The Involvement of Public Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Poland in the Promotion of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Age of Social Media

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper discusses one relevant topic at the moment: SDGs are implemented in all universities.

The research design and methods of recollecting information are coherent with the research question.

The results are exciting and they can orient new research.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

It is an interesting article and valuable to the academic field. However, some suggestions were provided for reference.

1. Abstract should be structured as motivation or value of this study, the subjects, the data collection, data analysis method, how to verify the reliability and validity of the study, and results briefly instead of the presented abstract.

2. The gap between the SDGs goal and the policy of Poland's higher education institute was not explained clearly. Meanwhile, what is the current situation of the gap and what's the importance of this issue were not stated as well.

3. The hypothesis should not place in the introduction section. The structure of this article should be rearranged to comply with the logic of the research paper.

4. Only one hypothesis in this paper? The hypothesis should be reviewed carefully the hypothesis establishment.

5. The literature review should review the SDGs current situation in HEI Poland to support the value of this study instead of just explaining or describing the goals or SDGs.

6. This study should consider applying the 'Quantile regression' for data analysis. And why author apply 'publications of the subjects for data analysis? Is the publication highly related to each SDGs Goal?

7. It seems the author uses the 'Cluster Analysis', however, no related explanation has appeared in the research method section. Further, the author uses the term 'Euclidean distance formula'. The author should clarify this.

8. Figure 1 displays the cluster analysis result, however, no explanation regarding the different hierarchical clusters and what is the standard to distinguish those clusters.

9. The description of the analysis result was too rough. The author should rearrange the explanations of this section.

10. The conclusion was too weak and no concrete discussions regarding the research goals and whether the research gap is solved or not.

It encourages the author to improve some issues to raise the quality of this article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The author modified the revised manuscript according to review comments. Please review the revised manuscript carefully to check the English.