You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles

Review Reports

Soc. Sci.2026, 15(1), 12;https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci15010012 
(registering DOI)
by
  • Dorota Jegorow

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Peter Demkanin

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

it seems to me that your work includes several interesting ideas. However, after reading the paper carefully, I believe that some important revisions are needed to strengthen its clarity and conceptual rigor.

The main issue concerns how the concept of sustainability is presented. In the current version, sustainability seems to be treated almost exclusively as an environmental matter, or as synonymous with pro-environmental behavior. This is a significant (and common) misunderstanding because, as widely recognized, sustainable development is a multidimensional concept based on three pillars: environment, economy, and society. Ignoring the economic and social dimensions leads to a narrow interpretation that affects definitions, examples, and even the methodological approach.

I encourage you to review the manuscript with this in mind and ensure that terms such as sustainability behavior, sustainable practices, and sustainability education reflect this broader perspective.

Here are some examples where this conceptual issue emerges:

  • Line 109: “sustainability behaviour” appears to refer only to pro-environmental actions. Sustainability is not synonymous with “environment.”
  • Lines 147–148: The idea that young people become “sustainability citizens” through competence and agency regarding energy infrastructures seems too limited.
  • Lines 204–206: Actions like waste segregation and reuse are presented as indicators of sustainability, reinforcing the misconception.
  • Lines 231–232; 320–321; 347–348: All examples provided relate only to environmental practices.
  • Lines 308–309 and 523: Please clarify what you mean by “sustainability education”. 
  • Line 169: Typo – should be interdisciplinary.

    I suggest a major revision. Specifically in way : to reframe the conceptual foundation of the paper; to revise terminology and definitions to reflect the multidimensional nature of sustainability and to review examples, indicators, and interpretations accordingly.

    I'm sure that addressing these points will greatly improve the clarity and contribution of your work.

    Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to seeing the revised version.

    Best regards,

Author Response

The reviewer rightly pointed out the need to clarify the concept of sustainability and to avoid equating it solely with environmental behaviour.

Thank you for this important observation. I fully agree that sustainable development is a multidimensional concept encompassing environmental, social, and economic pillars. In response, the manuscript has been revised as follows:

  1. Clarification of the sustainability framework
    The Introduction now explicitly acknowledges the multidimensional nature of sustainability, while clearly stating that the empirical focus of the study is intentionally limited to the behavioural–environmental dimension (Section 1).
  2. Clear distinction between theory and empirical application
    In the literature review and the subsection on energy education, theoretical concepts such as sustainability citizenship (Jaradat et al., 2024) are clearly distinguished from their empirical operationalisation in the present study (Section 2.7).
  3. Specification of behavioural indicators
    In Section 3.2.1 Sustainable Behaviour Indicators, an explicit statement has been added clarifying that the selected indicators capture routine pro-environmental practices and represent partial behavioural measures of sustainability, without encompassing its social or economic dimensions.
  4. Clarification of sustainability education
    Sustainability education is now defined as an interdisciplinary concept integrating environmental, social, economic, and digital competence components (Sections 2.7 and 5).
  5. Language correction
    The indicated typographical error (“interdisciplinary”) has been corrected.

These revisions aim to clearly separate the broader theoretical concept of sustainability from its focused empirical operationalisation in this study.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses a relevant and contemporary intersection between environmental psychology, sociology, and digital media studies. By investigating the relationship between digital fatigue, problematic technology use, and sustainable behavior in Polish Generation Z, the study touches on a crucial point in the modern discussion about the “double transition” (green and digital). The study proposes that digitally induced cognitive overload may act as a barrier to pro-environmental action, an interesting theoretical premise that shifts the focus from traditional infrastructural barriers to the limitations of individual cognitive resources.

The hypotheses formulated by the authors demonstrate a solid theoretical foundation, based on cognitive resource models and self-regulation theories.

The experimental methodology adopted, based on a cross-sectional survey (CAWI) with a sample of 683 secondary school students, is appropriate for the exploratory and correlational objectives of the study. The choice of control variables (gender, age, residence) is standard and appropriate for isolating the effects of digital variables.

The hypotheses were rigorously tested. The use of hierarchical regression models allowed the robustness of the predictors to be tested. The existence of the sensitivity tests mentioned, as well as the moderation analysis to test the role of education (Hypothesis 5), indicates that the authors actively sought to nuance their results and avoid simplistic conclusions. Positive and quality controls are implicit in the validation of the scales (high Cronbach's Alphas) and in the consistency of the demographic results with previous literature.

This work provides a new perspective, although it confirms some current knowledge about demography and the environment. Its main contribution lies in redefining youth “unsustainability” not as a lack of values, but because of cognitive exhaustion caused by the digital lifestyle. This “bio-psycho-social” approach to energy (mental energy vs. physical energy) offers a new angle for future research and public policy.

I believe the article should be considered for publication, as it is methodologically sound and thematically relevant.

The article mentions two different analytical sample sizes: 428 for behavioral profiles and 475 for extended models, due to listwise deletion. Could these 47 participants introduce systematic bias? Did the excluded participants differ significantly in age or gender from those who were retained? If not, this reinforces the validity of the data.

As future work, it is suggested that longitudinal or experimental studies be conducted. Expanding the sample to include cross-cultural or intergenerational comparisons would also allow us to verify whether this phenomenon of “cognitive resource competition” is unique to Generation Z or whether it affects the entire population in the digital age.

Author Response

Thank you for this valuable methodological remark. In response:
•    Section 3.1 Study Design and Participants now includes a clarification that additional checks revealed no significant differences in age or gender between included and excluded respondents, reducing the likelihood of systematic bias.
•    The Limitations and Future Research section has been expanded to emphasise the value of longitudinal and cross-cultural studies for further testing the cognitive resource competition mechanism.
Thank you for the positive assessment of the methodological soundness and relevance of the study.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is focused on Sustainability, but also fits the scope of the Social sciences. Exploration of interrelations between sustainable practices, digital lifestyles, and cognition; and well fill the gap in our knowledge of Generation Z. Even if the research is set in the context of Poland, the methods and results are applicable to more countries/educational systems.

The importance of integrating digital energy awareness and critical reflection on ICT’s environmental costs into school curricula (lines 546-549) should be discussed carefully. Power and Energy are important concepts in Physics and STEM education, and, generally, there is no barrier for schools/curricula to apply them to powering data centres; powering data centres for new AI applications really requires new power plants. I would suggest mentioning this idea somewhere in the introduction or in the conclusion to make the article more accessible for researchers in the learning sciences/education/Physics education.  

In the call for collaborative action (lines 598-602), the research on learning sciences, Physics, and STEM Education can play a crucial role. The “educational paradox” mentioned in line 156 can be solved by research on low-energy data storage, by efficient work with data storage and distribution (expressed for secondary school students as an example: share links to data stored at clouds instead of email them and so making a lot of copies of the same document), instead of lowering activity in the digital world.

Some ideas on the personality of physics and STEM teachers can illustrate the ways of raising awareness of topics of digital fatigue and sustainability behaviour in education,  and can be implemented into the formulation of an answer to the questions, such as “which way the theories behind physics and STEM education can evolve?”

I would suggest publishing this article. 

Author Response

Thank you for these insightful and inspiring suggestions. Accordingly:
1.    The Introduction and Conclusions now include references to the growing energy demand of digital infrastructures (data centres, AI) and their relevance for STEM and physics education.
2.    The Discussion section elaborates on the “educational paradox” by highlighting the role of energy-efficient digital practices (e.g. reducing data duplication).
3.    The Conclusions emphasise the role of physics and STEM education in translating abstract energy concepts into concrete digital sustainability practices.