A Framework of Global Competence for Engineers: The Need for a Sustainable World

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents the results of a five-country systematic study of "soft" competencies that are needed for modern engineers to enable them to function in a global context, along with assessment of the extents to which these competencies are not sufficiently present in current engineering graduates.  This is an important and current topic, much related to sustainability.  The conclusions are cogent and convincing.  The study and paper do not proceed to the next important question, which is how these missing competencies are best taught or otherwise developed in engineers.  The procedures for the study seem sound, although, being an engineer himself, this reviewer is not able to judge from the standoint of a social scientist.

The primary need for this paper is reduction in length.  The length could be half or somewhat less than what it now is and still convey the important messages of the paper, but in a form that is easier for the reader to assimilate.  Another way of looking at this issue is that the current paper reads more like a full project report than like a journal publication summarizing a project.  Hence the present paper could be converted into a full report, augmented in any ways that may be appropriate for that purpose.  That full report could then be readily available on the internet.  The publication in Sustainability could then be much shorter, condensing that report and referencing the posted full report as appropriate.  The full report might have the details of the results from the the individual country locations, while the paper itself could then be comparative among the results for the five countries.  The Sustainability paper would contain the essential points in a shorter presentation that would come across more clearly to the reader.

The English writing is stilted and verbose at times and can benefit from copy editing.

Author Response

Thank you for all your comments, they help us to improve. The paper has been reviewed considering them. In the the attachment each change is explained.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I have read the manuscript with interest given that the analysis of different institutions and on the analysis of competences is sound and relevant.

I have some comments:

1) Although results are sound, they are very descriptive. Would it be nice if you include a figure with a conceptual model, or a visual diagram synthetising the results.

2) In relation to competences, I would ask almost the same than the previous comment. Can you add a final analysis presenting a table or a graphic with those competences that most promote students future abilities.

3) In the conclusions I am asking to be more concise on the final findings, risks and synergies between educational institutions and workplaces.

Author Response

Thank you for all your comments, they help us to improve. The paper has been reviewed considering them. In the attachment each change is explained.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

on my opinion, the paper is OK, congratulation!

I have some suggestions:

-  please, make a reevaluation of the abstract and keywords

- use the profession and occupational point of view 

My suggestion is: global occupational competences, engineer profession, qualitative research, European comparation.

On this paper your focus was on fixing the global occupational competences (the next step  will be to measure students` global occupational competences with this items). Please, reformulate from this point of view. 

• 110 - 197 complete with the presentation of the engineer profession on Europe, the global importance of this occupation. 
• 257-287 complete with the argumentation: why do you choose this countries on Europe? 
• 293 what about the dimension of semi - structured interviews?
• figure 1 the quality of the figure is wrong
• 317-321 the questions would be good to introduce on abstract and to reformulate question 4 (accordingly with 5.1.3., 5.2.3., 5.3.3.....)
• figure 2 not research methodology, this is your research logic
• 811-885 give answers connected with your research questions! 

Author Response

Thank you for all your comments, they help us to improve. The paper has been reviewed considering them. In the attachement each change is explained.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The quality of English has been improved, and the organization of the paper has been improved with Table 2.  My one remaining issue regards the overall length, which has hardly been reduced at all.  The paper is written as the full report of the research.  An alternative would be a full report that is readily available elsewhere, with the paper itself being much shorter.  That is a fundamental decision for the Editor.  If a 31-page paper is acceptable to the journal for a research paper of this sort, then I am satisfied with this version.