Sustainability Is Social Complexity: Re-Imagining Education toward a Culture of Unpredictability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the article is very interesting, but it requires a prior review before assessing whether it can or cannot be published in this journal.

1. Literature should be organized around the themes of "sustainability", "social complexity" and "conceptualizing education".

2. the article does not explore pathways to re-imagine education in the context of sustainability.

3. the article is theoretical and not supported by data or concrete examples.

4. the conclusion at the end of the article should summarize the issues raised.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although I found this is an Essay, there are still many problems to be solved in the full text. The first is about the format. All the typesetting is very confusing, especially the references. Obviously, the author didn't proofread them very carefully. The second is the framework of writing. The whole framework makes me wonder what the author's statement logic is, which is very confusing. The third is about pictures. Obviously, these two pictures are copied and pasted, because there are watermarks. Is there any copyright problem? The fourth is the significance of research. I don't think this is a research that contributes to sustainability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Given the theoretical structure of the manuscript, I would suggest the author to consider the following adjustments:

1. The text should include the socio-historical and socio-evolutionary line of thought (p.e. Norbert Elias), which can provide valuable insights for examining the research object.

2. It's important to reinforce the conclusions by listing the implications of the reflection on society, on its dynamics and changes in greater depth.

3. I suggest to improve the quality of writing, colloquial expressions should be avoided, such as paraphrasing the reflection in first-person singular or plural.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Academic writing should avoid colloquial expressions, lengthy sentences, and complex discourses to improve clarity and linearity of reasoning while maintaining complexity.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text emphasizes the importance of adopting a "culture of sustainability" that acknowledges the complexity and unpredictability of the systems we deal with. It argues that sustainability research should encompass interdisciplinary and long-term educational processes. The text challenges the misconception that technology alone can solve sustainability issues and highlights the need for a deeper understanding of systemic and relational aspects. In essence, it calls for a shift towards a culture of complexity in approaching sustainability, emphasizing that purely technical or technological solutions are insufficient.

From this perspective, the article is of great interest and well-placed in this journal.

It is a predominantly theoretical paper that falls midway between theoretical reflection and a literature review. The document does not have a single, cohesive main argument. However, it covers a wide range of topics related to social sciences, complexity theory, education, philosophy, and more. The document you provided offers a list of academic references consisting of various books and articles on topics related to social sciences, complexity theory, etc etc . It appears to be a bibliography or a list of sources used in a research papers or other academic works. The document contains an extensive list of academic references covering a wide range of topics, which can be valuable for researchers, students, and academics looking for source materials. The references encompass various disciplines, including social sciences, complexity theory, education, philosophy, and more, allowing for a multidisciplinary exploration of related subjects.

Howevere the document is not organized into sections or categories, which can make it difficult to locate specific references or themes within the extensive list. Due to its length and lack of structure, the document may not be reader-friendly for those looking for concise information or a clear narrative.

For these reasons, I suggest a structural revision based on two points: 1) explicitly stating that it is a theoretical reflection (with clearer specification of its objectives) based on a literature review; 2) using the introduction to explain to the readers how to approach the text.

From the perspective of the article's content, I would like to suggest to the author to reference the accelerationist perspective (Rosa), both critically and explanatorily, as I believe it could enhance the reflection presented in the section of the article dedicated to 'speed.'

For the rest I consider the document good enough to be published.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been revised with major improvements and enhancements, it is easier for everyone to read, and it has met the requirements for journal publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments and insight. They were very useful.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the author made a good revision. But as I said, if the structure and exposition of an article are hard to understand, it doesn't mean it will be an advantage. On the contrary, it needs to appear in front of readers in a better form, which the author has made a good modification. However, I still think it is necessary to sort out the titles of each part in a targeted manner to ensure that it is easier to understand.

Author Response

My thanks to the reviewer for the useful suggestions. I have revised the headings in the article, adding explanatory sub-titles to make them more targeted, as requested.