Plants Are Not Boring, School Botany Is
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study focuses on a subject of educational interest for science teaching, relatively little studied, and based on a survey of a large sample of teachers from different educational levels and specialties. The theoretical framework is not broad, although it can be considered as sufficient for the problem addressed. The survey used includes different dimensions that are related to the objectives that are intended to be covered. Data analysis is also sophisticated and well discussed. The bibliography is representative and updated.
In my opinion some points to take into account for the improvement of the study would be the following:
- It is necessary to be able to access the survey used in order to better understand the responses and their analysis.
- Line 54. Clarify the difference that the authors consider about "plant knowledge and botanical content" and how it was presented in the questionnaire (before I said that it should be accessible).
- Lines 115-116. Name the parameters U, p, rrb.
- Line 135. Describe this acronym and the rest used in the paper.
- Line 186. Where it says Figure x it should put Figure 2.
- Line 258-261. Clarify the sentence "The most important 258 finding is that the concepts of “plant blindness” [7], ”plant awareness” [5], and similar ones cannot be inferred from elementary and secondary school teachers' opinions about general plant knowledge".
- Line 354. The conclusions should be related to the objectives of the work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Best regards,
Corresponding author
On behalf of all coauthors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The introduction is very poor. It shows too little what research problem is being addressed, too few references to other studies of this type. There is a lack of works related to environmental education in general.
I suggest that the research questions be shortened to a maximum of 4 so that it is easier to understand the study.
In my opinion, Table 1 and Table 2 are already the result.
The methodology is simple and understandable.
Please take care only of the aesthetics of the rearranged tables. For example, the results in Table 3. need to be divided into two smaller tables, this way, it will be easier to read the results, especially for people who are not involved in scientific research.
The discussion needs to be definitively rewritten, as it relates very little to current scientific research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Best regards,
Corresponding author
On behalf of all coauthors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I accept the article for publication after corrections
