Sustainability in Higher Education: A Systematic Review and Conceptual Framework of Institutional Maturity (SHE-IMM)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

I have read your paper with great interest. It presents several compelling ideas; however, there are some parts that are not entirely clear to me, and I would like to suggest a few improvements to enhance the clarity and rigor of your work.

Here are some examples:

Terminology: Throughout the paper, you use different terms such as educational sustainability, sustainability education, and education for sustainable development. Please clarify the specific meaning of each term and how they differ or relate to one another.

Abstract (Line 20 and following): You emphasize resilience and climate change education, but it is not clear why these aspects were chosen as focal points. Please elaborate on this choice.

Introduction (Lines 43–44): You state that “the integration of sustainability in HE remains fragmented, uneven, and often symbolic.” It is unclear at what level this fragmentation occurs: content, methodology, institutional practices? Please specify.

Methodology:

• Lines 109 and following: You mention selecting “relevant keywords.” What criteria guided this selection? In particular, why was digital transformation included? Please clarify.
• Line 210 and following: You write “this figure indicates…” but it is unclear which figure you are referring to.
• Figure 1: The first column is unnamed. What does it represent? Please specify.
• Figure 3: This figure is not referenced in the text.
• Line 269 and following: What does your discussion reveal? The data mentioned are not shown in Figure 3.
• Table 3: Education for SD and Sustainable Development Goals appear twice. Is this intentional? Please explain.
• Figure 4: This figure does not clearly support the discussion presented in Line 296 and following.

Synthesis of Findings:

• Line 322 and following: You refer to “Table 4,” but it does not appear to be presented in Figure 4. Please clarify.
• Line 374 and following: Please provide a reference to Table 4.
• Line 385: It is unclear which figure is being discussed.
• Line 399: What specific “sustainability transformations” have been achieved?

Discussion of Findings:

• Line 428 and following: The key themes are not discussed in depth; rather, they are grouped into categories. Why, then, are terms like transformative learning, resilience, climate change education, and global citizenship listed as key themes?

Conclusion and Recommendations:

• Lines 489–490: You mention certain areas, but these were not consistently addressed earlier in the paper (see previous comments).

Appendix 1: it isn’t cited within the paper.

These are some of the main weaknesses I have identified, which span various conceptual levels. Based on these observations, I recommend revising the paper to improve clarity, consistency, and methodological rigor.

Thank you for your attention.

Best regards,

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

MDPI Trends in Higher Education Journal

Dear Authors,

Your manuscript focuses on a research topic of strategic importance globally. It could be potentially helpful to researchers as well as policymakers in higher education and applied research by outlining existing gaps and shortcomings in the published research results within the recent decade

Major weaknesses. A major weakness of the manuscript lies in the terminological ambiguity related to the use of the terms “sustainable development”, “sustainability” and the combinations stemming from them as mutually replaceable synonyms, without a clarification what is exactly covered. E.g. besides “higher education for sustainable development, the manuscript speaks about sustainability in higher education (lines 5, 35), educational sustainability (lines 9, 338), “integration of sustainability in HE” (line 96), sustainability efforts (line 99). Moreover, some of the references titles contain terms such as “sustainable teaching” (ref. 27) and “sustainability of the education management system” (ref. 28). It is not clarified why and how the decade 2014-2024 was chosen as a relevant time interval to study. Education for sustainable development, however, has been in the focus of global policy since the Rio Summit in 1992, the pedagogical concept evolution and the content of the educational messages have been influenced, framed and guided by numerous policy documents adopted at important global and regional events. E.g., the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2014),   https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000141629 ), has provided considerable impetus for numerous educational initiatives and research publications.

Case study based research should be considered a valuable contribution in a field where the sociocultural context is of major importance.

Detailed comments.

The Title needs to be reconsidered as it does not reflect the manuscript contents. This is actually not a systematic review of barriers and enablers in higher education but a systematic review of publication trends related to them in the period 2014-2024. “Education for sustainable development”, is the terminologically precise term – I would recommend using it in the title and then explaining the variety of terminological variations in the text. It would be also expected to mention the timeframe of the research, 2014-2024 (or 2025?), in the title.

Abstract. The abstract clearly presents the aim, methodology and results of the reported research work. Briefly mentioning the research scope and limitations could be also considered.

Key words. Instead of including the two similar terms – “sustainability in higher education” and “education for sustainable development”, it would be logical to add the term “institutional maturity matrix” (IMM), claimed to be the authors’ conceptual contribution in the field. 

Introduction. The sources that have generally estimated the efforts for integrating sustainability in HE as fragmented, uneven and symbolic (lines 43-44) need to be more comprehensively presented. The top-down processes driving sustainability initiatives are briefly and generally mentioned but there is nothing said about the role of bottom-up initiatives in the process. As the aim and the five-fold objectives of the study are declared to be globally valid, you need to refer to the active global policy documents in the field. and also mention potential regional differences.  

Methodology. The specific objectives included in this section have been already discussed in the introduction and should not be repeated. It would be instead useful to describe the research design in more detail, e.g., how the refined key word frame claimed in the abstract (lines 23-24) was conceptually constructed. The structured template mentioned as designed to support the “qualitative thematic synthesis” (lines 135-136) needs to be presented and explained in the methodology section of the manuscript.

Descriptive overview of the reviewed literature. The review period declared In the abstract and introduction is 2014-2024, and in this section it is mentioned as 2014-2025 (Table 1, lines 202 and 289).

It seems difficult to trace the coherence between the two tables (lines 229 and 242) as it is not clearly explained in the text why and how the themes in their first columns are differently arranged and if the terms “thematic categories” (line 229), “thematic areas” (line 242) and “thematic focus areas” (line 267) are considered synonymous.

The presented observations on cluster formations in the co-occurrence map are too briefly and generally presented in the text and the grouping around the key topics is difficult to distinguish in the figure.  The reported observation about the limited visibility of the foundational concepts such as ESD (line 312) is also difficult to follow.

Synthesis of findings. As Table 4 (line 287) is the one presenting the synthesized results, it should therefore belong to this section. The mentioned “persistent focus on structural challenges” (lines 323-324) needs to be more comprehensively explained and supported by arguments. No evidence is provided in the text how the geographical dimension of the process has been addressed by the review. The declared number of reviewed sources needs to be checked – if they are 417 (line 324) or 406, as initially declared in Table 1.

Discussion of findings. The discussion of findings repeats the observations about prevailing topics like curriculum development and pedagogical practices and the dominance of qualitative research over quantitative one, which have been already mentioned in the previous sections.

Conceptual contribution. The proposed Institutional Maturity Matrix (IMM) for evaluating the system of higher education (SHE) with regard to the education for sustainable development, is  still in a very early stage of development; you need to explain here how it stems from the findings of the current study.  

Conclusion and recommendations. As already commented, the claimed estimation of “how the field has evolved and where it continues to fall short” (lines 482-483) would need tracing the process along an explicit timeline, which is not reported as part of the current research.

References. The number of sources could be considered rather limited and unbalanced - five sources are on PRISMA-related guidance and PICO), while recent sources related to higher education for sustainable development are missing.  Providing DOI numbers and existing internet links to the sources used is recommended.

Figures and Tables. The figures and tables should be quoted and introduced in the text before appearing in the manuscript. It is currently very difficult to follow which text relates to what figure or table. All the numbers of the figures (after Figure 1) and these of the tables (after Table 3) are mistaken and not properly quoted in the text.   

Figure 1. Distribution of research methodologies (line 215). The numbering is mistaken, should be Figure 2, as Prisma diagram is the first one; the name of the first column is missing.

Figure 2 Graphical representation of articles mentioning enablers and barriers (line 263). The figure numbering is mistaken; the figure is unclear, needs to be better explained

Figure 3. Thematic focus of reviewed articles (line 267). The numbering is mistaken; the caption text differs from the text above the graphical part. The figure is not quoted in the text.

Figure 4. Keyword co-occurrence map based on author’s keywords (2014-2025) generated using VOS viewer. The numbering is mistaken; the words are too small and the grouping is difficult to follow

Table 1. Descriptive overview of the reviewed literature. The table caption needs to be re-considered - the table provides the typology and numbers of reviewed sources.

Table 3. Summary of enablers and barriers by thematic area. The caption needs to be re-considered as it is currently not clear to what numbers the percentages refer.

Table 3. Enhanced keyword co-occurrence summary. Should be table 4; the difference between “Education for sustainable development” and “Education for sustainable development (ESD)” needs to be clarified.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is good and the text is easy to follow. Additional editing would be needed to present the findings in a more structured way.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript offers a rigorous and well-structured systematic literature review, providing both a solid synthesis of existing research and an original conceptual contribution (the SHE-IMM model). The article is methodologically sound, clearly written, and makes a valuable contribution to the field of higher education and sustainability.

This is a quality paper that deserves publication. My only (minor) suggestion is to provide a slightly stronger theoretical framing of the concept of sustainability in the introductory section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I find the title clear and descriptive, effectively signaling both the scope and method of the paper.

I find the abstract comprehensive and well-structured, as it clearly states the aim, methodology (PRISMA framework), dataset size, and key findings. I think it could be improved by shortening some sentences and balancing the emphasis on barriers versus enablers to make the contribution more concise and impactful.

I find the introduction strong in setting the context, but I think the authors could add more by elaborating the literature review, particularly comparing previous systematic reviews and highlighting how this study extends or differs from them. This would better situate the paper within existing scholarship and strengthen the justification for the research.

I find the methodology section systematic and transparent, with clear descriptions of the PRISMA framework, PICo criteria, and screening process. I think the authors could add more detail about why Scopus was chosen (instead of Web of Science or ProQuest), clarify how inter-coder reliability was measured during thematic coding, and justify not registering the protocol (e.g., PROSPERO), which would strengthen the methodological credibility.

I find the results section informative, as it provides clear descriptive statistics (406 articles across 188 journals, including authorship patterns) and thematic coding that highlights curriculum and pedagogy as the dominant themes. I think the authors could enhance their work by discussing why leadership, strategy, and community engagement are underrepresented, and by expanding on the imbalance between enablers and barriers to offer deeper interpretive insights rather than merely descriptive reporting.

I find the discussion section valuable because it synthesizes key patterns, such as the dominance of qualitative methods and the problem-oriented focus on barriers. I think the authors could enhance their work by linking their findings to broader theoretical frameworks (e.g., transformative learning, global citizenship) and by providing concrete recommendations for future research agendas or institutional practices to move beyond descriptive insights.

I find the inclusion of the SHE Institutional Maturity Matrix (SHE-IMM), with its three stages (foundational, transitional, and transformative), to be a strong conceptual contribution, as it translates the review findings into a practical framework. I think the authors could strengthen this section by visually presenting the flow chart more clearly, providing concrete institutional examples for each stage, and explaining how the model can be applied or tested in real higher education contexts

I find the conclusion section concise and relevant, as it reiterates the main contributions and emphasizes the need for more balanced research between barriers and enablers. I think the authors could add more by highlighting practical implications for policymakers and institutional leaders, and by clearly stating how their framework (SHE-IMM) can guide future sustainability practices in higher education

The references are strong, diverse, and well-aligned with the manuscript; however, they require careful formatting correction, an expanded disciplinary reach, and the inclusion of a few additional policy and comparative review sources to further strengthen the scholarly balance.

I find this work timely. Thank you for the contribution; however, I think it could be improved by adding more information on enablers, leadership, and global citizenship.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English is generally clear and understandable, although some sentences are lengthy and could be simplified for improved readability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting your manuscript. The topic addressed is timely and relevant to the field of sustainability in higher education, contributing to the consolidation of knowledge in this area.

The paper is accepted, as the approach is sound and well-structured, and the analysis conducted meets the standards of a systematic review. However, we do not identify an innovative methodology or groundbreaking discoveries, but rather a consolidation and systematization of existing knowledge. The approach remains valid and useful, and the study makes a positive contribution by identifying gaps and proposing the SHE-IMM matrix.

The article is accepted for publication, although the methodology used does not bring major innovations or propose a radically new approach; its contribution lies in the coherent structuring of information and the relevance of the topic addressed.

Author Response

We truly appreciate your insightful comments and valuable suggestions.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for sharing the revised version of your paper. I appreciate the effort you have put into addressing the previous comments. However, after carefully reviewing the manuscript, it seems that the improvements made in response to the previously identified issues are still quite limited and not fully consistent.

Several concerns highlighted earlier remain unresolved.

Below, I provide some examples (some of which were already mentioned in the previous review):

Lines 34–35 – The perspective from which you consider sustainable education is not entirely clear. The cited paper (reference 2) does not appear to align with the definition you indicated.

Lines 118–119 – The rationale for including “digital transformation” among the keywords does not seem convincing. The term “enablers” is already present, and following your logic, all elements that are specifically enablers should also be listed as keywords (such as digital transformation).

Lines 110–111 – Considering your stated objective (lines 86–93), it is unclear why “education for sustainable development” was used as a keyword for your search. It might have been sufficient to use terms such as “sustainability”, “higher education”, inhibitors, hindrances, and enablers. This appears to be a significant methodological point that should be discussed in detail at the outset.

Starting from this initial bias, it is understandable why you mention in lines 258 and 260 that pedagogy seems to dominate the sustainability discourse, in fact papers on education for sustainable development were included in your search. I hope this observation is clear. If you are experts in the field of sustainability and education for sustainability, you will likely recognize the importance of this reflection.

Figure 2 – It remains unclear what the first column of Figure 2 represents (this is not indicated in the figure).

Table 4 – Education for Sustainable Development and Sustainable Development Goals appear twice. Could you clarify why? Additionally, “University” and “Universities” might be considered as a single term.

Lines 324–327 – The discussion of Figure 5 is not sufficiently clear. The clusters mentioned are not visible. The text refers to “smaller isolated nodes such as ethics and empowerment”, but these nodes are difficult to identify in the figure and appear indistinguishable from the others. Consequently, your reflections are challenging to follow.

Line 355 – In Table 5, you state that “the synthesis of the systematically reviewed literature reveals a maturing field characterized by thematic expansion, methodological imbalance, and a persistent focus on structural challenges”. This does not seem to correspond to what is shown in the cited Table 5.

Lines 408–409 – It appears that Table 5 was not cited here.

Line 441 – It seems “self-evident “ that a systematic literature review of peer-reviewed studies on sustainability in higher education published between 2014 and 2025 would lead to the result you mention in line 441: “sustainability is widely acknowledged as a strategic priority…”. I hope you agree with this observation.

Lines 475–477 – This sentence appears disconnected and not well integrated into the logical flow of the discussion.

Appendix 1 – Still not referenced in the text.

These are some of the main weaknesses I have identified, which span multiple conceptual and methodological levels. Based on these observations, I kindly recommend a further major revision to improve clarity, consistency, and methodological rigor. I appreciate your efforts and encourage you to consider these points carefully, as they will significantly strengthen the quality and impact of your work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed revisions. The revised manuscript demonstrates significant improvements in structure, clarity, and alignment with the journal’s scope. The authors have adequately addressed all previous comments, strengthened the discussion, and enhanced the methodological transparency. I believe the paper is now suitable for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I find the English to be clear and professional, with only minor stylistic improvements needed for improved readability.

Author Response

Thanks for your review