Are Teachers Prepared for the Anthropocene? Climate–Vegetation Integration in Science Teacher Education Across 26 Countries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Your study is highly relevant, novel and interesting with respect to the tool presented and applied in several contexts. However, I find inconsistencies and contradictions between the results presented and the claims declared in the discussion of the paper. For example, you present data in line 349 and 356, where vegetation/biodiversity contents scores the highest, but conversely. First, this contradicts your initial hypothesis that the prevailing plant blindness (i would use plant awareness disparity, instead, as suggested by Dillon and collaborators) is due tot he lack of curriculum, but you show the opposite. Further in your discussion, you claim in line 675 that vegetation and biodiversity content is marginalized compared to CC. So, there is something missing that is not adequately portrayed, if that claim is real.

This is a serious problem that makes it difficult to sell your paper. Another issue is the objectives stated in the Introduction. You should stick to the first objective, which is the one presented in this manuscript and try not to overstate the implications of your results.

Other minor points, that I think could be addressed are:

Although you show robustness in your quantitative analysis, I would suggest to show the most relevant and informative. In that sense, I find that both figure 8 and 9 could go into supplementary material. Tables 4 and 8 also are very difficult to interpret and I'm not sure if they distract, I'd move them to supplementary.

You claim the use of LLM for the triangulation, but I think that you have used the tools in other tasks, such as statistical analysis and graphics. You haven't mentioned a single statistical software, so you should acknowledge that.

I have included further notes in the manuscript, there are typos with punctuation, sentencing and citations that need to be addressed.

All in all, if you revise your claims, based on the obtained empirical data, I think that the manuscript could be published, because it is an interesting analytical tool. In that sense, the authors could speculate on how vegetation or biodiversity content is provided in these teacher education programs, because it does not seem to counteract the prevailing plant blindness and seems to be disconnected to climate change issues and viceversa. But, as far as I understood, it is not a problem of content, because those contents scored the highest.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Thorough English editing is required. Some sentences do not make sense.

Author Response

The authors would like to express our deepest gratitude to reviewer 1 for their thorough and enriching review, as well as for the questions and suggestions that have allowed us to substantially improve the understanding of the manuscript. The authors have endeavoured to respond extensively to each comment, justifying and indicating the relevant changes in the manuscript.

Thank you very much!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The line of reseach clearly indentified. An appropriate method of study is appllying. However there are some minor points which shlould consider in order to improve the paper:

-The research gap  of literature reference isn't specifying.

-The research guestions are not clearly stated.

-The theoritical contribution of the work and conclusion should be improved and more relevant.

Although the minor points, the discussion is enriched by incorporating more bibliographic sources to support our finding and provide comprehensive analysis.

The results of the research are analyzed expansively. Furthermore the bibliogrpaphy is contemporary and based on recent Literature.

The conclusions respond to the findings.

Author Response

The authors would like to express their gratitude for the comments and evaluation of the manuscript. Thanks to your insights, the manuscript has been substantially improved.

The line of reseach clearly indentified. An appropriate method of study is appllying. However there are some minor points which shlould consider in order to improve the paper:

-The research gap  of literature reference isn't specifying.

We appreciate your comment and the authors agree. Following the instructions of the other reviewers, you will find a reworking of the gaps in the literature in the introduction.

-The research guestions are not clearly stated.

The objectives and initial hypothesis have been improved.

-The theoritical contribution of the work and conclusion should be improved and more relevant.

We agree with the reviewer and the conclusions have been reworked. The contribution of the manuscript is now better specified in the introduction section.

Although the minor points, the discussion is enriched by incorporating more bibliographic sources to support our finding and provide comprehensive analysis.

Thanks very much for this comment!

The results of the research are analyzed expansively. Furthermore the bibliogrpaphy is contemporary and based on recent Literature.

Thanks very much for this comment!

The conclusions respond to the findings.

The conclusions have been reworked following the reviewer's previous recommendations. Thank you very much for your comment.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Your revised version of the manuscript is entirely satisfactory to me. The authors took the time an effort to convey a more impactful and clearer message and thus, the quality has improved significantly.