Levels of Sustainability Awareness in Spanish University Students of Nautical Activities as Future Managers of Sports and Active Tourism Programmes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please revise the paper by addressing the following issues:

1.      Abstract must contain: significance (This usually answers the question: Why did you do this research?) and conclusion (This usually answers the question: What do your findings mean? What have you contributed?).

2.      Introduction requires some revisions for current understanding and background information about the topic, rationale, methodological approach, potential outcomes your study can reveal and uniformity in paragraph structure.

3.      Highlight the problem statement and clearly relate to the research questions.

4.      Critically review the recent literature and describe the research gap more precisely at the end of the introduction section.

5.      Would you please reason both the novelty and the relevance of your paper goals?

6.      The presentation of results/outcomes should be précised and extra information should be provided in appendix.

7.      A detail discussion of results with reference to existing literature is required.

8.      The conclusion is pretty generic and fails to provide any improvement in the existing knowledge base.

9.      Please include some practical implications of your study findings in the conclusion.

10.  Limitations and future research should be discussed under separate heading after conclusion.

11.  References require some revisions for uniformity in pattern according to the style recommended by the Journal.

12.  Please proof read the manuscript before submitting the revision.

Author Response

Thank you for your time and contribution to improve this work. Attached we leave you a detailed list of changes related to the indications you have made to us. Hopefully we have been able to adjust to them. Sincerely, best regards.

"Please see the attachment"

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

-          Usually keywords don't take (over) sequences from the title (e.g. active tourism and so on)  - please replace them in the way to reflect the article ideas and not just be redundant

-          In order not to abound with abbreviations and explanations in abstract and article’s body, I recommend placing the explanation of all / each character(s) or abbreviation(s) (e.g. for each parameter, variable, attribute of and so on – and define each formula like  equation, lema, theorem, proof of theorem and so on) in appendix, at the end of the article. The article must be easy to understand, both for specialists and for those less familiar with the subject. Please check the consistency and accuracy of each of them

-          Please specify the source of each table (e.g. “Author's own processing” or other expressions / sources, if the case) between square or round brackets after the name of the table.

-          The section of introduction should include (even briefly at the end of the chapter): the context of the study, which are the main results presented  in short, which is the originality of this paper, the main implication policy of these results and a description of the structure of the paper - the role of each section of the paper. Some of them are missing - please fill it accordingly

-          The “Literature Review”  (part of Introduction chapter or – my recommendation  - separate chapter after Introduction) should include in more detail the “gap” in existing literature (especially “recent” literature) and the innovative aspects brought by this paper (analysis for existing literature and the novelty and originality brought by this paper should be highlighted) - please detail the gaps in the existing literature (partially done in different chapters) and state more clearly / more explicitly the manner in which the article addresses these gaps

-          The hypothesis / hypotheses should be a little bit more specific (e.g. hypothesis1, 2, 3… -) and should reflect statement/s validated or invalidated by the research in “Results or / and Discussion (+ eventually Conclusions”) chapter/s – with clear reference to hypothesis1, 2, 3…Please transform “Several specific research objectives were set out” in more specific / clear “Hypothesis”.

-          I recommend that the "concrete" proposals with "practical" applicability and if possible... "measurable" be more clearly individualized (in a separate subsection / (sub)chapter of Discussion). Actually, it would be interesting if the study would present some aspects more clearly related to the practical application of the study (examples) and its results (where could be applied, how could be applied and so on). Thus, please detail further the interpretation of the data analysis performed and its implications by reference to the scope of the research.

-          Specific conclusions for each of the four hypothesis should be included in Conclusion chapter - please map the discussion with the hypothesis of the article. There are some thin references in the conclusion to the objectives in the introduction, but without liaising these with the results of the analysis.

-          I appreciate the fact you mentioned “one of the limitations” and that’s why, please specify the other limitations and mention (as clearly as possible) possible future directions of evolution / research

Author Response

Thank you for your time and contribution to improve this work. Attached we leave you a detailed list of changes related to the indications you have made to us. Hopefully we have been able to adjust to them. Sincerely, best regards.

"Please see the attachment"

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I want to thank the authors for their contribution in this field of research. It is a well written manuscript. Below you will find some minor comments.

Specific comments 

Abstract 

L10-11: This is methodology and not results. Please change the phrase "the results support". 

Introduction 

I think that it is well-written. 

Material and Methods 

In general lines it is well written. However, i propose to insert a figure to illustrate the study design. Think about it.

Results 

L296-297: I do not think that is a necessity to insert this line. Please erase it. 

Discussion and Conclusion 

I do not think that is a need to change something. 

Author Response

Thank you for your time and contribution to improve this work. Attached we leave you a detailed list of changes related to the indications you have made to us. Hopefully we have been able to adjust to them. Sincerely, best regards.

"Please see the attachment"

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In their replies, the authors have, in my opinion, satisfactorily addressed the issues raised by me. I feel pleasure to recommend the manuscript for publication.