Ten Simple Rules for Incorporating the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into Environmental and Natural Science Courses
Jiaping Wu
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript titled "Ten Simple Rules for Incorporating the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into Environmental and Natural Science Courses" addresses an interesting issue at the intersection of education, environmental science, and sustainable development. However, while the topic is relevant, the manuscript lacks the academic rigor and depth expected in this field. The integration of SDGs into curricula is indeed necessary to prepare students to tackle global challenges, but the current presentation fails to fully engage with the complexity and nuance of this issue.
The literature review is largely descriptive and insufficiently critical. Mentioning the systematic review of 940 articles (lines 65 to 66) without engaging with the literature diminishes the impact of the discussion. The authors miss the opportunity to critically analyse the various challenges and contradictions of applying the SDGs in educational contexts, such as scalability issues, regional disparities, and potential mismatches between the goals and local realities. The literature section should be revised to not only summarize existing research but also to discuss the debates and unresolved tensions within the field, offering readers a more comprehensive understanding of the complexities surrounding SDG integration in education.
Additionally, the manuscript's theoretical foundation is weak. Concepts such as ESD and ecocentric pedagogy (lines 288-318) are mentioned but not sufficiently explored. The authors touch on these frameworks but fail to engage with the debates and criticisms within the literature. Ecocentric pedagogy, for example, is not without its critics, and these criticisms are essential to understanding its challenges in practice. Moreover, ESD has often been criticized for being overly idealistic and for failing to address the structural barriers to sustainability. A more engagement with alternative theories would strengthen the manuscript and provide the necessary academic rigor.
Moreover, the manuscript provides practical advice for incorporating the SDGs into curricula, but there is little critical reflection on the broader implications of such integration. How might power dynamics within the global education system shape the implementation of SDGs? Are there cultural or political barriers to successfully integrating these goals into curricula in diverse contexts? The manuscript would benefit from engaging with these questions. Without this critical reflection, the manuscript remains overly prescriptive, lacking the analytical depth needed to fully understand the challenges of integrating SDGs into higher education.
The discussion of sustainable development education also feels superficial. The manuscript raises some criticisms of sustainable development education but does not delve deeply into the roots of these critiques or explore their implications for educational practice. Sustainable development itself is a contested concept, with some scholars arguing that it often reinforces neoliberal economic models that are at odds with true environmental sustainability. The authors should explore these criticisms more thoroughly and consider how educators might navigate these tensions in the practices.
In my assessment, the manuscript will require significant revisions to enhance its critical depth and academic contribution. The literature review needs a more thorough engagement with existing research, the theoretical discussion requires further development, and the practical implications of SDG integration must be explored in some detail.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSee above
Author Response
The manuscript titled "Ten Simple Rules for Incorporating the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into Environmental and Natural Science Courses" addresses an interesting issue at the intersection of education, environmental science, and sustainable development. However, while the topic is relevant, the manuscript lacks the academic rigor and depth expected in this field. The integration of SDGs into curricula is indeed necessary to prepare students to tackle global challenges, but the current presentation fails to fully engage with the complexity and nuance of this issue.
The literature review is largely descriptive and insufficiently critical. Mentioning the systematic review of 940 articles (lines 65 to 66) without engaging with the literature diminishes the impact of the discussion. The authors miss the opportunity to critically analyse the various challenges and contradictions of applying the SDGs in educational contexts, such as scalability issues, regional disparities, and potential mismatches between the goals and local realities. The literature section should be revised to not only summarize existing research but also to discuss the debates and unresolved tensions within the field, offering readers a more comprehensive understanding of the complexities surrounding SDG integration in education.
Additionally, the manuscript's theoretical foundation is weak. Concepts such as ESD and ecocentric pedagogy (lines 288-318) are mentioned but not sufficiently explored. The authors touch on these frameworks but fail to engage with the debates and criticisms within the literature. Ecocentric pedagogy, for example, is not without its critics, and these criticisms are essential to understanding its challenges in practice. Moreover, ESD has often been criticized for being overly idealistic and for failing to address the structural barriers to sustainability. A more engagement with alternative theories would strengthen the manuscript and provide the necessary academic rigor.
Moreover, the manuscript provides practical advice for incorporating the SDGs into curricula, but there is little critical reflection on the broader implications of such integration. How might power dynamics within the global education system shape the implementation of SDGs? Are there cultural or political barriers to successfully integrating these goals into curricula in diverse contexts? The manuscript would benefit from engaging with these questions. Without this critical reflection, the manuscript remains overly prescriptive, lacking the analytical depth needed to fully understand the challenges of integrating SDGs into higher education.
The discussion of sustainable development education also feels superficial. The manuscript raises some criticisms of sustainable development education but does not delve deeply into the roots of these critiques or explore their implications for educational practice. Sustainable development itself is a contested concept, with some scholars arguing that it often reinforces neoliberal economic models that are at odds with true environmental sustainability. The authors should explore these criticisms more thoroughly and consider how educators might navigate these tensions in the practices.
In my assessment, the manuscript will require significant revisions to enhance its critical depth and academic contribution. The literature review needs a more thorough engagement with existing research, the theoretical discussion requires further development, and the practical implications of SDG integration must be explored in some detail.
- Thank you for your detailed feedback, we appreciate the time you have taken to give us valuable suggestions for our study. Our manuscript not intended to be a critical review of SDG integration literature but rather a practical guide for educators. Its purpose is to offer actionable strategies based on our teaching experiences and the best practices derived from the literature. The "Ten Simple Rules" format, as used in various other works (such as in PLOS publications), emphasizes concise, accessible, and practical advice for educators rather than deep theoretical critique. Our aim is to provide educators with straightforward steps for incorporating the SDGs into university curricula, especially for those who may be new to the topic. Our target audience includes educators across various disciplines who may not be deeply familiar with the debates surrounding sustainability education or the complexities of the SDGs. The goal was to make the manuscript approachable and usable, ensuring that the SDG framework is accessible to a wide range of educators, particularly those in environmental and natural sciences. The mention of the systematic review of 940 publications was to indicate the breadth of research that informed the creation of these practical rules. We intentionally kept the discussion of the review descriptive, as the focus of the manuscript is on the "how-to" of integrating SDGs rather than critically analyzing every literature. The connection of the systematic review to the brainstormed ideas and rules is now better explained in the manuscript. We agree that a deeper critique of certain areas, such as scalability issues and regional disparities, could add value to a different type of manuscript, but it is outside the scope of this one. Similarly, while we reference frameworks like Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and ecocentric pedagogy, the manuscript’s purpose is not to explore these theories in detail, but to offer practical guidance. We have made this distinction clearer in the Introduction to avoid confusion about the manuscript's intent. We hope this response clarifies our approach, and we will make adjustments to ensure that the manuscript’s purpose as a practical guide is more clearly communicated.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
You propose a relevant and valuable instrument to incorporate SDG goals in higher-education teaching courses.
There are some aspects which, in my opinion, generate confusions.
At lines 68-69 you mentioned 4 topics of studies selected from all the publications taken into consideration. Please provide an in-depth explanation for the selection of these 4 categories.
In the same context, you offered no explanations for the impact of the selected articles (the 940 articles about sustainability, spanning 2014-2024 period) in outlining each of the 10 rules.
In the 10 rules you highlighted you mentioned only articles which analysed pedagocical issues.
At line 99 I think that there is an editing error, instead of suitability being sustainability.
Have you applied these rules in your university? If you did, which were the main obstacles in fulfilling the expected results?
The article does not include future directions for research.
Author Response
At lines 68-69 you mentioned 4 topics of studies selected from all the publications taken into consideration. Please provide an in-depth explanation for the selection of these 4 categories.
In the same context, you offered no explanations for the impact of the selected articles (the 940 articles about sustainability, spanning 2014-2024 period) in outlining each of the 10 rules. In the 10 rules you highlighted you mentioned only articles which analysed pedagocical issues.
- Thank you for your valuable feedback – we greatly appreciate it. We have expanded on the selection of these 4 categories in Methods, outlining that categories were chosen based on the number of publications, record counts on WoS, publication impact, and relevance to the pedagogical successes we have had in higher education environmental and natural sciences courses.Full-text articles included in this study were chosen based on relevance to the brainstormed ideas and the rules outlined. Additionally, the systematic review of 940 publications was to indicate the breadth of research that informed the creation of these practical rules. We intentionally kept the discussion of the review descriptive. Furthermore, we have added that this review aims to provide educators with straightforward steps for incorporating the SDGs into higher education curricula, especially those that may new to the topic, rather being an in-depth critical review.
At line 99 I think that there is an editing error, instead of suitability being sustainability.
- Corrected to sustainability. Thank you.
Have you applied these rules in your university? If you did, which were the main obstacles in fulfilling the expected results?
- Yes, we have applied these rules in university courses. Some of the challenges in fulfilling the expected results are now outlined and explained in a new paragraph in the Implications and Future Directions section.
The article does not include future directions for research.
- Great suggestion - thanks. We have now added a new paragraph for Future Directions in the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCongratulations to authors!
I consider that the article meets the requirements for publishing.
