Review Reports - Determinants of Tolerance Among Higher Education Students in Montenegro: Quantitative Insights for Advancing Educational and Societal Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I have carefully read and analyzed your manuscript entitled “Determinants of Tolerance among Higher Education Students in Montenegro: Quantitative Insights for Advancing Educational and Societal Sustainability.”

The paper addresses a timely and highly relevant topic situated at the intersection of tolerance, higher education, and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). It contributes essential empirical evidence from a less-studied regional context and offers theoretical insights into the relationship between social inclusion, digital literacy, and sustainability competencies. Overall, the study is well-structured, logically organized, and methodologically sound, with a clear commitment to ethical research practices.

That said, there are several areas where the manuscript could be further refined to strengthen its clarity, depth, and international relevance. My comments are intended to be constructive and with appreciation for the authors’ thoughtful and responsible research.

Major Points

Methodological Transparency
The rationale for using both logistic regression and principal component analysis (PCA) should be elaborated. Please explain how the variables were selected, whether assumptions for these methods were met, and how multicollinearity was addressed. This will enhance readers’ confidence in the robustness of the statistical modeling.
Theoretical Integration
The manuscript draws on multiple frameworks (Allport’s contact theory, Blalock’s threat theory, and Inglehart’s post-materialism). It would strengthen the argument to explicitly demonstrate how these theories guided the variable selection, survey design, or interpretation of the regression and PCA results. A clearer conceptual linkage will make the paper more compelling to an international audience.
Comparative and Contextual Framing
Section 4.3, which situates Montenegro within broader European and Balkan dynamics, is insightful. However, including updated references from 2023–2024 (e.g., UNESCO, Eurobarometer, or OECD education data) would increase the timeliness and relevance of this section.
Educational and Practical Implications
The discussion could be more directly connected to ESD competencies, such as systems thinking, empathy, intercultural dialogue, and civic participation. Concrete examples of curricular innovations or teacher training initiatives would enhance the applicability of the research.
Future Research Directions
The limitations are appropriately discussed. It might be helpful to explicitly recommend longitudinal or intervention-based follow-up studies that could assess changes in tolerance and sustainability competencies over time. This would add valuable continuity to your contribution.

Minor Points

Ensure consistent figure numbering (for example, Figure 2 appears twice).
Standardize reference formatting according to MDPI style.
Some sentences in the abstract could be shortened for conciseness without losing meaning.
The English language is good overall, but could benefit from minor stylistic refinement for fluency and clarity.
Consider summarizing the theoretical, methodological, and policy contributions more explicitly in the conclusion.

Overall Assessment

This manuscript presents a meaningful and original contribution to the literature on sustainability education and social cohesion. The authors have successfully connected tolerance and higher education with global sustainability goals, which aligns perfectly with Sustainability’s mission.

I recommend acceptance after minor revision, primarily to enhance methodological transparency and strengthen theoretical connections.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English used throughout the manuscript is clear, coherent, and demonstrates good command of academic writing. The paper reads fluently overall and successfully communicates complex concepts related to tolerance, higher education, and sustainability. I appreciate the authors’ careful writing and evident effort to maintain a professional tone and structure. However, several minor linguistic and stylistic refinements would make the text even stronger and easier to read for an international audience. Below I outline the main points that, if addressed, could enhance the manuscript’s overall fluency and clarity:

Sentence structure and flow – Some sentences, particularly in the abstract and introduction, are rather long and begin with extended introductory clauses. Reorganizing these sentences so that the main idea appears earlier would improve readability and make the argument more direct.
Example (generic style): Instead of starting with long contextual phrases, begin with the key message, e.g., “This study explores tolerance among students…” rather than “In the context of sustainability education, this study explores…”
Conciseness and redundancy – In several places, phrases such as “it should be emphasized that” or “in this regard” appear frequently. These can be replaced with more direct verbs or omitted altogether to make the prose tighter and more dynamic.
Articles and number agreement – There are occasional inconsistencies in the use of “the,” “a,” and plural forms. For instance, generic concepts like “tolerance among students” should not take “the,” whereas specific cases (e.g., “the survey results”) should. Also, minor corrections such as “data indicate” (not “data indicates”) will ensure grammatical precision.
Verb tense consistency – The manuscript sometimes alternates between past and present tense within the same section. Since this is an empirical study, using the past tense consistently for methods and results will make the description more accurate, while the present tense can be reserved for theoretical framing.
Repetition and connectors – Words such as tolerance, sustainability, and education are central to the paper but occasionally appear multiple times in one sentence. Consider using synonyms or rephrasing for variation. Also, limit overuse of connectors like “thus,” “therefore,” “in this context,” etc., to improve flow and avoid overly formal rhythm.
Punctuation and sentence segmentation – A few long sentences include many commas, which can burden comprehension. Dividing them into two shorter sentences will make the text clearer and more natural for readers unfamiliar with the topic.
Idiomatic phrasing – In several cases, expressions appear slightly translated (e.g., “in the frame of higher education system”). Replacing them with more idiomatic phrases (“within the higher education system”) will create a smoother, more native tone.
Paragraph conclusions – Some paragraphs, especially in the discussion, end with general statements like “This highlights the importance of education in promoting sustainability.” It would be stronger to close each paragraph with a specific insight directly tied to your data or analysis.

Overall, the manuscript’s English is good and entirely comprehensible, but light stylistic polishing is recommended to make it read more naturally and to ensure consistency throughout. These are minor issues that do not affect the scientific rigor or the quality of the research. After small revisions, the text will be even more engaging and professional for an international audience.

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for the thoughtful and detailed feedback. We appreciate the constructive suggestions, and we have carefully revised the manuscript to address each of the points raised. Attached you can find a document containing a point-by-point response to your suggestions, with detailed explanations of the revisions. Also attached is the revised version of the paper, in which the comments from all three reviewers have been incorporated.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have done a good job at writing the article. I have the following comments for them to further improve it.

Abstract:

The abstract could explicitly mention the key statistical results (e.g., regression coefficients or effect sizes) to enhance transparency.
“Double-edged factor” (digital media) could be phrased more formally, such as “ambivalent influence” or “dual effect.”
Clarify whether the data were collected cross-sectionally or longitudinally within the abstract.

Introduction:

The introduction could be shortened slightly to improve readability as some sections repeat the same justification for linking ESD and tolerance.
Include a brief visual framework or conceptual model summarizing how different variables (education, digital literacy, insecurity, etc.) are hypothesized to influence tolerance.
The transition from theoretical frameworks to research questions could be made more explicit with a short paragraph outlining the logical derivation.

Research Questions:

The authors could add one sub-question focusing on the interaction between digital literacy and education (since this is a key discussion point later).

Methodology:

Please specify the operational definition of “tolerance” and which items were included in the composite variable or dependent measure.
Clarify if PCA was conducted on attitudinal items only or also on behavioral indicators.
Include a table of variables with descriptions (independent, dependent, control).
Discuss the sampling method’s representativeness in more detail as to how diverse were the universities (public/private, regional distribution)?
Since the survey was conducted online, mention measures taken to prevent duplicate responses

Results:

The “Student Tolerance Model” is conceptually interesting but would benefit from a diagram summarizing its structure and key predictors.
Include numerical details (e.g., regression coefficients, confidence intervals) in a results table.
Ensure figure numbering consistency (some are misnumbered, e.g., “Figure 2” appears twice).

Discussion:

The discussion could include a clearer causal reasoning explaining whether tolerance arises from education, or tolerant individuals are more likely to pursue higher education.
Consider briefly contrasting Montenegro’s results with EU-wide tolerance trends (Eurobarometer data cited in ref. 36).
Some paragraphs could be merged for smoother flow (e.g., the segments on historical narratives and EU accession).

Limitations:

Please include a reflection on the potential cultural desirability bias given the sensitivity of tolerance topics.
Add how future studies could validate these findings with behavioral measures (e.g., implicit association tests, classroom interventions).

Implications and Recommendations: The authors could consider adding the following:

Concrete examples of curricular integration (e.g., civic education modules, teacher training practices).
Short paragraph summarizing the implications for university administrators (curriculum design, campus inclusion programs).

Conclusion:

Please shorten slightly and avoid repeating points already made in the discussion.
The authors could include a forward-looking statement on monitoring progress toward SDG 4.7 indicators.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript explores a socially and pedagogically relevant topic — the determinants of tolerance among higher education students within the framework of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and societal sustainability. The subject is both timely and valuable, particularly in the context of post-conflict and transitional societies such as Montenegro. However, despite its relevance, the article presents serious weaknesses in scientific depth, theoretical grounding, and methodological justification. It reads more as a policy-oriented descriptive report than a rigorous empirical study that advances academic knowledge.

The main issues are:

Very limited and outdated literature review, with few references from indexed journals (Scopus or WoS).
Unclear theoretical foundation for key constructs such as tolerance, ESD competencies, or sustainable citizenship.
Insufficient methodological rigor in questionnaire design, construct validation, and data interpretation.
Weak discussion section — results are presented descriptively, without theoretical integration or comparison with previous findings.

Nevertheless, the manuscript is clearly written, well structured, and displays genuine engagement with the topic. With a major revision focused on theoretical enrichment, methodological clarification, and stronger analytical discussion, it could make a valuable contribution.

Specific Comments by Section

Introduction

The introduction adequately contextualizes the study within the Montenegrin and European educational context and acknowledges the importance of SDG 4.7. However, the theoretical background is shallow. The cited literature is mostly classical (Allport, Tajfel, Inglehart) and lacks integration of recent studies (2020–2025) from indexed journals addressing tolerance, sustainability competences, civic engagement, or social inclusion in higher education. The relationship between tolerance and ESD remains normative, not theoretically justified.

Suggestions for improvement:

Expand the literature review with recent and high-impact sources (Scopus/WoS).
Define the conceptual links between tolerance, social learning, and sustainable education.

2. Materials and Methods

The study reports a sample of 469 students and an alpha reliability coefficient (α = 0.86), which is acceptable.However, the questionnaire lacks theoretical or empirical justification. It is unclear whether it was adapted from validated scales (e.g., World Values Survey, European Social Survey, Tolerance Scale, Intercultural Sensitivity Index). There is no description of how items were constructed, validated, or translated. Statistical methods (PCA, regression) are technically appropriate but insufficiently explained — criteria for factor extraction and rotation are missing, and variable coding is unclear. The study design is cross-sectional, yet results are discussed as if causal relationships were established.

Suggestions for improvement:

Clearly specify the source and theoretical foundation of the questionnaire.
Describe the validation process (construct validity, content validity, translation reliability).
Provide more detail on statistical procedures (factor retention, rotation, sample adequacy — KMO, Bartlett).
Avoid causal claims in cross-sectional analysis.

Results

The presentation of data is clear and well organized with appropriate tables and figures. However, the results are mostly descriptive and lack inferential or interpretive depth.

The regression and PCA outputs are not critically interpreted — coefficients, confidence intervals, or explanatory power are not discussed. There is no theoretical discussion of what the identified factors (“inclusive values”, “institutional confidence”) imply in the context of ESD.

Suggestions for improvement:

Provide statistical interpretation beyond descriptive summaries.
Discuss effect sizes and significance levels in light of theory.
Link each result to a conceptual construct or previous finding from literature.

Discussion

The discussion section offers some policy relevance and regional contextualization. However, it repeats the results rather than interpreting them critically. There is no engagement with international literature on ESD, intercultural learning, or higher education sustainability.The tone becomes normative and advocacy-based rather than analytical.

Suggestions for improvement:

Deepen theoretical interpretation using contemporary frameworks (e.g., transformative learning — Mezirow; global citizenship education — UNESCO).
Compare findings with prior empirical studies from similar contexts.
Discuss theoretical implications, contradictions, and limitations.

Limitations

The limitations section is explicit but too general. It does not discuss methodological constraints (e.g., sampling bias, endogeneity, social desirability bias). It should also acknowledge theoretical limitations — e.g., narrow operationalization of tolerance, lack of triangulation, absence of qualitative dimension.

Suggestions for improvement:

Expand to include epistemological and methodological limitations.
Suggest concrete ways to improve validity in future research (mixed-methods, longitudinal design, etc.).

Implications and Recommendations

The section provides well-intentioned educational and policy recommendations. However, these are not empirically grounded; they emerge from general reasoning rather than data-driven evidence.

Suggestions for improvement:

Reframe recommendations based on the actual empirical findings.
Support claims with references to similar international interventions or ESD case studies.

Conclusion

The conclusion is clear and concise, emphasizing the importance of education for tolerance. However, it adds no new analytical insights and fails to highlight the study’s specific contribution to theory or practice.

Suggestions for improvement:

Clearly articulate the study’s original contribution to the field.
Reconnect the conclusion to the research questions and hypotheses.

Recommendation

The manuscript has clear potential but currently lacks the theoretical and methodological robustness expected for publication in Sustainability. The authors are encouraged to:

Substantially expand and update the literature review.
Clarify the theoretical foundation and source of the questionnaire.
Strengthen the discussion by linking empirical results to contemporary theories and prior studies.
Support recommendations with data-based evidence rather than general assertions.

If these points are addressed, the paper could evolve from a descriptive national study into a meaningful scientific contribution to the global discourse on Education for Sustainable Development and social inclusion.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors for their careful and comprehensive revisions. The revised manuscript demonstrates a substantial improvement and is close to publishable quality. Addressing the minor comments below will enhance readability, interpretive clarity, and the manuscript’s contribution to the field.

Conceptual and Theoretical Framework: The revised version shows improved clarity, but a brief synthesizing paragraph linking these frameworks together would further strengthen conceptual cohesion. Please consider explicitly connecting predictors (e.g., education, religiosity, digital engagement) to the chosen theoretical lenses to demonstrate a more integrated conceptual model.
Methods and Measurement: The revisions have clarified the sampling process, PCA procedures, and coding of variables. However, please ensure all reference categories in the logistic regression model are clearly identified for readers. If available, reporting KMO and Bartlett’s test statistics (even briefly or in supplementary material) would reinforce the validity of the PCA components.
Results Interpretation: The elaboration of education as a central predictor of tolerance is improved. Adding a sentence highlighting which aspects of education (curricula, exposure to diversity, critical thinking, instructional approaches) may explain this effect would strengthen the practical implications. The discussion of religiosity as a negative predictor is more balanced than in the initial version. Consider adding a brief acknowledgment of cultural variability in religiosity–tolerance relationships.
Integration of Qualitative Findings: The revised qualitative section is more coherent and thematically structured. For further enhancement, consider adding one representative participant quote for each major theme. This would deepen the qualitative contribution without significantly lengthening the text.
Discussion and Conclusion: The discussion section has improved in clarity and coherence. The manuscript would benefit from a short paragraph acknowledging:

Limitations associated with self-reported data,
Sensitivity of topics such as nationalism or LGBTQ+ attitudes, and
The online nature of data collection.

The concluding section is strong but could include a brief suggestion for how similar higher education institutions in other post-transition or multicultural contexts might apply the findings.

Minor Editorial Issues: A few long sentences (especially in the discussion) should be split to improve readability. Please ensure consistent terminology for “tolerance,” “inclusive attitudes,” and “tolerant attitudes.” Also, minor stylistic polishing may be needed but can be addressed in final proofreading.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I suggest that the abstract can be improved by making it shorter and clearer, with a more cohesive flow, more objective academic language, and a more direct structure that integrates context, method, results, and implications.

Congratulations on the work you carried out, which significantly enriched the scientific article. Your contribution strengthened the clarity and rigor of the study, helped refine its structure and argumentation, and enhanced the overall academic quality of the manuscript. Your insights added depth to the analysis and supported a more coherent and impactful presentation of the research findings.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf