Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors:

The title discusses the impact on "post-COVID tourism," but the article does not present data from the tourism sector.

The abstract emphasizes the impact on "tourism sustainability," highlighting cultural tourism and post-COVID recovery, but the empirical evidence comes almost exclusively from initial teacher training and school contexts, without data from the tourism sector. I recommend redefining the scope or adding data and traceability that connect school, community, and tourism with verifiable results.

The introduction provides a good problematization of the context and justification for sustainable heritage education. The objectives include tourism; however, the empirical basis is school education. I recommend narrowing the scope in the introduction or, as I mentioned earlier, adding data and traceability that connect school, community, and tourism with verifiable results.

I suggest explicitly stating the study objective and research question at the end of the introduction, so they guide the study from the beginning.

In the "Pedagogical Framework and Literature Review" section, the pedagogical framework and literature review are presented, along with a synthesis of gaps. However, although the tourism-didactics section is relevant, it is primarily theoretical; there is a lack of specific examples or cases that directly connect schools, museums, and tourism.

Regarding the "Materials and Methods" section, a qualitative, longitudinal, and collaborative approach is presented, along with the context and participants, inductive thematic analysis, and ethics. Additionally, the use of AI and the institutional repository is made transparent. However, inclusion/exclusion criteria, temporal distribution by levels, and contexts are missing. Regarding ethical considerations, it is necessary to clarify why ethical approval and consent are considered "not applicable," given the type of participants and materials, or it is necessary to report the corresponding approval and consent procedure, considering the participation of minors. Likewise, if the images in figures 3 and 4 contain faces, it is necessary to confirm publication authorizations or indicate that anonymization/blurring was applied. It is also necessary to explicitly state whether there is information on confidentiality/anonymization and the return of results to participants or participating centers in the study.

The "Discussion and Emergence of the HISTOESE Model" section presents a clear articulation of pillars and the inductive trajectory from practice. However, it is necessary to ensure the quality/legibility of figures 5 and 6.

In the "Conclusions and Final Considerations" section, I suggest avoiding language that validates the model without outcome metrics.

For the appendix, I suggest reviewing the format.

Regarding the references, there is a high proportion of current references (last 5 years); however, there are formatting errors that need to be corrected.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the careful and constructive comments, which have significantly improved the quality and clarity of our manuscript (see attachment). Below we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each observation.

1. Title and scope: connection with post-COVID tourism

Reviewer’s comment: "The title discusses the impact on “post-COVID tourism,” but the article does not present data from the tourism sector. I recommend redefining the scope or adding data and traceability that connect school, community, and tourism with verifiable results".

Response:
We appreciate this important observation. In response, we have redefined the title to better reflect the article’s empirical scope and its indirect contribution to tourism through community-based education. The revised title now reads: 

Heritage Education, Sustainability and Community Resilience: the HISTOESE Project-Based Learning Model

Additionally, Section 4.3 (“Community–Tourism Interfaces”) has been expanded with three documented examples from supervised master’s dissertations showing verifiable links between school projects, museums, local tourism offices, and community festivals. A new paragraph has also been added to Section 2.5 (“Heritage Education, Didactics and Tourism”), highlighting the case of the Aspirante Geoparque Litoral de Viana do Castelo and the postgraduate program Educação, Ciência e Património Local which concretely demonstrate the interface between education and tourism. These additions now provide clear traceability between school-based activities and community/tourism outputs, fully addressing the reviewer’s concern.

2. Objectives and research questions

Reviewer’s comment: "I suggest explicitly stating the study objective and research question at the end of the introduction".

Response:
This has been implemented. The end of the Introduction now clearly states the study objective and three guiding research questions (RQ1–RQ3). These questions also structure the Conclusions (Section 5.1) to ensure coherence throughout the manuscript.

3. Empirical scope and inclusion criteria

Reviewer’s comment: "Inclusion/exclusion criteria, temporal distribution by levels, and contexts are missing".

Response:
Section 3.3 (“Data Corpus”) has been expanded to include explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria, the unit of analysis, corpus size (≈50 dissertations, 2008–2025), and selection procedures (repository search, screening stages). A new Flowchart (Figure 7) now visually represents the inclusion and exclusion process, providing transparency and methodological rigor.

4. Ethical considerations and consent

Reviewer’s comment: "It is necessary to clarify why ethical approval and consent are considered “not applicable,” and to confirm anonymization and publication authorizations".

Response: Section 3.4 (“Ethical Considerations and AI Tool Usage”) has been substantially revised. It now explicitly details:

• Institutional compliance with ethical regulations at ESE-IPVC.

• Procedures for informed consent (parental consent for minors, teacher consent for adults).

• Confirmation that all figures are anonymized or faces blurred.

• Clarification that all dissertations are publicly archived in the IPVC repository, with permissions covered by the institutional cooperation framework.

• A formal Data Availability Statement and Ethical Compliance Declaration have also been appended.

5. Figures 5 and 6 (model legibility)

Reviewer’s comment: "Ensure the quality/legibility of figures 5 and 6".

Response: Both figures have been redesigned in high resolution (vector format) and checked for legibility in the MDPI layout. Figure captions have been refined for clarity.

6. Validation language in the Conclusions

Reviewer’s comment: "Avoid language that validates the model without outcome metrics".

Response: The Conclusions have been rewritten to adopt a balanced and cautious tone. We emphasize that HISTOESE is an empirically derived, practice-based framework, not a statistically validated model. The revised section highlights its exploratory, inductive nature and suggests future quantitative studies to assess measurable outcomes.

7. Appendix and references

Reviewer’s comment: Review appendix format and correct reference formatting errors.

Response: Appendices have been reformatted and renamed for clarity as:

• Table A1. List of Master’s Dissertations and Supervised Reports (IPVC Repository, 2008–2025)

• Table A2. Codebook of Inductive Thematic Analysis

• Table A3. Correspondence between Empirical Evidence and HISTOESE Components

References have been fully revised according to APA 7th Edition, and DOI links have been added where available.

 

Summary of major changes addressing Reviewer 1:

Issue	Revision implemented
Title & scope	Adjusted title and added empirical connection to tourism
Objectives	Explicit RQs added at end of Introduction
Methodology	Clear inclusion/exclusion criteria + new flowchart (Figure 7)
Ethics	Expanded procedures for consent, anonymization, and compliance
Figures	Improved design and legibility (Figures 5–6)
Conclusions	Neutral language and future research agenda
Appendices & References	Reformatted and standardized (APA 7)

We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the insightful feedback, which helped us strengthen the coherence between the educational and tourism dimensions of the study, enhance methodological transparency, and improve the overall academic quality of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript: sustainability-3909074

Title: Project-based learning in cultural heritage education and tourism for sustainable development: the HISTOESE model for recovery after COVID

Date: 1 October 2025

 

Dear Author,

After careful consideration of the manuscript ‘Project-Based Learning in Cultural Heritage Education and Tourism for Sustainable Development: The HISTOESE Model on Post-COVID Recovery’ (sustainability-3909074), we believe this work is timely and thought-provoking for three reasons:

1. It articulates project-based learning with cultural heritage and tourism in terms of sustainable development;
2. It proposes the HISTOESE model as an operational synthesis for educational design and post-COVID recovery;
3. It presents longitudinal qualitative evidence (multiple cohorts/experiences) that can be transferred to similar educational and territorial contexts.

In order for the manuscript to meet the Sustainability standard, I detail below what to modify, add or expand, by section.

1) Abstract and keywords

The abstract is dense; a concise version of approximately 200 words is recommended, which clearly states at a glance the objective, qualitative design, corpus (which units were analysed and how many), 2–3 findings and a practical implication of HISTOESE. This increases readability for an interdisciplinary audience.

Refine keywords with standardised descriptors (e.g., project-based learning, heritage education, sustainable tourism, post-COVID recovery, design-based research/thematic analysis).

2) Introduction

The framework is broad but redundant at times; a clear paragraph is needed to establish what we did not know about PBL, heritage and tourism for sustainability in the post-COVID period. The proposal is to condense the initial paragraphs and close the introduction with a paragraph that clearly states the objectives and research questions. In addition, you should add 2–3 comparable empirical studies (PBL in heritage/tourism education and/or post-COVID recovery) to better situate the contribution of HISTOESE.

3) Objectives and research questions

These are inferred but not explicitly stated; traceability of the method, results and model would improve understanding of the study. The proposal is to add

a brief list of research questions. And align the presentation of the results according to the questions.

4) Materials and Methods

4.1 Design and approach: You state that the study is qualitative and that the HISTOESE model is bottom-up. In order for the reader to understand exactly how you analysed the data, you need to clearly state:

• The analytical “lens” (the specific qualitative analysis method). E.g.: reflective thematic analysis with a constructivist approach (or, if applicable, phenomenology/IPA, grounded theory, etc.).
• The ‘design paradigm’, if any. E.g.: Design-Based Research (DBR) or action research, explaining its cycles and how each cycle helped to refine HISTOESE.

The manuscript should answer the following questions.

1. a) If there was DBR or action research: State how many cycles there were (e.g., pilot; adjustment; implementation), what happened in each cycle, and what changed in the HISTOESE model as a result of that cycle.
2. b) Regarding qualitative analysis: State which approach you used (e.g., ‘reflective thematic analysis’) and which steps you followed. If it was Braun & Clarke, you can briefly name the six phases:
3. Familiarisation with the data
4. Initial coding
5. Generation of themes
6. Review of themes
7. Definition and naming of themes
8. Writing and selecting evidence
9. c) About your ‘position’ (positioning): State the interpretive perspective from which you worked (e.g., constructivist/interpretive), so that the reader knows how you understand and construct meaning from the data.

4.2 Sampling: The unit of analysis (e.g., final degree projects/projects/courses), corpus size, time period, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and selection procedure need to be defined. Without this information, it is difficult to assess transferability. The proposal is to specify what, how many, from when to when, how they were chosen, and why they were excluded. Include a simple selection flow chart.

4.3 Sources and instruments: Clearly indicate which sources were analysed (documents, reports, rubrics, interviews, project artefacts) and where the sample material can be consulted (supplement/DOI) in an anonymised version. We suggest adding annexes/supplements with: scripts, rubrics and de-identified examples.

4.4 Analysis and trustworthiness:  To support qualitative validity, a codebook (definitions, criteria, decision rules), coding procedure (deductive/inductive), agreement/consensus (κ/α or double-coding of a subset), team reflexivity, and traceability (audit trail) are expected. The proposal is to include a codebook, code table and themes, which can be included as supplementary material in the Supplement/DOI.

5) Results

The categories/figures are useful, but there is a lack of traceability to cases and criteria for selecting extracts/examples; incorporating coverage indicators (simple frequencies or ‘number of cases where it appears’) will increase credibility.

The proposal: structure into themes and sub-themes, with labelled quotes or bullet points (case/cohort ID).

State how the examples illustrating HISTOESE were chosen (criteria for typical/rich/negative cases).

6) Definition of HISTOESE

The model is the core of the article; an operational definition, limits (what it covers, what it does not cover), and a ‘logic model’ connecting inputs, processes, outputs, and expected results are needed.

Proposal: Include a figure of HISTOESE with its components and relationships.

 Add a correspondence table ‘empirical evidence ↔ HISTOESE component’ with 1–2 excerpts/vignettes per component.

 Specify conditions of application (institutional requirements, partnerships with heritage/tourism actors, PBL timelines).

7) Discussion

It is solid, but certain statements could be further anchored to evidence and the scope could be clarified (context, type of institution, post-COVID phase).

Proposal: organise into: summary of findings; contrast with literature; implications (curriculum, heritage-tourism partnerships, evaluation); limitations (documentary bias, variability between cohorts, absence of comparison group) and future lines of research (controlled pilot studies of HISTOESE, evaluation of impact on skills).

8) Conclusions

Clear conclusion, but it is advisable to link 2–3 statements to evidence and leave actionable recommendations.

Proposal: Write 150–180 words with two or three key messages (anchored in results) and what to do (e.g., co-design with museums, learning-territorial impact rubrics, micro-credentials for teachers).

9) Ethics and data availability

If the corpus includes student work/master's theses or other institutional materials, consent or permission, anonymisation and custody must be clarified. In addition, Sustainability requires a clear Data Availability Statement.

The suggested improvements will strengthen the theoretical basis, methodological transparency, and clarity of presentation of your manuscript, increasing its value to interested researchers and professionals.

Sincerely,

External reviewer — Sustainability (MDPI)

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research. Are long, dense sentences, repeated use of nominalisations, some inconsistency in verb tenses and capitalisation, acronyms not always defined on first use, and remnants of templates (‘FOR PEER REVIEW’). Light copy-editing (conciseness, punctuation, definition of acronyms, US/UK consistency, and polishing of titles/captions) would make it clear and consistent with MDPI standards.

Author Response

We sincerely thank Reviewer 2 for the thoughtful and comprehensive feedback. The suggestions have been extremely valuable in improving the manuscript’s methodological clarity, analytical transparency, and linguistic precision. Below we provide detailed responses to each recommendation.

1. Abstract and Keywords

Reviewer’s comment: The abstract is dense; a concise version of approximately 200 words is recommended... Refine keywords with standardized descriptors.

Response: We have rewritten the Abstract (≈200 words) following the reviewer’s structure: objective → design → corpus → main findings → implications. It now clearly specifies:

• The objective of developing the HISTOESE model;

• The qualitative, design-based approach and corpus (≈50 dissertations, 2008–2025);

• Three main findings on heritage literacy, inclusion, and community collaboration;

• A practical implication for teacher training and sustainable tourism.

The keywords were also refined to standardized descriptors:
Project-based learning; Pedagogical Innovation; Teacher Education; Cultural sustainability; Community engagement; Post-COVID recovery; Design-based research; Heritage and tourism interfaces.

2. Introduction

Reviewer’s comment: Condense the initial paragraphs and end with clear objectives and research questions. Add comparable empirical studies (PBL in heritage/tourism education or post-COVID recovery).

Response: The Introduction was streamlined for conciseness and now ends with a clear statement of objectives and research questions (RQ1–RQ3). We also integrated three comparable empirical studies:

• Fontal & Gómez-Redondo (2016) on Heritage Education for Sustainable Cities (Spain);

• Cainelli & Tomazini (2017) on Learning through Heritage Trails (Brazil);

• Carvalhido et al. (2020) on the Geoparque Litoral de Viana do Castelo and postgraduate program Educação, Ciência e Património Local, illustrating the education–tourism interface in Portugal.

These studies position HISTOESE within an international post-COVID context of educational and territorial recovery.

3. Objectives and Research Questions

Reviewer’s comment: Add a brief list of research questions and align results accordingly.

Response: Implemented. The three research questions (RQ1–RQ3) are now explicitly presented at the end of the Introduction and revisited in Section 5.1 “Answering the Research Questions”, ensuring full traceability between objectives, results, and conclusions.

4. Materials and Methods

Reviewer’s comment: Clarify design, cycles, analytical lens, position, sampling, corpus, sources, and coding procedures.

Response: This section has been comprehensively rewritten and expanded:

• Design: Defined as qualitative, longitudinal, design-based research (DBR) combined with participatory action research.

• DBR cycles: Three cycles (Exploratory Synthesis → Pilot Implementation → Consolidation and Reflection) are described, with their outcomes and influence on the HISTOESE model (Section 3.2, Figure 4).

• Analytical lens: Explicitly identified as reflective thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The six analytic phases are listed.

• Interpretive stance: Clarified as constructivist/interpretivist.

• Sampling and corpus: Explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria, corpus size (n ≈ 50), time frame (2008–2025), selection procedure, and unit of analysis are all detailed.

• Flowchart: A new Figure 7 presents the corpus selection and inclusion process.

• Sources and instruments: Now explicitly enumerated (lesson plans, reflective journals, artefacts, photographs, feedback).

• Trustworthiness: Added details on codebook, double-coding subset (κ = 0.82), audit trail, reflexive memos, and triangulation.

• Supplementary tables: Added as Table A1 (Corpus List), A2 (Codebook), and A3 (Evidence–Model Correspondence).

5. Results and Thematic Synthesis

Reviewer’s comment: Add traceability to cases, structure into themes/subthemes, and indicate selection criteria for examples.

Response: Section 4.1 (“From Practice to Theory”) has been reorganized into five macro-themes (Identity, Citizenship, Inclusion, Didactics, Sustainability) aligned with the codebook. Each example now includes case/report ID numbers and source captions (e.g., “Report no. 2115 – Cristiana Coelho”). Selection criteria are clarified (representative and information-rich cases). Frequencies of theme occurrence were included (e.g., “present in 68% of reports”). This enhances traceability and methodological credibility.

6. Definition and Logic Model of HISTOESE

Reviewer’s comment: Provide an operational definition, limits, logic model, and a correspondence table between evidence and components.

Response: Implemented. Section 3.5 and 3.6 now contain a comprehensive definition of HISTOESE with its four pillars, conditions of application, and transferability limits. Figures 5 and 6 present the conceptual and logic models of HISTOESE (inputs–processes–outputs). A new Supplementary Table A3 provides correspondence between empirical evidence and HISTOESE components, with short illustrative excerpts. These revisions clarify both operational structure and evidential grounding.

7. Discussion

Reviewer’s comment: Organize the discussion into summary, literature contrast, implications, limitations, and future directions.

Response: Section 4 (“Discussion and Emergence of the HISTOESE Model”) has been reorganized accordingly:

1. Summary of findings (Section 4.1–4.3).

2. Contrast with comparable studies (Spain, Brazil, Asia).

3. Implications for curriculum, museum-school partnerships, and sustainable tourism.

4. Limitations (single institutional context, documentary focus).

5. Future research directions (comparative and quantitative validation studies).
   This structure enhances readability and situates HISTOESE within the international field.

8. Conclusions

Reviewer’s comment: Link statements to evidence and provide actionable recommendations.

Response: The Conclusions (Section 5) were rewritten to approximately 180 words, highlighting three key evidence-based messages:

1. Heritage literacy and inclusion as educational outcomes;

2. School–community partnerships as pathways to sustainability;

3. Teacher education as a driver of post-COVID cultural resilience.
   Actionable recommendations include co-design with museums/tourism boards, micro-credentials in heritage sustainability, and shared evaluation rubrics.

9. Ethics and Data Availability

Reviewer’s comment: Clarify consent, anonymisation, custody, and include a clear Data Availability Statement.

Response:
Section 3.4 now provides full details on consent procedures (parental, teacher, institutional), anonymization of figures, and public repository access (http://repositorio.ipvc.pt/).
A formal Ethics and Data Availability Statement has been added at the end of the manuscript, meeting MDPI standards.

10. Language and Formatting

Reviewer’s comment: Improve readability, reduce nominalizations, ensure consistency in capitalization, and define acronyms.

Response: The entire manuscript was language-polished for conciseness, active voice, and US English consistency. Acronyms (PBL, DBR, ESD, UNESCO, etc.) are now defined on first use. All figure and table titles were revised to MDPI format (sentence case, source citation).

Summary of major improvements addressing Reviewer 2

Area	Action Taken
Abstract & Keywords	Rewritten, concise, standardized descriptors
Introduction	Condensed, added RQs and comparable studies
Methods	Detailed DBR cycles, inclusion criteria, flowchart (Fig.7), trustworthiness measures
Results	Structured themes with traceability and case IDs
HISTOESE Model	Operational definition, logic model, correspondence table
Discussion	Organized by summary, literature, implications, limitations
Conclusions	Short, evidence-based, actionable recommendations
Ethics & Data	Expanded procedures and new statement
Language	Copy-edited for clarity and consistency

We thank Reviewer 2 once again for the exceptionally detailed and constructive review. Their guidance allowed us to significantly enhance the methodological transparency and academic precision of the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

 

The manuscript addresses a relevant topic focused on cultural heritage education from the perspective of fostering active pedagogies and cultural resilience, integrating economic, environmental social and cultural dimension. By applying the HISTOESE model, the study contributes to the sustainable development though cultural heritage conservation, including environmental issue, its recognition and valorization, active citizenship and collaboration, providing innovative educational models for reinforcing the long-term sustainability of cultural tourism in the post-pandemic context.

The topic is current and contributes to both academic and policy discussions. Nevertheless, several issues should be addressed before publication:

Abstract It should be avoided to use citations in the abstracts.

Key words: The author used two keywords that are also found in the title of the manuscript: heritage education, sustainable development. At least one of the keywords should be deleted. Usually, the words in the title must not be found in the list of keywords. Another relevant keyword could be: innovative pedagogical models.

Introduction

The author can add the research questions. Moreover, the author can add at least of one or two sentences regarding the importance of the study at the end of introduction.

The author inserted in this section a figure related to the Conceptual research framework. Usually, the schemes are not included in the introduction. This section should introduce the readers in the general context of the topic, emphasizing its importance. So, other details about the way of the construction of the study should be included in other sections. The Figure 1 should be replaced in the methodology section.

Discussion

The discussion section requires greater critical depth, as it should engage more directly with comparable international studies. The author makes the comparison of the results predominantly with theoretical studies or UNESCO reports. Several comparisons should be made referring to the studies dedicated to similar projects dedicated to heritage education from the perspective of sustainable development that were implemented in different countries focused on similar methodology to highlight similarities or differences. These comparisons will provide a more critical analysis of the results.

Author Response

We sincerely thank Reviewer 3 for the constructive and balanced feedback. The comments helped refine the manuscript’s clarity, structure, and critical depth, particularly in the abstract, introduction, and discussion sections. All suggestions were carefully considered and implemented as described below.

1. Abstract

Reviewer’s comment: It should be avoided to use citations in the abstract.

Response: All in-text citations were removed from the Abstract. The revised version now provides a concise, citation-free synthesis (≈200 words) summarizing the research objective, methodology, corpus size, three key findings, and practical implications of the HISTOESE model.

2. Keywords

Reviewer’s comment: The author used two keywords that are also found in the title... At least one should be deleted. Another relevant keyword could be: innovative pedagogical models.

Response: We have refined the list of keywords to avoid duplication with the title and to include the suggested new term. The final list reads as follows:
Project-based learning; Pedagogical Innovation; Teacher Education; Cultural sustainability; Community engagement; Post-COVID recovery; Design-based research; Heritage and tourism interfaces.

This selection aligns with MDPI indexing standards and enhances discoverability.

3. Introduction

Reviewer’s comment: Add the research questions and at least one or two sentences about the importance of the study at the end of the introduction.

The author inserted a figure related to the Conceptual research framework; usually, such figures are not included in the introduction and should be moved to the methodology section.

Response:
These suggestions were fully implemented:

• The research questions (RQ1–RQ3) were added at the end of the Introduction to guide the reader.

• Two new sentences emphasize the importance and originality of the study in linking teacher education, heritage, and sustainable tourism in the post-COVID recovery context.

• The conceptual framework figure (formerly Figure 1) was moved from the Introduction to Section 3 (Materials and Methods), now labelled as Figure 4, where it appropriately supports the methodological explanation.

4. Discussion

Reviewer’s comment: The discussion section requires greater critical depth... engage more directly with comparable international studies.

Response: The Discussion (Section 4) has been substantially expanded to include direct comparisons with empirical studies from multiple countries, thereby achieving the requested critical depth. We have now integrated:

• Fontal & Gómez-Redondo (2016) – Heritage Education for Sustainable Cities (Spain);

• Cainelli & Tomazini (2017) – Learning through Heritage Trails (Brazil);

• Hatipoglu et al. (2014) – Student-led Cultural Mapping and Sustainable Tourism (Asia);

• Carvalhido et al. (2020) – Education, Science and Local Heritage in the Geoparque Litoral de Viana do Castelo (Portugal).

These additions reinforce the international relevance and comparability of the HISTOESE framework, showing how teacher education projects can generate community and tourism impacts analogous to those documented in other heritage education contexts. This cross-national discussion directly addresses the reviewer’s request for greater critical engagement with comparable empirical research rather than relying mainly on theoretical sources or UNESCO reports.

5. Overall structural and stylistic adjustments

Reviewer’s comment: The author can improve the structure and overall clarity of presentation.

Response: The entire manuscript has been language-edited for conciseness, flow, and coherence. Section transitions were improved for smoother progression between theory, methods, results, and discussion. Figure and table titles were revised to comply with MDPI style (sentence case, source attribution).

Summary of improvements addressing Reviewer 3

Area	Reviewer’s concern	Action Taken
Abstract	Remove citations	All citations removed; concise summary (≈200 words)
Keywords	Avoid duplication; add “innovative pedagogical models”	Implemented; new final keyword list
Introduction	Add RQs; move conceptual figure; stress importance	All implemented; figure relocated to Methods
Discussion	Increase critical depth; include international comparisons	Expanded with empirical cases from Spain, Brazil, Asia, and Portugal
Language & Structure	Improve clarity and coherence	Language polished and MDPI style applied

We deeply appreciate Reviewer 3’s constructive insights, which led to a more coherent, critically grounded, and internationally relevant version of the manuscript. These revisions significantly enhance the academic quality and interdisciplinary appeal of the paper.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

According to the observations made, most of the comments have been satisfactorily incorporated. However, there are still minor formatting inconsistencies in the references.

I thank you again for your work and I am sure that advancing on this last point will significantly improve the manuscript.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the encouraging evaluation and for acknowledging the improvements made in response to previous feedback. We carefully reviewed all references and implemented the following specific corrections:

1. Reference formatting: All entries have been revised to comply with the official Sustainability (MDPI) reference style. Journal titles are now in italics, and redundant elements (e.g., access dates) have been removed.
   → Example: “Sustainability 2023, 15, 1245. https://doi.org/…”

2. Uniform punctuation and spacing: Checked and standardised for every reference (semicolon use, spacing before DOI, and removal of double periods).

3. “Available online” standardised: All web references now include “Available online:” followed by the URL, without date of access.

4. Cross-check of in-text citations: Verified consistency between in-text numbering and the reference list (1–110).

5. Minor updates: Italicisation corrected for book and journal titles; author initials harmonised (e.g., “J. Rüsen”, not “Rüsen, J.” where required).

We have also conducted a final proofread of reference style using Zotero’s MDPI Sustainability citation style template to ensure full conformity.

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation and confirm that the entire reference list has now been completely standardised according to MDPI requirements.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript: sustainability-3909074

Title: Project-based learning in cultural heritage education and tourism for sustainable development: the HISTOESE model for recovery after COVID

Date: 1 October 2025

Dear authors,

Thank you for submitting the second version of your manuscript, ‘Project-Based Learning in Cultural Heritage Education and Tourism for Sustainable Development: The HISTOESE Model on Post-COVID Recovery’ (sustainability-3909074). The work you have done is evident: the abstract is much clearer; the introduction closes with a clear gap and explicit research questions; the methodological approach (DBR/action research by cycles + reflective thematic analysis) is well described; the corpus and its selection flow are rigorously documented; and the qualitative credibility (codebook, double coding with κ) is solidly supported. The operational definition of HISTOESE, together with the logic model and the conceptual model, form a recognisable and transferable contribution. The discussion and conclusions are now well anchored in the evidence and include recommendations that can be taken into the classroom.

For the editorial closure, I only ask for minor adjustments, which are very specific and easy to implement:

1) Results section: numbering of figures. Figure 5 is repeated; renumber from that figure onwards. The only real problem is the duplication of the numbering ‘Figure 5’ (used for both the flowchart and the logic model). You should renumber from there onwards and update the references in the text. I checked this in the revised version: ‘Figure 5. Flowchart of corpus selection...’ appears, and later another ‘Figure 5. HISTOESE logic model,’ both with the same number.

2) References in MDPI style: Numerical citation has been adopted, but there are still some formatting details to be sorted out (journal abbreviations, DOI/URL, remnants of template text or notes). Run the bibliography through the Sustainability (MDPI) style in your manager (Zotero/EndNote), normalise DOIs and, for websites, include ‘Available online: ... (accessed on ...)’. Check the 1:1 correspondence between citations in the text and the final list.

4) Polish the text.

• Hyphenation: eliminate word breaks (‘mod-el’, ‘ap-proach’) when exporting to PDF.
• Capitalisation: standardise criteria (e.g., Title Case in headings; sentence case in captions). Avoid unnecessary capitalisation in common nouns (“model”, “figure components”).
• Punctuation: split overly long sentences; no space before commas/full stops and space after; use – for ranges (2008–2025) and — for parentheses; consistent quotation marks throughout the text.
• Template/link remnants: remove marks such as ‘FOR PEER REVIEW’; clean up links (standardised DOI/URL) and check syllable separation after generating the PDF.

Overall, the manuscript has taken a qualitative leap forward. With these minor adjustments, mainly to the presentation, it will be ready for publication.

Thank you for your efforts and willingness to cooperate in this second round.

Kind regards,

External reviewer — Sustainability (MDPI)

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for this positive assessment and for the detailed feedback. The manuscript has undergone a comprehensive final revision, addressing all the points raised:

1. Language and style

• The entire text was reviewed for UK English consistency, ensuring uniform spelling (e.g., favour, behaviour, valorisation, modelling, organisation).

• Long sentences (>40 words) were divided for clarity, particularly in the Introduction, Discussion (4.1–4.3), and Conclusions. Example: Original: “The dissertations are not merely isolated case studies; collectively, they form a robust corpus that exposes recurring themes, methodological innovations, and critical insights into how cultural and historical heritage can be integrated into early education.”

  Revised: “Rather than isolated case studies, the dissertations collectively form a robust corpus revealing recurring themes, methodological innovations, and insights into integrating cultural and historical heritage into early education.”

• Repetitions (e.g., model, framework, teacher education) were reduced through lexical variation and rephrasing.

2. Hyphenation and capitalisation

• All broken hyphenations (e.g., pedagog-ical, collabo-rative) were removed.

• Capitalisation now follows the Sentence case rule for all headings and figure titles, consistent with MDPI guidelines.
  → Example: “4. Discussion and emergence of the HISTOESE approach”.

3. Figures and tables

• Figure numbering was carefully verified and corrected for sequential consistency (Figures 1–17).

• Figure captions were standardised (Sentence case, concise description, source attribution).

• Cross-references in the text were updated accordingly.

4. Formatting and punctuation

• All numeric ranges use an en dash (–) instead of a hyphen (-).

• Em dashes (—) are used consistently for explanatory clauses.

• Abbreviations (e.g., PBL, DBR, RQ1–RQ3) were checked and defined upon first appearance.

5. Structure and conciseness

• Transitional sentences were added between sections to improve logical flow (e.g., between 4.1.5 and 4.2).

• Some paragraphs were slightly condensed to reduce redundancy while preserving meaning.

• The conclusion was rewritten for greater clarity and impact, now highlighting the practical and theoretical implications of the HISTOESE model.

6. Ethical statements and data availability

• Ethical and data statements were reviewed to match MDPI templates and institutional compliance:
  → Ethical approval not required; informed consent obtained via institutional protocols; all data anonymised and publicly available in IPVC Repository.

We confirm that all stylistic and formatting recommendations have been fully implemented. A final quality check was completed according to MDPI author guidelines (UK English, 2024 version).

We are grateful to both reviewers and the editorial team for their constructive and thoughtful feedback. Their comments have significantly strengthened the clarity, consistency, and overall quality of the manuscript. We trust that this revised version now fully meets the journal’s scientific and formal standards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx