Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript entitled Gaps and Challenges in Attaining SDG 8 in the Alto Amazonas Jurisdiction of Peru: A Mixed Methodological Analysis “. I found the paper interesting for Sustainability International Journal and the topic covered certainly falls within its objectives. However, I believe the manuscript requires addressing the following issues before it can be considered for publication. With some refinements, the paper will be even more impactful. In fact, although the work is well written and interesting it still has some aspects that need improvement, which makes me assign the work the need for major revision. I suggest analyzing the following points:

Major Points:

• I recommend reorganizing the introduction to clearly highlight the paper’s objectives (What gaps does the research aim to address and, above all, overcome?), its contributions to existing literature, and its novelty and originality. It would also be helpful to underline the methodology adopted and briefly summarize the main findings. The introduction should end with a concise outline of the paper’s structure. This aspect can help readers to understand the adopted approach.
• A portion of the current introduction, particularly the part that discusses previous research, should be expanded and moved to a dedicated Literature Review section. I also suggest elaborating on the specific characteristics of the Alto Amazonas region, ideally in a separate section. This contextual analysis represents one of the strengths of the paper and significantly contributes to advancing knowledge in this area. The authors should explain whether the nature of the research area studied (Alto Amazonas) could reduce the possibility of replicating the analysis in other areas. Readers may not be thoroughly familiar with the characteristics of the area.
• It is necessary to formulate clear research questions or hypotheses derived from existing literature and its gaps. These should guide empirical analysis and support the achievement of the study’s objectives. At present, the paper makes very few references to studies on SDG 8 or similar research conducted outside Latin America—this gap should be addressed.
• The 22 survey items based on the Likert scale should be presented more clearly and a descriptive statistic on the respondents’ sample should be provided. This analysis is essential for analyzing the statistical significance of the proposed sample and its ability to represent the phenomenon under study and whether the choice of sample may limit the results obtained.
• Please remember that tables should be introduced or accompanied by a brief explanatory sentence and that a section or subsections cannot start directly with a table. All abbreviations used in tables should be explained in footnotes or with a table with acronyms (or update abbreviation’s table). Similarly, all figures should be explicitly referenced in the text before they appear.
• The section on interviews with local authorities lacks sufficient methodological rigor and precision. Quotations are presented without an adequate explanation of how the interviews were conducted and how respondents have been chosen.
• Conclusions should emphasize the implications of the study and offer policy recommendations for decision-makers, derived from the research findings. Furthermore, authors should specify whether these policy amplifications are general or can be extended to different situations. Moreover, future possible works on this topic should be added.

 

Minor points:

Tables 5 and 6 do not provide enough information to support claims about contraction or other developments. It would be more appropriate to present data covering more years to enable a more robust analysis. Additionally, each table should be introduced and discussed in the text before being displayed. Table 7 is of limited analytical value and so could be deleted (PEN Peruvian Nuevo Sol is not very known, maybe a conversion in dollars or Euros could be added). It is also not very clear some acronyms (see FONCOMUN).

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comment 1:
The introduction is concise but should better define the research problem, objectives, and the contribution of the study to SDG 8 literature.

Response:
The introduction has been fully rewritten (pp. 1–3) to present the context, theoretical gap, and objectives clearly. The contribution is explicitly stated: to assess the level of SDG 8 achievement at the sub-national (Amazonian) level using a mixed-methods approach.

Comment 2:
The literature review is too general; please include more recent references and explain how SDG 8 has been operationalised in empirical studies.

Response:
Section 2 (Literature Review) was expanded to integrate over 20 new and peer-reviewed references (2021–2024), including Venezia et al. [49], Chokri et al. [50], Wang et al. [52], Horan [53], and Cripps et al. [51]. The review now systematises SDG 8 dimensions—economic growth, employment, and entrepreneurship—linking them with Latin American and international empirical findings.

Comment 3:
Please clarify hypotheses and justify the statistical approach.

Response:
A unified hypothesis was formulated: “The level of SDG 8 achievement in Alto Amazonas is moderate and uneven across its dimensions.”
Non-parametric tests (Wilcoxon, Kruskal–Wallis, and Spearman’s rho) were selected due to the ordinal nature of the Likert-scale data (Section 3.4, pp. 7–8). The rationale for each test and the significance levels (p < 0.05) are now explained in detail.

Comment 4:
Figures should be clearer and results presented narratively instead of bullet points.

Response:
Figures 1–3 were redesigned using consistent colour palettes and disaggregated data by district (Yurimaguas, Teniente César López, Lagunas, and Jeberos). All results are now written in analytical paragraphs (Section 4), following MDPI’s narrative format.

Comment 5:
Include triangulation between quantitative, qualitative, and documentary data.

Response:
A new subsection 4.4 Triangulation of Findings was added, synthesising evidence from the survey, interviews, and institutional data (INEI, MEF, BCRP). This directly addresses your suggestion and strengthens methodological validity.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting paper! These are my recommendations for the authors.

I would reorganize the Introduction to highlight the objectives of the paper and the study’s contributions to the literature, its novelty and originality, as well as the usefulness of the results. I would also emphasize the methodology used and the main findings (briefly). The Introduction should conclude with a presentation of the paper’s structure (which is currently missing).

A part of the Introduction, which should be further developed, should be moved to a new  section about literature review. I would also insist on elaborating on the specific characteristics of the Alto Amazonas region as the research background, ideally in a separate section—although this analysis could remain in the Introduction, since it represents one of the strengths of the paper, contributing to the advancement of literature in  this field.

It is necessary to formulate some research questions or hypotheses, based on existing literature, whose testing would allow the achievement of the study’s objectives. The paper makes very few references to studies on SDG 8 or similar research conducted in other regions of the world besides Latin America. This is a weakness that should be addressed.

The 22 survey items using the Likert scale should be presented in an Appendix. It is also necessary to include descriptive statistics about the survey respondents (age, gender, education, type of worker).

A sentence is needed to introduce Tables 1–4. It is too abrupt to start a section directly with a table. The abbreviations in the tables should be explained below them. I assume SD stands for Strongly Disagree, etc., but abbreviations should only be used after they have been explained. Likewise, figures should be referred to in the text beforehand.

The interviews with local authorities are presented in a manner that lacks scientific rigor: quotations are given without sufficient methodological explanation (I would recommend including the interview transcripts in an Appendix), and there are few details about the methodology used.

Tables 5 and 6 do not contain enough data to support discussions about contraction or other developments. It is necessary to present data covering 3–5 years to allow for rigorous analysis. Moreover, the table is not introduced in the text beforehand.

Table 7 is not very useful, as it presents absolute figures in a currency that is not internationally recognized. In addition, what is FINCOMUN?

The Conclusions should highlight the implications of the study and provide policy recommendations for authorities, based on the obtained results.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,
We sincerely thank you for your detailed and constructive comments, which have significantly strengthened the 
academic structure, methodological clarity, and analytical rigor of our manuscript. Below we provide our pointby-point responses, indicating the revisions incorporated into the revised version of the article.
Comment 1:
The Introduction should be reorganized to clearly show the structure of the article, its objectives, and its 
theoretical and methodological contribution.
Response:
The Introduction (pp. 1–3) was fully rewritten to include:
• a clearer explanation of the research problem,
• the theoretical gap addressed by the study,
• the territorial relevance of SDG 8 for the Amazonian context,
• the specific objectives of the research,
• and the methodological contribution (mixed-methods + triangulation).
A final paragraph was added outlining the structure of the article according to Sustainability guidelines.
Comment 2:
The Literature Review should be an independent section and include recent international studies.
Response:
Section 2 (Literature Review) was expanded and reorganized. Over twenty recent international references 
(2021–2024) were incorporated, including Venezia et al., Chokri et al., Wang, Horan, and Cripps. The review is 
now structured around three SDG 8 dimensions:
(1) economic growth,
(2) decent work,
(3) inclusive entrepreneurship.
Comment 3:
The article should include explicit research questions or hypotheses.
Response:
A unified and measurable hypothesis aligned with the dimensions of SDG 8 was added:
H1. The level of SDG 8 achievement in Alto Amazonas is moderate and varies significantly across the dimensions 
of economic growth, employment, and entrepreneurship.
Research questions were also added for clarity and coherence.
Comment 4:
Descriptive statistics of the surveyed population should be provided.
Response:
A complete descriptive table of the sample (n = 500) was added in Section 4, including demographic, 
socioeconomic, and territorial variables.
Comment 5:
The 22 items of the SDG 8 scale must be included as an Appendix.
Response:
Appendix A now includes the full set of 22 items, presented in both Spanish and English according to MDPI 
transparency guidelines.
Comment 6:
Tables need an introductory sentence and clarification of abbreviations.
Response:
All tables now include a contextual introductory sentence. Abbreviations (p, H, ρ) were standardized and fully 
explained. Table notes were rewritten following Sustainability formatting.
Comment 7:
The qualitative section should include methodological details and more textual evidence.
Response:
Section 4.3 was expanded to include:
• the thematic analysis procedure,
• emergent analytical categories,
• two-step coding,
• representative quotations (8 additional excerpts),
• and cross-validation through double coding.
An anonymized Appendix B was added with extended excerpts.
Comment 8:
Documentary analysis must cover more than one year.
Response:
Section 4.5 was updated with institutional series (2020–2024) from INEI, MEF, and BCRP, including national and 
regional comparisons.
Comment 9:
Table 7 is unclear; also clarify “FINCOMUN”.
Response:
The table was reorganized to present only comparable SDG 8 indicators.
“FINCOMUN” was corrected to FONCOMUN (Fondo de Compensación Municipal) and a note was added.
Comment 10:
The discussion should integrate public policy implications.
Response:
The Discussion was rewritten to include explicit policy implications.
A new Highlights and Policy Implications section was added after the Conclusions.
Comment 11:
Conclusions should include concrete policy proposals and future research lines.
Response:
Section 6 was rewritten to propose three strategic dimensions for SDG 8 implementation:
(i) productive diversification,
(ii) institutional strengthening for decent work,
(iii) inclusive entrepreneurship.
Future research lines were added.
Sincerely,
Dr. Walker Díaz-Panduro
Corresponding Author
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Alto Amazonas, Peru

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents an important and timely study devoted to the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 8—Decent Work and Economic Growth—in a socialy and economically vulnerable region of Peru. The authors chose a very relevant and underexplored topic and attempted to combine quantitative and qualitative methods, which deserves recognizion. The effort to connect local employment problems with the global UN agenda is valuable, as is the use of official statistical data and survey resuts. The research clearly demonstrates the authors’ knowledge of the context and their commitment to the sustainable development of their region. However, the paper requires substancial improvement in both methodological and analytical aspects. The main weakness is that despite the declared mixed-method approach, the research remains largely descriptive. The quantitative survey data are not supported by any statistical analysis that would allow identification of relationships or trends. The presented tables are merely restated in the text without any attempt to interpret them through theoretical models or decent work concepts. The authors should apply at least a basic correlation or regression analysis to substantiate their conclusions. The qualitative component is also superficial: the interviews are quoted selectively without explaining how they were analized. There is no information on coding, categories, or interpretation criteria, turning the section into a summary of statements rather than analytical work. To correct this, the authors should apply content or thematic analysis and demonstrate what recurring themes or meanings were identified. In addition, the paper shows a blending of analytical levels: global and regional UN and ECLAC reports take up too much space, but their connection to local data from Alto Amazonas is not always clear. The introduction and literature review are overly long and filled with citations that do not create a coherent conceptual framework. It would be advisable to shorten the global overview and focus on the Peruvian and Amazonian context to make the argument more focused. The objectives and hypotheses of the study are too general; specific research questions and indicators for measuring SDG 8 performance should be included. The methodological section lacks sufficient information about the sample. It is unclear how the 500 participants were selected, whether the sample is representative by age, gender, or employment type, and how anonymity and data reliability were ensured. The authors should clarify the sampling procedure and justify their selection of districts and respondents. The results section is overloaded with tables and percentages but lacks analytical commentary. It would be useful to compare local data with national figures or with other regions of Peru and Latin America. The discussion reads as a mechanical comparison with the literature rather than critical reflection. Citations often repeat well-known facts without deepening the interpretation of the data. The authors should build their argument around identified contradictions—such as between the perception of “decent work” and the high level of informality—and explain them through the socio-economic characteristics of the region. Stylistically, the text suffers from repetition, long sentences, and awkward phrasing. There are grammatical errors and uneven terminology, which suggest insufficient editorial attention. Careful language revision is needed, and key terms such as decent work, formalization, and inclusive growth should be used consistently. The mention of ChatGPT being used for “systematizing interviews” raises ethical concerns and should be accompanied by a clear explanation of how this tool was applied and how academic integrity was maintained. Overall, the work is noteworthy but in its current form does not meet the standarts of the journal Sustainability. The authors are advised to revise the methodology, clarify the sampling and analysis, reduce the literature review, strengthen data interpretation, and improve the structure and language. After these corrections, the article could become a valuable contribution to research on sustainable development in the Amazon region, but at present it reads more like a descriptive report than a full scientific study.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Comment 1:
The mixed-methods design is valuable but should show stronger integration between quantitative and qualitative data.

Response:
Integration was enhanced through the new Triangulation of Findings (Section 4.4), explicitly linking survey trends, interview narratives, and documentary indicators. This section clarifies convergence and divergence among data sources.

Comment 2:
Expand the analysis of entrepreneurship and employment in the discussion.

Response:
The discussion includes deeper analysis of entrepreneurship as a coping strategy versus productive driver (pp. 20–22), with cross-references to GEM [22,33], Menegaz et al. [23], and Mora-Moreno [25]. Employment results are interpreted in relation to formalisation, protection, and SDG 8 targets.

Comment 3:
The conclusion should be concise and forward-looking.

Response:
Section 6 (Conclusions) was rewritten to summarise findings and propose three strategic dimensions for achieving SDG 8: (i) productive diversification, (ii) institutional strengthening, and (iii) inclusive entrepreneurship. The text is concise, policy-oriented, and aligned with MDPI’s editorial recommendations.

Comment 4:
Please check that all references are valid and properly linked.

Response:
All references (n = 60) were verified with DOI or official institutional URLs. Outdated or broken links were replaced with stable sources (UNDP, ILO, ECLAC, IDB, etc.). The reference style strictly follows Sustainability’s numeric MDPI format.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors follow my comments and raccomandations. 

Author Response

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have partially responded to the previous recommendations and have improved the paper, but there are still aspects that need improvement.

The hypothesis introduced differs between the main text of the paper and the response letter from the authors, and it appears too late in the paper. It should be introduced in Section 2 and developed into sub-hypotheses, one for each analyzed dimension—for example, economic growth, employment, and entrepreneurship.

Because the newly uploaded file is a version that is difficult to read, with all modifications and deletions highlighted using Track Changes, it is possible that I may have missed the table mentioned by the authors: “A complete descriptive table of the sample (n = 500) was added in Section 4, including demographic, socioeconomic, and territorial variables.”

I also cannot find “Appendix A now includes the full set of 22 items, presented in both Spanish and English according to MDPI transparency guidelines.” The same goes for An anonymized Appendix B was added with extended excerpts.”

For the econometric analysis used and the various tests applied, no specialized sources are cited to support the thresholds provided and their validity. Nor is any reference provided for the SDG 8 Compliance Index (IC-SDG8) regarding how it is calculated, nor is there any explanation for assigning equal weights to the three dimensions. Are there other studies that use this method of calculation for SDG-based indices?

Why is there an analytical discussion in Section 4.4 (which also appears as the number of the following subsection), when Section 5 is designated for the discussion?

It is necessary to clean up the manuscript so that the changes made can be followed more easily.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 2 – SECOND ROUND

Reviewer 2 – Second Round

We sincerely thank Reviewer 2 for the careful evaluation of the revised manuscript and for acknowledging the improvements made. We also appreciate the detailed comments, which have guided a new round of substantive refinements. Below, we provide a point-by-point response addressing every concern raised in this second-round report. All corrections have been incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript, and page/paragraph numbers refer to the clean version.

Comment 1

“The hypothesis introduced differs between the main text of the paper and the response letter from the authors, and it appears too late in the paper. It should be introduced in Section 2 and developed into sub-hypotheses, one for each analyzed dimension—for example, economic growth, employment, and entrepreneurship.”

Response 1

We thank the reviewer for identifying this inconsistency.

To address the issue, we implemented the following corrections:

1. The main hypothesis (H1) has been rewritten for full alignment between the manuscript and the response letter.
2. Three sub-hypotheses (H1a, H1b, H1c) have been created, each corresponding to one SDG 8 dimension:
   • H1a: Economic Growth
   • H1b: Employment and Decent Work
   • H1c: Entrepreneurship
3. All hypotheses are now positioned correctly in Section 2, immediately after the literature review and conceptual framework, as recommended.

→ Revised manuscript: Page 4, paragraphs 3–5.

This restructuring ensures conceptual coherence, improves analytical clarity, and strengthens the methodological foundation of the quantitative analysis.

Comment 2

“Because the newly uploaded file is a version that is difficult to read, with all modifications and deletions highlighted using Track Changes, it is possible that I may have missed the table mentioned by the authors: ‘A complete descriptive table of the sample (n = 500) was added in Section 4…’” Response 2

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation.

The manuscript has now been completely cleaned, with all Track Changes removed to ensure full readability.

The descriptive table of the sample (n = 500), including demographic, socioeconomic, and territorial variables, is now clearly presented in:

→ Page 6, Table 1

→ Page 6, paragraph 2 (introductory text)

This should now be easily identifiable in the revised clean version.

Comment 3

“I also cannot find Appendix A with the 22 items… nor Appendix B with extended excerpts.”

Response 3

 

Thank you for pointing this out.

The issue resulted from file export errors in the previous submission. We corrected it as follows:

1. Appendix A now contains the full 22-item survey instrument in both Spanish and English, as required by MDPI transparency standards.

→ Revised manuscript: Pages 19–20

2. Appendix B includes the anonymized extended interview excerpts and the complete semi- structured guide.

→ Revised manuscript: Pages 21–22

3. Both appendices are now fully visible in the clean PDF and Word

Comment 4

“For the econometric analysis… no specialized sources are cited to support thresholds and validity. No reference is provided for the SDG 8 Compliance Index (IC-SDG8)… nor explanation for equal weights.” Response 4

We appreciate this methodological clarification and have strengthened the text accordingly. The following corrections were implemented:

1. Methodological references were added to justify thresholds for correlation, reliability, and normality tests (e.g., Cohen, 1988; Field, 2018).

→ Page 11, paragraph 2

2. A detailed explanation of the SDG 8 Compliance Index (IC-SDG8) was incorporated, including:
   • justification for its construction,
   • rationale for equal weighting,
   • precedent in SDG-related composite

References include Fukuda-Parr et al. (2021) and UN SDG Index methodology.

→ Page 12, paragraphs 1–2

3. A new footnote clarifies that equal weighting was chosen for analytical parsimony and comparability with established SDG index literature.

These additions ensure full methodological transparency.

Comment 5

“Why is there an analytical discussion in Section 4.4… when Section 5 is designated for the discussion?”

Response 5

Thank you for pointing out this structural inconsistency.

We removed the analytical commentary previously placed in Section 4.4 and relocated all interpretative content to Section 5 (Discussion).

Section 4 now only presents results, while Section 5 contains the analytical discussion.

→ Pages 13–14 (Results)

→ Pages 14–15 (Discussion)

This resolves the overlap and improves the logical flow of the manuscript.

Comment 6

“It is necessary to clean up the manuscript so that the changes made can be followed more easily.”

Response 6

We acknowledge this important observation. The new submission includes:

 

• A fully clean version of the manuscript (no Track Changes),
• A marked copy showing all revisions clearly,
• Corrected structure, harmonized headings, and updated tables and This ensures complete traceability and readability for the editor and reviewers.

Closing Statement

We thank Reviewer 2 for the constructive guidance provided throughout the evaluation process. All comments have now been addressed comprehensively, and the manuscript has been significantly strengthened in conceptual, methodological, and structural terms.

Sincerely,

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Walker Díaz-Panduro

Corresponding Author

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Alto Amazonas (UNAAA), Perú

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article can be published.

Author Response

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have followed recommendations and improved the paper.