College Students and Environmental Disasters: A Review of the Literature

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

SUBJECT: MANUCRIPT “College Students and Environmental Disasters: A Review of the Literature”

 

Thank you for doing this research.

This manuscript represents a good continuation for this area of research on college students and disasters during the past ten years (2014-2023).

 

This article used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach to examine the research.

The abstract is interesting and draws the reader in to want to learn more.

 

Page 5: This article studies environmental disasters. In the Table 4, environmental include floods, hurricanes, wildfires, etc. Can it be understood that environmental disasters only include natural disasters? Is environmental pollution included in it? It is desirable to have a clear definition of environmental disasters.

 

Page 9:  Figures 4 and 5 discuss the stages of the disaster, but at the beginning of page 9, the analysis begins with "three themes that emerge from the qualitative analysis." It is desirable to explain the relationship between qualitative analysis and the disaster stage.

Author Response

Thank you for your time in reviewing our manuscript and providing suggestions and comments. Below, we have responded to each point and made corresponding changes in the manuscript where necessary.

Reviewer 1, Comment 1: This article studies environmental disasters. In Table 4, environmental include floods, hurricanes, wildfires, etc. Can it be understood that environmental disasters only include natural disasters? Is environmental pollution included in it? It is desirable to have a clear definition of environmental disasters.

Response: Thank you for this point of clarification. We have provided a definition for our conceptualization of environmental disasters in the document. We chose to include “environmental disasters” because of disaster social science’s move away from using the term “natural disaster” to describe natural hazard-induced disasters.

Reviewer 1, Comment 2: Figures 4 and 5 discuss the stages of the disaster, but at the beginning of page 9, the analysis begins with "three themes that emerge from the qualitative analysis." It is desirable to explain the relationship between qualitative analysis and the disaster stage.

Response: The goal of our quantitative analyses was to describe the origins and foci of the identified articles, which is why the disaster stage focus appears in the quantitative section. Our qualitative analysis dives into the themes identified in the identified articles. We apologize for the lack of clarity and we have added text to clarify this issue.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Strengths:

1. Relevance: The paper addresses a relevant and important topic – the impact of environmental disasters on college students. This topic has real-world implications and is of interest to both academics and practitioners.
2. Comprehensive Review: The literature review is comprehensive and provides a thorough overview of the existing research on college students and environmental disasters. It identifies research gaps and areas where further investigation is needed.
3. Clear Structure: The paper is well-structured, with clear sections for the literature review, quantitative analysis, and qualitative analysis. This makes it easy for readers to follow the flow of the paper.
4. Recommendations: The paper concludes with recommendations for future research, which is valuable for guiding further inquiry in this area.

Weaknesses:

1. Limited Original Research: The paper is primarily a literature review, and it appears to lack original research findings or data analysis. While literature reviews are valuable, they are often stronger when they incorporate some original research or analysis to complement the existing literature.
2. Overly Descriptive: While the paper provides a comprehensive overview of existing research, it could benefit from more critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. For example, it could delve deeper into the implications of the findings and their significance for policy or practice.

How to Improve:

1. Incorporate Original Research: To enhance the paper's impact, consider incorporating some original research, such as surveys, interviews, or case studies, to complement the literature review and provide new insights.
2. Enhance Critical Analysis: Go beyond summarizing existing research by providing more critical analysis and discussing the implications of the findings for policymakers, educators, and practitioners.
3. Explicit Decision: The paper should conclude with an explicit decision on whether it is recommended for publication, along with any additional comments or revisions required.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Strengths:

1. Relevance: The paper addresses a relevant and important topic – the impact of environmental disasters on college students. This topic has real-world implications and is of interest to both academics and practitioners.
2. Comprehensive Review: The literature review is comprehensive and provides a thorough overview of the existing research on college students and environmental disasters. It identifies research gaps and areas where further investigation is needed.
3. Clear Structure: The paper is well-structured, with clear sections for the literature review, quantitative analysis, and qualitative analysis. This makes it easy for readers to follow the flow of the paper.
4. Recommendations: The paper concludes with recommendations for future research, which is valuable for guiding further inquiry in this area.

Weaknesses:

1. Limited Original Research: The paper is primarily a literature review, and it appears to lack original research findings or data analysis. While literature reviews are valuable, they are often stronger when they incorporate some original research or analysis to complement the existing literature.
2. Overly Descriptive: While the paper provides a comprehensive overview of existing research, it could benefit from more critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. For example, it could delve deeper into the implications of the findings and their significance for policy or practice.

How to Improve:

1. Incorporate Original Research: To enhance the paper's impact, consider incorporating some original research, such as surveys, interviews, or case studies, to complement the literature review and provide new insights.
2. Enhance Critical Analysis: Go beyond summarizing existing research by providing more critical analysis and discussing the implications of the findings for policymakers, educators, and practitioners.
3. Explicit Decision: The paper should conclude with an explicit decision on whether it is recommended for publication, along with any additional comments or revisions required.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your time in reviewing our manuscript and providing suggestions and comments. Below, we have responded to each point and made corresponding changes in the manuscript where necessary.

 

Reviewer 2, Comment 1: Limited Original Research: The paper is primarily a literature review, and it appears to lack original research findings or data analysis. While literature reviews are valuable, they are often stronger when they incorporate some original research or analysis to complement the existing literature.

Response: Per PRISMA guidelines, systematic reviews “…provide syntheses of the state of knowledge in a field, from which future research priorities can be identified.” (Page et al., 2021: https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n71) Our goal in writing this paper was not to generate original research but to guide future research directions.

Reviewer 2, Comment 2: While the paper provides a comprehensive overview of existing research, it could benefit from more critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. For example, it could delve deeper into the implications of the findings and their significance for policy or practice.

Response: We have provided additional synthesis, especially as it relates to policy and practice.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am suggesting to add more sub chapter before limitation particular in future research directions. It will attract more readers for looking forward suggestion future study. I recommend It is accepted if authors add a subchapter "Future Research Direction". 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I am suggesting to add more sub chapter before limitation particular in future research directions. It will attract more readers for looking forward suggestion future study. I recommend It is accepted if authors add a subchapter "Future Research Direction". 

Author Response

We have added a subsection incorporating future research directions, reflecting those also discussed in the previous sections.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend that it be accepted, provided the authors add a subchapter titled 'Future Research Directions', and ensure that specific references marked (X) in the manuscript are included in the reference list.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I recommend that it be accepted, provided the authors add a subchapter titled 'Future Research Directions', and ensure that specific references marked (X) in the manuscript are included in the reference list.

Author Response

Below are responses to reviewer points:

1. The addition of a subsection titled "Future Research Directions" was added in the previous version of the manuscript.
2. References marked X in the manuscript were removed by editorial staff for blind peer review and will be re-added upon acceptance.