Communication on Sustainability in Spanish Universities: Analysis of Websites, Scientific Papers and Impact in Social Media

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The premise of the paper is excellent, and one which universities across the world are actively thinking about. I am less enthusiastic about the authors' method of culling keyword mentions and metrics from university websites, then ranking their output on sustainability. It feels common sense to me that universities would produce sustainability knowledge in the form of academic papers, and that in 2020, they would disseminate them via social media. Along with the somewhat intuitive nature of this result, I am not sure about the connection between such output and ACTUAL concrete sustainability practices. From where I sit in the Mountain Western United States, universities are struggling to be leaders with practices like waste diversion, renewable energy, food insecurity, and on. I wonder if the authors might speak to the connection between the output of research and sustainability practices, if there are any metrics to demonstrate a causal or secure connection? 

With these concerns aired, I do see some value in just mapping a terrain for Spanish (and other!) universities in sustainability. The point about open access journals is well taken. I also wonder if there might be some nuance to add about social media and reporting out scientific papers. So are there better/worse ways for academics, scientists, environmental scientists, to communicate on social media about their work? To this end, perhaps the authors would be interested in a piece from Science Comm if they haven't seen it yet about scientists and Twitter when the Flint Water Crisis in the US hit (Jahng & Lee, 2018: https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017751948).

Thanks for the opportunity to review! I wish the authors well in this and other projects.

A few more sources for the authors, should they find them interesting:

Article identifying departments as a key unit for tracking sustainability effectiveness: Yazici, N., & Babalik, A. (2016). Determination of environmental awareness of university students: the case of Suleyman Demirel University (SDU). Environmental Earth Sciences, 75(3), 1–8. https://doi-org.du.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s12665-015-5032-0

General best practices, for university sustainability, including champions higher in admin as key for success: Blackburn, W. (2106). The practice of sustainability at colleges and universities. Environmental Law Reporter: News & Analysis, 46(5), 10394-10415

Other articles related to university as key institutional figure for sustainability:

Richter, B. W., & Sousa, L. O. D. (2019). The implementation of environmental education to promote sustainability: an overview of the processes and challenges. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 26(8), 721–731. doi: 10.1080/13504509.2019.1672220

Sepasi, S., Rahdari, A., & Rexhepi, G. (2018). Developing a sustainability reporting assessment tool for higher education institutions: The University of California. Sustainable Development, 26(6), 672–682. https://doi-org.du.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/sd.1736

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for their comments and suggestions. We have included the comments in the new version of the manuscript (in red) and will answer your questions below.

• Reviewer 1:

Question 1:

The premise of the paper is excellent, and one which universities across the world are actively thinking about. I am less enthusiastic about the authors' method of culling keyword mentions and metrics from university websites, then ranking their output on sustainability. It feels common sense to me that universities would produce sustainability knowledge in the form of academic papers, and that in 2020, they would disseminate them via social media. Along with the somewhat intuitive nature of this result, I am not sure about the connection between such output and ACTUAL concrete sustainability practices. From where I sit in the Mountain Western United States, universities are struggling to be leaders with practices like waste diversion, renewable energy, food insecurity, and on. I wonder if the authors might speak to the connection between the output of research and sustainability practices, if there are any metrics to demonstrate a causal or secure connection? 

Answer:

Thank you for the comment which we consider very relevant and which we believe may be the subject of a future article. It is true that not always the universities that have the best content on their websites or the best research in sustainability are also the ones that have the best practices on their campuses. Without a doubt, this is an aspect that needs to be analyzed in more detail and depth, although it is not easy. When making a quick comparison between, for example, the position of Spanish universities in the GrenMetric ranking and the results obtained in this research, a greater parallelism can be seen with the data on the presence of the web pages and less with the impact of the research in the field of Green & Sustainalbe Science & Technology.

 

Question 2:

With these concerns aired, I do see some value in just mapping a terrain for Spanish (and other!) universities in sustainability. The point about open access journals is well taken. I also wonder if there might be some nuance to add about social media and reporting out scientific papers. So are there better/worse ways for academics, scientists, environmental scientists, to communicate on social media about their work? To this end, perhaps the authors would be interested in a piece from Science Comm if they haven't seen it yet about scientists and Twitter when the Flint Water Crisis in the US hit (Jahng & Lee, 2018: https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017751948).

 

Answer:

We also find this observation very suggestive. We have incorporated some comments in this regard in the discussion section and have incorporated some "recommendations" along these lines. We are also analyzing the dissemination strategies of the two universities that have the greatest impact on social networks to identify good practices.  

 

Question 3:

Thanks for the opportunity to review! I wish the authors well in this and other projects.

A few more sources for the authors, should they find them interesting:

Answer:

At the reviewer's suggestion, these references have been incorporated into the text.

Article identifying departments as a key unit for tracking sustainability effectiveness: Yazici, N., & Babalik, A. (2016). Determination of environmental awareness of university students: the case of Suleyman Demirel University (SDU). Environmental Earth Sciences, 75(3), 1–8. https://doi-org.du.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s12665-015-5032-0

General best practices, for university sustainability, including champions higher in admin as key for success: Blackburn, W. (2106). The practice of sustainability at colleges and universities. Environmental Law Reporter: News & Analysis, 46(5), 10394-10415

Richter, B. W., & Sousa, L. O. D. (2019). The implementation of environmental education to promote sustainability: an overview of the processes and challenges. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 26(8), 721–731. doi: 10.1080/13504509.2019.1672220

Sepasi, S., Rahdari, A., & Rexhepi, G. (2018). Developing a sustainability reporting assessment tool for higher education institutions: The University of California. Sustainable Development, 26(6), 672–682. https://doi-org.du.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/sd.1736

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper addresses a timely topic and the analysis of data from websites and scholarly publications can be a merit. However, the paper is too much about the data, whereas it remains unclear what research gap the present study can help bridge.

Moreover, the method section mainly presents the source of data not explaining what the research method is chosen for the study as well as the justification of the method. The selection of data sources is also less transparent.  

The data analysis is interesting but remains unclear what is the rationale underlying the analysis.  This can be improved by having an analytical framework.

Also, the text in the figures applies too small size font. It can hardly be read.

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for their comments and suggestions. We have included the comments in the new version of the manuscript (in red) and will answer your questions below.

Question 1:

The paper addresses a timely topic and the analysis of data from websites and scholarly publications can be a merit. However, the paper is too much about the data, whereas it remains unclear what research gap the present study can help bridge.

Answer:

It is true that the proliferation of data may prevent the understanding of the article and the research. Thank you for the reflection that we consider very timely. To clarify this aspect, new paragraphs have been added to the methodology section and the conceptual framework to which the study is related has been defined. Given that we work from the perspective of Metric Studies of Information (analyzing sources and obtaining quantitative indicators), the objective of the research is to propose indicators that allow us to evaluate the degree of involvement of universities with sustainability. These indicators can be very useful for the elaboration of comparative studies and rankings such as GreenMetric or The Times, which normally depend on the information provided by the university itself for their calculation (which is subjective). These quantitative indicators, although indirect, are more reliable and objective when establishing comparisons between institutions.

Question 2:

Moreover, the method section mainly presents the source of data not explaining what the research method is chosen for the study as well as the justification of the method. The selection of data sources is also less transparent.  

Answer:

Considering the reviewer's comments, the description of the methodology and selection of the sample has been expanded and given more detail.

Question 3:

The data analysis is interesting but remains unclear what is the rationale underlying the analysis.  This can be improved by having an analytical framework.

Also, the text in the figures applies too small size font. It can hardly be read.

Answer:

The figures have been improved

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, the article was interesting to read and it is current as sustainability is more and more a topic being addressed in HEI.

Context

I know that a literature view is not required by Sustainability. However, there is one case where it would be helpful to have prior reference and context. The first mention of Barañano’s study, which is used as a comparator for some of the data collected, is on line 111 on page 3 of the paper. It comes without reference or context. In general, the methodology could do with being set up and justified more clearly in the introduction section.

2.2 Analytical method

Why were these terms – sustainable development, social responsibility, SDG, Agenda 2030, or environment – chosen to represent a ‘sustainability landing page’. Please provide some clarification on the choice. Was it the presence of only one of these terms that was needed to tag a website as a ‘sustainability landing page’? Some of these terms are used outside of the social and environmental sustainability context.

Limitations of the study?

You mention (line 216) that the findings would be less optimistic if they covered all of Spain’s universities. You made choices on which institutions to include. Please explain those choices better so the audience can understand the applicability of your study to other situations.

Does the study and its methodology have any limitations? Is it widely applicable? The author(s) should consider adding this information to the manuscript towards the end.

Tables/Figures

Some of the text in the graphics, especially in Figures 1 and 2, is too small to be read, even with magnification.

Typos

Line 13. This study analyse how Spanish universities are communicating their commitment to sustainability and Agenda 2030 to society.

Line 21. 35% of the scientific papers have been mentioned in social media, being Twitter and Facebook the most used media. Awkward sentence construction. Needs fixing.

Line 111 “The websites of 50 institutions were analysed to ensure comparability with Barañano survey” – should be “Barañano’s survey” or “the Barañano survey”

Line 123 A space is needed at the end of the sentence after the full stop/period.

Lines 163-164 The findings were compared to the titles given this type of administrative units in the universities included in the Barañano survey (need sentence agreement). Probably should read, “these types of administrative units” or “this type of administrative unit”

Lines 183, 187, 196, 197 etc I don’t know the policy for this journal but I think “No. of…” in written form should be written out as “Number of …” unless in a table.

Line264 Similar to above – within the main body of the paper please write out the word(s) “greater than” versus using a symbol (>) in the case of “greater than 100 research institutions”.

Line 282 “A total of 33% of all the papers was (should be ‘were’) published under open access arrangements.”

Line 318 “Twitter stands out in the distribution graphed in Figure 5” (should be Figure 7)

Line 413 “In a recent study [47] used topic ….” – should read, “A recent study [47] used topic…

 

 

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for their comments and suggestions. We have included the comments in the new version of the manuscript (in red) and will answer your questions below.

Question 1:

I know that a literature view is not required by Sustainability. However, there is one case where it would be helpful to have prior reference and context. The first mention of Barañano’s study, which is used as a comparator for some of the data collected, is on line 111 on page 3 of the paper. It comes without reference or context. In general, the methodology could do with being set up and justified more clearly in the introduction section.

Answer:

Thank you for your comments. Considering the reviewer's observation, the information regarding the Barañano 2011 study has been expanded and the methodology section has been expanded.

Question 2:

Why were these terms – sustainable development, social responsibility, SDG, Agenda 2030, or environment – chosen to represent a ‘sustainability landing page’. Please provide some clarification on the choice. Was it the presence of only one of these terms that was needed to tag a website as a ‘sustainability landing page’? Some of these terms are used outside of the social and environmental sustainability context.

Answer:

The presence of these four terms on the university websites was analyzed separately. The terms "sustainable development, social responsibility" were already used in the research of Barañano 2011 and it was decided to analyze the new terms "SDG and Agenda 2030" to analyze the evolution and degree of incorporation of these new visions of sustainability in Spanish universities.  These terms have also been used in previous research by other authors for the analysis of website content. In the methodology section, more information has been provided on the procedure followed.

Question 3:

You mention (line 216) that the findings would be less optimistic if they covered all of Spain’s universities. You made choices on which institutions to include. Please explain those choices better so the audience can understand the applicability of your study to other situations.

Answer:

Thanks for the comment, it is an important aspect to clarify. The observation has been included in the text. We have worked with the same universities that participated in Barañano's study (2011) in order to make a comparison 10 years later.  Selccioandas universities represent 60% of all public and private universities in Spain. This sample lacks those smaller universities, distance learning or more recently created universities that probably have less involvement with sustainability. For this reason, the comment was included that a more complete study of all Spanish universities could give less positive results.

Question 4:

Does the study and its methodology have any limitations? Is it widely applicable? The author(s) should consider adding this information to the manuscript towards the end.

Answer:

Yes, it is important to mention the limitations of the study, so we have included this information in the discussion.

 Question 5:

Some of the text in the graphics, especially in Figures 1 and 2, is too small to be read, even with magnification.

Answer:

The graphics have been modified

 Question 6:

Typos

Line 13. This study analyse how Spanish universities are communicating their commitment to sustainability and Agenda 2030 to society.

Line 21. 35% of the scientific papers have been mentioned in social media, being Twitter and Facebook the most used media. Awkward sentence construction. Needs fixing.

Line 111 “The websites of 50 institutions were analysed to ensure comparability with Barañano survey” – should be “Barañano’s survey” or “the Barañano survey”

Line 123 A space is needed at the end of the sentence after the full stop/period.

Lines 163-164 The findings were compared to the titles given this type of administrative units in the universities included in the Barañano survey (need sentence agreement). Probably should read, “these types of administrative units” or “this type of administrative unit”

Lines 183, 187, 196, 197 etc I don’t know the policy for this journal but I think “No. of…” in written form should be written out as “Number of …” unless in a table.

Line264 Similar to above – within the main body of the paper please write out the word(s) “greater than” versus using a symbol (>) in the case of “greater than 100 research institutions”.

Line 282 “A total of 33% of all the papers was (should be ‘were’) published under open access arrangements.”

Line 318 “Twitter stands out in the distribution graphed in Figure 5” (should be Figure 7)

Line 413 “In a recent study [47] used topic ….” – should read, “A recent study [47] used topic…

Answer:

Thank you for your comments. The corresponding corrections have been made

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revision has not sufficiently responded to my previous comments.