Technopreneurship in Engineering Education: Synthesizing Pedagogical Approaches for Sustainable Competency Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript has been assigned to me in the second round of review. As I did not participate in the initial phase, I am unaware of the previous objections and suggestions, a factor that will be reflected in some of my subsequent comments.

The article addresses a topic of significant relevance and currency: the integration of technopreneurship into engineering education, with a commendable focus on sustainability. The review highlights an apparent fragmentation in existing curricula, which may result in graduates having insufficient preparation for sustainability-driven innovation. To mitigate this deficiency, the study proposes a synthesis of four pedagogical approaches deemed cardinal: Project-Based Learning (PBL), Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL), the Jigsaw collaborative learning strategy, and interdisciplinary and international teamwork. The manuscript concludes by laying the conceptual foundation for a future integrated framework, named the Innovation and Techno-Entrepreneurship Education Model (ITEM), designed to align practical experience with the essential competencies for the deep-tech ecosystem and global awareness. Despite the relevance of the subject matter, I believe the article requires a series of substantial modifications to meet publication standards.

1. The attempt to incorporate RQs in this version is noted. However, what is presented constitutes, in my opinion, a methodological sequence or the steps to be followed within the study, rather than genuine questions that articulate the knowledge gap the work seeks to resolve. It is essential to formulate authentic research questions that guided the study's design and that, when answered, justify the need to apply the subsequent methodology.

2. The introduction must culminate with a section that outlines the structure of the remainder of the manuscript (the roadmap), explicitly informing the reader about the content and order of the subsequent chapters. This omission hinders smooth reading and the anticipation of the argumentative structure.

3. Use of Acronyms and List of Abbreviations:

   • Once a term, for example, "Project-Based Learning (PBL)," has been introduced and its acronym established, only the abbreviated form must be used in subsequent mentions throughout the text.

   • The final section dedicated to the list of acronyms or abbreviations must be organized strictly in alphabetical order to facilitate quick reference for the reader.

4. Tables 1 and 2, which contain quantitative values, would benefit significantly from a graphical representation (e.g., figures or diagrams). Adequate visualization would increase the clarity and immediate comprehension of the trends and magnitudes presented.

5. It has been detected that Figure 1 is not properly referenced in the body of the text. Every figure or table must be mentioned and discussed in the corresponding section of the manuscript.

6. It is asserted that the four selected pedagogical elements have "gained prominence." This is an assertion that requires rigorous empirical justification. It is insufficient to state this without having conducted a comparative study or systematic review that demonstrates the preeminence of these approaches over other pedagogical alternatives. Alternatively, if the selection is based on their suitability for the proposed methodology, this must be clearly articulated and defended.

7. The authors must justify the temporal scope (2018-2025) applied to the literature review. Given that the pedagogical elements discussed have an extensive historical trajectory, the manuscript must clarify the methodological criteria or the specific focus that motivates this restrictive temporal range.

8. To ensure the replicability of the study, it is fundamental to specify the total number of articles selected from each of the consulted databases.

9. The textual assertion: “There remains no widely validated conceptual model that systematically integrates these pedagogies into a coherent, multi-stage learning strategy for cultivating deep-tech entrepreneurship competencies [23–25]” does not appear to be sufficiently supported by the cited references ([23-25]). I suggest rephrasing this statement as a research question that the reviewed work seeks to answer, or, alternatively, providing a more detailed analysis connecting the identified gap with the provided references.

10. The sequence in which the objectives are presented first, followed by the "research questions," is methodologically flawed. The logical process dictates that the research question must precede the objectives, as the former defines the core problem to be addressed, and the latter are the specific, measurable goals set to answer that question. The research question drives the entire process, while the objectives stem from it to guide concrete actions.

In general, the manuscript requires an extensive methodological revision and restructuring. The current structure, as presented, undermines the clarity and scientific rigor expected for a publication of this nature.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the Reviewer for the constructive and insightful comments, which have significantly improved the clarity and coherence of the manuscript. We address each point in detail in the enclosed file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Quality of the manuscript has been improved after performing a revision, but it may not be enough. I encourage the authors to perform a further revision using the following issues:

• Too many small paragraphs are included in the Introduction section. Please combine few paragraphs together so that readers will be comfortable to read it. It is also needed, as it is not a science oriented manuscript.
• Include a methodology section (methodology to perform the review and selecting the gaps, findings etc.). Draw a flow chart of methodology. This flow chart should match with Tables 1 and 2. Thereafter, explain the steps of flow chart. A manuscript may not be accepted without a proper methodology. 
• Figure 1: there is no link among three rows. Please include links from one step to another.  
• I suggest to cite around 100 articles to prepare a review manuscript. 
• Limitations and future works - these are written for the project. This should be written from the outputs of this manuscript (literature review). 

Also, please read some review articles published in the Sustainability Journal. Modify your manuscript targeting to reach the quality similar to other published review articles in Sustainability Journal.

Sorry for providing few negative comments. I wish you to improve the quality of this manuscript. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A final proof reading may be needed. 

Author Response

We sincerely thank the Reviewer for the constructive and insightful comments, which have significantly improved the clarity and coherence of the manuscript. We address each point in detail in the enclosed file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

after improving, your manuscript is ready for the publishing. Only few cosmetics suggestions remain and are attached in the file below. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the Reviewer’s careful reading of the manuscript and the helpful editorial suggestions. All recommended edits, wording and phrasing adjustments have been implemented throughout the text. Thank you for your valuable input, which has contributed to improving the clarity and precision of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I sincerely appreciate the clarification provided regarding the initial review process.

While I acknowledge that most previous observations have been addressed and the manuscript now shows substantial improvement in its presentation and coherence, some aspects still require more rigorous correction or have not been addressed with the expected precision.

Specific Comments:
1.    It has been observed that the correction regarding the consistent use of acronyms (i.e., full term upon first appearance followed by the acronym, and exclusive use of the acronym thereafter) has not yet been completed exhaustively. I recommend a meticulous review of the entire text to eliminate unnecessary repetitions of the full phrases that have already been abbreviated.
2.    The closing question mark ("?") is missing from Research Question 4 (RQ4). Ensuring correct punctuation and formatting across all RQs is mandatory.
3.    In my previous review, I did not suggest the replacement of Tables 1 and 2, but rather their supplementation with a graphical representation. The inclusion of a diagram or graph that visually represents the quantitative values from these tables is crucial. Graphical visualization allows for the immediate uptake of trends, as well as the quick identification of outliers, maximum, and minimum values, significantly enhancing the clarity of the presented information.
4.    Line 534, which states: "Figure 1. Pathway to an Integrated Innovation and Technopreneurship Education Model," must be deleted. This constitutes an editorial error, as it is a duplication of the figure's reference.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the Reviewer’s careful reading of the manuscript and their constructive comments, which helped further refine the paper. Our responses are provided below.

Issue 1: Consistent use of acronyms
Response:
After rechecking the manuscript, all repeated full forms of already introduced abbreviations have been removed from the body text, while full names have been retained only in places where they are required (abstract, keywords, search terms in methodology, section headings, and figure labels).

Issue 2: Punctuation and formatting of research questions
Response:
The research questions have been revised for full consistency, and punctuation has been standardized by adding question marks to all RQs in accordance with the manuscript’s formatting style.

Issue 3: Request for graphical supplementation for Tables 1 and 2
Response:
As requested, Tables 1 and 2 have been supplemented with concise graphical representations designed to support quick visual interpretation without overstating the underlying data.

Issue 4: Removal of duplicated figure reference (line 534)
Response:
Thank you for noting the remaining fragment of the figure description appearing at line 534 in the PDF version. This has now been removed. We would like to note that this fragment was not visible in the Word file under tracked-changes view and appeared only in the PDF rendering, but the issue has been identified and corrected.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks authors for revising the manuscript. Methodology section is included and a flow chart is drawn. In my opinion, it may now be published in Sustainability Journal. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A final proof reading may be needed. 

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your positive assessment and are glad that the revised methodology section and flow chart meet the expectations for publication in Sustainability. Thank you for your constructive feedback throughout the review process. Your comments have contributed meaningfully to strengthening the manuscript.