explain more clearly how the data was collected, what methods were used, how were the experts selected, etc.
6. Abbreviated expressions should be written out in full the first time they are used, with the abbreviation in brackets, as some of them may not be familiar to all the readers (e.g. IFLA).

Author Response

Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “3881973”. Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Revisions in the text are shown using red highlight for additions, and strikethrough font for deletions. The responses to the reviewer's comments are marked in red and presented following.

 

Reviewer #4:

1.The abstract should describe more clearly the main methods applied, including relevant data such as the sample.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions. The authors have revised the abstract of the manuscript.

2. The introduction mentions the topics that will be examined, but does not indicate the objectives of this research, nor the gap that this study fills.

Response: Thank you for your kind suggestions and comments. The authors have supplemented the introduction of the manuscript, which can be found on lines 53 to 76.

3.The description of the method states that a questionnaire survey was conducted to test the rationality, effectiveness, and feasibility of the evaluation system. The authors should explain more clearly when the questionnaire was administered, what was the sample, how the questionnaire was designed, etc.

Response: We thank you for your suggested revisions. The authors have added. Please see lines 459 to 470.

4.It is also stated that the opinions of experts, researchers, and professors were heard via telephone, internet, and interviews. How many experts, researchers, or professors were interviewed? How were they selected? Who conducted the interviews? Was there an interview guide? The "Results and discussions" section states that 30 experts in related higher education fields with experience in library science, education, and computer science, were invited to conduct expert consultations and questionnair surveys, both online and offline, but for greater clarity, these details should be included in the "Methodology" section along with the answers to the above questions.

Response: We thank you for your detailed comments and suggestions. We have revised the manuscript to provide more comprehensive and complete information in section 4.1.2.

5.I recommend a revision of the "Methodology" section to explain more clearly how the data was collected, what methods were used, how were the experts selected, etc.

Response: Thank you for your comments, which have been addressed in the revised manuscript.

6.Abbreviated expressions should be written out in full the first time they are used, with the abbreviation in brackets, as some of them may not be familiar to all the readers (e.g. IFLA).

Response: Thank you for your comments and suggestions. The author has reviewed the manuscript and completed the revisions.

 

Thank you for your careful review. We really appreciate your efforts in reviewing our manuscript during this unprecedented and challenging time. We wish good health to you, your family, and community. Your careful review has helped to make our study clearer and more comprehensive.

 

Sincerely,

Houchao SUN

Yancheng Institute of Technology

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The major strength of your article is that it attempts an interesting methodology, and the historical positioning in the literature review is robust.

Please note in the following that I am a learning scientist (the field of “the learning sciences” is a very different field from other fields such as “the science of learning”), and in the learning sciences we use some fundamental assumptions that will frame my suggestions. For example, from a learning sciences perspective, the paper treats information literacy as a static set of decontextualized skills that can be assigned a numerical score. It misses the opportunity to engage with theories of situated learning, which posit that literacy is a practice deeply embedded in social and disciplinary contexts. The quantitative score, while useful, obscures the rich, qualitative processes of how students actually find, evaluate, and use information in their specific fields of study.

My major concern is that the definitions and conceptualizations of information literacy on the cutting edge of the literature has been moving towards a complex systems perspective that requires expansive/holistic methods and rejects reductionist methods, which unfortunately includes surveys.

My second major concern is that the manuscript does not have a strong enough alignment with sustainability (only the introduction and conclusion sections have a tentative treatment).

There isn’t sufficient justification as to the weights, which may point to a fundamental flaw in choice of methodology. Justifications must be derived from the domain of theory, not from expert opinion.

The other analytical approach (fuzzy evaluation) also needs a lot more argument justifying this choice, as well as justification for why the small sample size could be appropriate (although it might not be appropriate and can’t be justified).

The methodology lacks sufficient detail in some areas (and perhaps too much detail in others) – it should have enough detail (including all instruments and procedures) that an independent researcher could replicate your study.

I found no explicit research questions, and if this is empirical research I would expect there to be research questions.

In the introductory sections of your paper, it seems that you might be making some claims that are not supported by in-text citations. You might want to double-check every sentence to make sure that it is properly cited.

Author Response

Reviewer #5:

1.My major concern is that the definitions and conceptualizations of information literacy on the cutting edge of the literature has been moving towards a complex systems perspective that requires expansive/holistic methods and rejects reductionist methods, which unfortunately includes surveys.

Response: We thank you for highlighting the shift toward a complex systems view in IL research. We agree that IL is a situated, socio-cultural practice requiring holistic approaches.

Our study’s conceptual foundation reflects this complexity. As noted in Section 2.1, we treat IL as a multi-dimensional capability—encompassing awareness, ethics, knowledge, and innovation—aligned with holistic conceptions such as “sustainable information behavior” [11] and “information wisdom” [15].

The survey-based AHP-FCEM method was chosen to operationalize these dimensions into a measurable framework for institutional assessment. By integrating Delphi expert consultation with quantitative weighting and fuzzy evaluation, our mixed-method design incorporates qualitative judgment and mitigates excess reductionism.

We view our model as one pragmatic tool within a broader IL ecosystem. In the discussion, we interpret results in light of systemic factors like curriculum and discipline. A limitation note has been added to acknowledge that the model does not fully capture IL's systemic complexity.

2. My second major concern is that the manuscript does not have a strong enough alignment with sustainability (only the introduction and conclusion sections have a tentative treatment).

Response: We thank you for your constructive comments. The manuscript has been revised to highlight, in the Abstract, Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion, that enhancing university students' information literacy skills significantly impacts their lifelong learning abilities and contributes to the sustainable development of higher education.

3. There isn’t sufficient justification as to the weights, which may point to a fundamental flaw in choice of methodology. Justifications must be derived from the domain of theory, not from expert opinion.

Response: We thank you for your comment. The weights for the information literacy indicators were determined using the AHP based on expert opinions, which is an established practice in the field [30, 35]. During the manuscript preparation and revision, we conducted an extensive literature review but did not identify a superior methodology for our specific context. We acknowledge this point and plan to continue our research into theoretical methods for evaluating undergraduate information literacy.

4. The other analytical approach (fuzzy evaluation) also needs a lot more argument justifying this choice, as well as justification for why the small sample size could be appropriate (although it might not be appropriate and can’t be justified).

Response: We thank you for your constructive suggestions. The use of the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method for the quantitative assessment of undergraduate information literacy has been clarified in the manuscript. Furthermore, in response to comments from other reviewers, the sample size has been supplemented to strengthen the robustness and reliability of the conclusions.

5. The methodology lacks sufficient detail in some areas (and perhaps too much detail in others) – it should have enough detail (including all instruments and procedures) that an independent researcher could replicate your study.

Response: We thank you for your constructive comments. In Section 3, we have made extensive revisions and additions to enhance clarity and facilitate replication by the readers. Please see pages 7-9 for details.

6. I found no explicit research questions, and if this is empirical research I would expect there to be research questions.

Response: We thank you for your suggestion. Added text has been incorporated into the Introduction and Literature Review of the manuscript. Please see pages 2,5,7 for details.

7. In the introductory sections of your paper, it seems that you might be making some claims that are not supported by in-text citations. You might want to double-check every sentence to make sure that it is properly cited.

Response: We thank you for your suggestion. The Introduction of the manuscript has been carefully proofread and refined accordingly.

 

Thank you for your careful review. We really appreciate your efforts in reviewing our manuscript during this unprecedented and challenging time. We wish good health to you, your family, and your community. Your careful review has helped to make our study clearer and more comprehensive.

 

 

Sincerely,

Houchao SUN

Yancheng Institute of Technology

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of this article have done a great deal to address various issues. Numerous typos have been corrected, and the status and challenges of information literacy in China's education system are explained in more detail. All stages of the study are described in detail and presented step by step. An analytical hierarchy process (AHP) integrated with the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method (FCEM) to create a quantitative assessment model for information literacy is described. The conclusions of the study results have been significantly expanded. This article is recommended for publication.

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for their hard work, which made the manuscript more complete.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,
thank you for the revised manuscript and for the clear, careful work you put into the revision. I appreciate how thoroughly you responded to the reviewers’ comments. In particular, the revision successfully addresses the main concerns and substantially strengthens the paper.

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for their hard work, which made the manuscript more complete.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This version is improved compared to the previous one, and I noted that the authors provided rigorous responses to all the comments made during the previous evaluation stage. The changes and amendments made to the manuscript improve the content and bring greater clarity.

I have no other comments or suggestions regarding the content of this manuscript. However, after having carefully read the revised version, I note that there are some editing oversights and the text needs careful proofreading.

Abbreviated expressions must be written in full when first used in the text of the article, even if they have been mentioned in the abstract. "Information literacy" appears abbreviated at the beginning of the introduction and appears in full in lines 52-53.

The title of subchapter 5.1 (main conclusion) should be capitalized.

Author Response

Ref #.: 3881973

Title: Research on the evaluation of college students' information literacy under the background of sustainable development: A case study of Yancheng Institute of Technology

 

Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “3881973”. Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Revisions in the text are shown using red highlight for additions, and strikethrough font for deletions. The responses to the reviewer's comments are marked in red and presented following.

 

Reviewer #4:

1.This version is improved compared to the previous one, and I noted that the authors provided rigorous responses to all the comments made during the previous evaluation stage. The changes and amendments made to the manuscript improve the content and bring greater clarity.

 

I have no other comments or suggestions regarding the content of this manuscript. However, after having carefully read the revised version, I note that there are some editing oversights and the text needs careful proofreading.

Abbreviated expressions must be written in full when first used in the text of the article, even if they have been mentioned in the abstract. "Information literacy" appears abbreviated at the beginning of the introduction and appears in full in lines 52-53.

The title of subchapter 5.1 (main conclusion) should be capitalized.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion for revision. We have revised and corrected the entire text.

Thank you for your careful review. We really appreciate your efforts in reviewing our manuscript during this unprecedented and challenging time. We wish good health to you, your family, and community. Your careful review has helped to make our study clearer and more comprehensive.

 

Sincerely

Houchao SUN

Yancheng Institute of Technology

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Original Comment: My major concern is that the definitions and conceptualizations of information literacy on the cutting edge of the literature has been moving towards a complex systems perspective that requires expansive/holistic methods and rejects reductionist methods, which unfortunately includes surveys.

Comment on Revision: The authors did expand the discussion section to interpret their reductionist data in a more nuanced way. The attempt to reframe their method was a good step, but overall the authors have not changed their fundamental methodology using survey data which is incompatible with the cutting edge state of the information literacy field which is using complexity perspectives and rejecting reductionist methods. My concern was superficially, but not fundamentally, addressed.

Original Comment: My second major concern is that the manuscript does not have a strong enough alignment with sustainability (only the introduction and conclusion sections have a tentative treatment).

Comment on Revision: This was only minimally addressed by strengthening the framing in the abstract, intro, discussion, and conclusion – but I am not convinced that the study itself has anything to do with sustainability (for example, table 4.1.2 does not use sustainability theories, concepts, literature, or any other aspects relevant to sustainability). My concern was not fundamentally addressed.

Original Comment: There isn’t sufficient justification as to the weights, which may point to a fundamental flaw in choice of methodology. Justifications must be derived from the domain of theory, not from expert opinion.

Comment on Revision: The authors defended their choice as established in the field. Which field? AHP with expert opinion is probably “established” in multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) and operations research, but in my judgment it is not in information literacy. It remains my stance that information literacy competency indicators must be derived only from empirically-tested theories, not from experts (and therefore the use of AHP is fundamentally problematic).

Original Comment: The other analytical approach (fuzzy evaluation) also needs a lot more argument justifying this choice, as well as justification for why the small sample size could be appropriate (although it might not be appropriate and can’t be justified).

Comment on Revision: The authors have substantially improved the article to justify the fuzzy evaluation approach as well as the sample size. This concern has been addressed.

Original Comment: The methodology lacks sufficient detail in some areas (and perhaps too much detail in others) – it should have enough detail (including all instruments and procedures) that an independent researcher could replicate your study.

Comment on Revision: The methodology is now much more transparent. The inclusion of survey instruments was an important addition. This concern has been addressed.

Original Comment: I found no explicit research questions, and if this is empirical research I would expect there to be research questions.

Comment on Revision: The new paragraphs address the problem, gap in the literature, and how this study seeks to address the gap. This concern has been addressed.

Original Comment: In the introductory sections of your paper, it seems that you might be making some claims that are not supported by in-text citations. You might want to double-check every sentence to make sure that it is properly cited.

Comment on Revision: The addition of new references and citations improved the article. This concern has been addressed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers

 

Ref #.: 3881973

Title: Research on the evaluation of college students' information literacy under the background of sustainable development: A case study of Yancheng Institute of Technology

 

Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “3881973”. Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Revisions in the text are shown using red highlight for additions, and strikethrough font for deletions. The responses to the reviewer's comments are marked in blue and presented following.

 

Reviewer #5:

 

1.The authors did expand the discussion section to interpret their reductionist data in a more nuanced way. The attempt to reframe their method was a good step, but overall the authors have not changed their fundamental methodology using survey data which is incompatible with the cutting edge state of the information literacy field which is using complexity perspectives and rejecting reductionist methods. My concern was superficially, but not fundamentally, addressed.

Response: Thank you for your constructive comments. We agree with your point. There are many research methods for information literacy of professionals in education, medical care, industry and other fields, and the analysis angles are diverse. At the same time, many scholars still use the commonly used Delphi method and hierarchical analysis method, for example:

Li et al. used qualitative analysis, the Delphi method, and the analytic hierarchy process to construct a comprehensive indicator system that includes four primary indicators: moral character, educational ability, teaching competence, and research expertise. These primary indicators are further divided into 15 secondary indicators, such as political morality, information literacy integration, research concept literacy, and educational and teaching philosophy, and 53 tertiary indicators, such as the integration of ideological and political education into the curriculum, information ethics and morality, research values, and pre-class teaching decision-making data. ([35]Li,W.,Hu,T. Research on the Construction of Index System to Promote the Sustainable Development of Core Literacy of Physical Education Teachers in Chinese Universities from the Perspective of Higher Education Modernization.J. Sustainability, 2023(15):13921.)

Zhao et al. recruits college students who use smart libraries as the research object. It uses the literature research method, Delphi method, and analytic hierarchy process; draws on existing authoritative digital literacy frameworks and evaluation methods; and combines two rounds of expert interviews to establish a digital literacy evaluation system for college students using the smart library. It also carries out empirical analysis by a questionnaire survey.([36]Zhao,L.,Zhang,S.,Bai,Z. Research on the Digital Literacy Evaluation System for College Students in Smart Libraries.J.Journal of Imaging Science and Technology,2025(69):010409.)

In research on medication information literacy among older adults in the medical field, Zhou et al. used the existing literature to define medication information literacy (MIL) as a theoretical framework. A two-round Delphi survey was conducted to identify the essential components of a MIL indicator system for older adults. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was then used to assign weights to each indicator.([37]Zhou,X.,Yi,J.,Bai,L.,et al. Toward a Medication Information Literacy Indicator System for Older Adults: A Delphi Study.J. Health Expectations, 2024(27):e14127.)

There are many other research reports on information literacy using the Delphi method and the AHP method, and the author will not list them all. At the beginning of this manuscript, the author decided to use the same research methods as some scholars, such as the Delphi method and the AHP method.The author will actively explore and try to adopt new research methods in subsequent studies in order to achieve new research results.

 

2. This was only minimally addressed by strengthening the framing in the abstract, intro, discussion, and conclusion – but I am not convinced that the study itself has anything to do with sustainability (for example, table 4.1.2 does not use sustainability theories, concepts, literature, or any other aspects relevant to sustainability). My concern was not fundamentally addressed.

Response: We thank the reviewer for their constructive comments. The manuscript has added section 4.1.3, which details the contribution of university students' information literacy indicators to the Sustainable Development Goals. See lines 496 to 518 for details.

 

3. The authors defended their choice as established in the field. Which field? AHP with expert opinion is probably “established” in multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) and operations research, but in my judgment it is not in information literacy. It remains my stance that information literacy competency indicators must be derived only from empirically-tested theories, not from experts (and therefore the use of AHP is fundamentally problematic).

Response: Thank you to the reviewers for their valuable feedback. The authors conducted extensive preliminary research on methods for evaluating college students' information literacy. Through a review of published literature, they found that the AHP is a classic, mature method that systematically addresses expert subjective judgments and is widely accepted by scholars. The weighting of university students' information literacy indicators in this manuscript also referenced analytical methods such as those cited in the manuscript [35-37].

In recent years, the AHP combined with expert opinion, has been used by many scholars to identify information literacy indicators. Published literature indicates that this method has gained considerable recognition among scholars. Of course, establishing reliable and empirically sound analytical methods in the field of information literacy will likely require extensive research and development. We are pleased to continue researching information literacy analysis methods and will publish our findings as soon as we have any new developments. Unfortunately, we have not yet found a method for determining information literacy indicators that is superior to the AHP. In the future, based on your valuable feedback and research ideas, we will continue to conduct research on college students' information literacy skills and actively explore new research methods to achieve new and innovative results.

 

Thank you for your careful review. We really appreciate your efforts in reviewing our manuscript during this unprecedented and challenging time. We wish good health to you, your family, and community. Your careful review has helped to make our study clearer and more comprehensive.

 

Sincerely

Houchao SUN

Yancheng Institute of Technology

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Original Comment: The authors did expand the discussion section to interpret their reductionist data in a more nuanced way. The attempt to reframe their method was a good step, but overall the authors have not changed their fundamental methodology using survey data which is incompatible with the cutting edge state of the information literacy field which is using complexity perspectives and rejecting reductionist methods. My concern was superficially, but not fundamentally, addressed.

Comment on Revision: The authors have been highly diligent in addressing the previous round of comments. However, in the context of complexity theory on which recent developments in IL competencies are based, these competencies and their relative importance are not static, expert-defined weights, but rather emergent properties derived from situated, socio-cultural practice. Relying on expert opinion (Delphi/AHP) establishes an a priori, top-down ontology for IL that recent scholarship explicitly rejects in favor of emergent, bottom-up methods derived from empirical data on learning and information behavior.

Original Comment: This was only minimally addressed by strengthening the framing in the abstract, intro, discussion, and conclusion – but I am not convinced that the study itself has anything to do with sustainability (for example, table 4.1.2 does not use sustainability theories, concepts, literature, or any other aspects relevant to sustainability). My concern was not fundamentally addressed.

Comment on Revision: The authors worked hard and framed the relevance of their indicators to the SDGs, but they failed to integrate sustainability concepts or principles into the weighting methodology itself. The hierarchy of importance (the weights) was derived purely from expert consensus, not from a theoretical framework that uses sustainability theories and prioritizes competencies essential for sustainable outcomes. In order to be a fit for Sustainability, major revisions at the level of study design and data analyses will be needed to make it a sustainability paper in substance, not only framing.

Original Comment: The authors defended their choice as established in the field. Which field? AHP with expert opinion is probably “established” in multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) and operations research, but in my judgment it is not in information literacy. It remains my stance that information literacy competency indicators must be derived only from empirically-tested theories, not from experts (and therefore the use of AHP is fundamentally problematic).

Comment on Revision: The authors' defense citing the use of AHP/Delphi in related fields for constructing index systems confirms the flaw rather than resolving it. The primary critique is not whether AHP is established in general decision-making fields, but that it is fundamentally incompatible with the theoretical basis of contemporary IL research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers

 

Ref #.: 3881973

Title: Research on the evaluation of college students' information literacy under the background of sustainable development: A case study of Yancheng Institute of Technology

 

Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “3881973”. Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Revisions in the text are shown using red highlight for additions, and strikethrough font for deletions. The responses to the reviewer's comments are marked in blue and presented following.

 

Reviewer #5:

 

1. The authors have been highly diligent in addressing the previous round of comments. However, in the context of complexity theory on which recent developments in IL competencies are based, these competencies and their relative importance are not static, expert-defined weights, but rather emergent properties derived from situated, socio-cultural practice. Relying on expert opinion (Delphi/AHP) establishes an a priori, top-down ontology for IL that recent scholarship explicitly rejects in favor of emergent, bottom-up methods derived from empirical data on learning and information behavior.

Response: We sincerely thank you for once again reviewing our manuscript and providing this profoundly insightful and constructive comment. You have astutely identified the tension between our research methodology (Delphi/AHP) and the underpinnings of complexity theory. We fully understand and deeply appreciate your concerns, which have prompted us to engage in deeper reflection and clarification regarding the theoretical positioning and value of our study.

We agree with your perspective that IL, grounded in complexity theory, is dynamic, situated, and emergent from specific socio-cultural practices, rather than a static, universally applicable framework defined by experts. Treating IL competencies as a set of pre-defined, statically weighted components established by experts does indeed create the tension with principles of complexity theory. We are grateful that you have compelled us to articulate this point more clearly in our manuscript.

 

In our revised manuscript, we emphasize that the primary aim of this study is not to establish a universal, a priori ultimate truth about IL. On the contrary, this research addresses a specific and pressing challenge in higher education practice: educators and administrators urgently need a consensual, operational, and relatively stable guiding framework.

Thus, this study can be viewed as an attempt to establish a current best practice benchmark for the IL competencies by synthesizing the collective wisdom and experience of seasoned educational practitioners (experts). The value of this benchmark lies not in its perpetual accuracy but in its utility as a reference point for guiding pedagogical practice and assessment at a specific point in time within a dynamically evolving field. The use of the Delphi method and AHP serves to distill these recognized patterns that have been validated through practical experience. This approach represents a different, yet potentially complementary, pathway to understanding and navigating complexity compared to identifying emergent patterns from student behavioral data.

The priori, top-down ontology that you critique is correct. To directly address this issue within the manuscript and better situate our work within the perspective of complexity theory, we have completed the following substantive revisions in the Discussion and Limitations. For details, please refer to page 25, 26.

 

2. The authors worked hard and framed the relevance of their indicators to the SDGs, but they failed to integrate sustainability concepts or principles into the weighting methodology itself. The hierarchy of importance (the weights) was derived purely from expert consensus, not from a theoretical framework that uses sustainability theories and prioritizes competencies essential for sustainable outcomes. In order to be a fit for Sustainability, major revisions at the level of study design and data analyses will be needed to make it a sustainability paper in substance, not only framing.

Response: We sincerely thank you for their thoughtful comments regarding the integration of sustainability principles into the weighting methodology. In response, we clarify that the primary aim of our study is to assess college students’ information literacy within the broader context of sustainable development—not to advance sustainability theory itself. The focus of the manuscript reflect this scope: we seek to evaluate college students' information literacy competence and propose practical strategies for enhancement through curriculum design, teaching models, and library services. These contributions are intended to promote sustainable development of higher education.

 

3.The authors' defense citing the use of AHP/Delphi in related fields for constructing index systems confirms the flaw rather than resolving it. The primary critique is not whether AHP is established in general decision-making fields, but that it is fundamentally incompatible with the theoretical basis of contemporary IL research.

Response: We sincerely thank you for this insightful and constructive comment. Your feedback has prompted us to engage in deeper reflection on the methodological choices of our study and has helped us to articulate its contributions and positioning with greater clarity.

We fully understand and respect your perspective regarding the potential tension between AHP and the theoretical underpinnings of contemporary IL research. The critique is indeed valid and pertinent. We wish to clarify that the primary aim of our study was not to advance IL theory per se, but rather to address a practical problem consistently identified in both literature and practice: the need to translate macro-level, qualitative critiques of IL into an operable assessment tool capable of diagnosis, measurement, and intervention at the institutional level.

Driven by this specific objective, we selected the AHP/Delphi combination. This decision was primarily based on its established efficacy, as a decision-making tool, in structuring complex, multi-dimensional constructs (like IL) and synthesizing the practical wisdom of domain experts (the educators and librarians in our study) to determine the relative practical importance of various dimensions. The design of our research is, in essence, "problem-oriented" rather than "theory-driven"—its paramount goal was to generate a useful and actionable tool.

We posit that the sustainability value of this research lies not in the weighting methodology itself, but in the resulting evaluation model and its application. Our four-dimensional indicator system (particularly the "Information Ethics, Law and Security" and "Information Integration and Innovation" dimensions) was explicitly designed from the outset to incorporate competencies crucial for sustainable development (as outlined in Section 4.1.3). By applying this model empirically, we were able to identify specific, actionable deficiencies in students' IL (e.g., in critical evaluation and innovative application), thereby providing empirical evidence and targeted guidance for higher education institutions to optimize curriculum design, teaching models, and library services. This directly empowers students to address complex sustainability challenges.

We humbly position this work as an applied, methodological exploration. It seeks to bridge the theory-practice gap by offering a replicable, data-driven pathway for advancing sustainability-oriented IL education at the institutional level.

Once again, we are grateful for your enlightening review, which has significantly enhanced the depth of our manuscript's discussion.

 

Thank you again for your careful review. We really appreciate your efforts in reviewing our manuscript during this unprecedented and challenging time. We wish good health to you, your family, and community. Your careful review has helped to make our study clearer and more comprehensive.

 

Sincerely

Houchao SUN

Yancheng Institute of Technology

Author Response File: Author Response.docx