The authors base key conclusions about “veterinary education gaps” on a single-faculty survey (ULPGC, n not reported) and a convenience sample of nine European faculties with no justification for selection criteria. How can results from one Spanish faculty and nine arbitrarily chosen European schools support generalizable claims about veterinary curricula continent-wide, especially when Table 2 shows several faculties (Bologna, Uppsala, Liège, Budapest, Hannover) offer zero environmental subjects?
2. In Table 3, for “animal production + animal welfare + climate change” in Academic Search Complete, the table reports 659 total publications (2000–2022) with 99% from 2012–2022. The footnote admits “no publications before 2010.” If true, maximum publications from 2010–2012 is ~2 years, yet 99% of 659 would require ~652 publications in 2012–2022. This arithmetic is impossible unless nearly all 659 appeared after 2012, but the footnote contradicts the percentage. Please clarify the actual counts or correct the calculation.
1. Your survey of ULPGC teachers (Figure 1) shows 50% explicitly include environmental issues and 75% incorporate them during classes—yet you use this to support the claim that “environmental issues are barely developed.” How do you reconcile these positive findings from your own faculty with your broader conclusion of educational deficiency? The self-reported data actually suggest substantial integration, not a “lack.”
2. You present 7 of 9 European faculties as having no environmental subjects, but your own text acknowledges that “many factors are often taught as stand-alone factors” (e.g., water-related health issues, vector-borne diseases). By only counting courses with explicit environmental titles, you likely underestimate actual environmental content. Did you analyze course syllabi for embedded environmental topics, or only course titles?
3. The percentages in Figure 1 (50% include environmental issues, 42% mention climate change, 42% mention One Health) appear to be based on a very small sample (n=8-12 teachers, as implied). With such a small sample, one teacher’s response changes percentages by ~8-12%. What was the exact response rate and sample size, and why aren’t these reported?
4. The totals at the bottom of Table 3 (“1230” and “7580” for Academic Search Complete; “189” for PubMed) don’t match the sum of the individual category totals. For Academic Search Complete, summing the first numbers gives 115,612 (not 1,230)—this appears to be a decimal/percentage error. Can you clarify what these numbers actually represent?
5. You highlight that GHG-related publications showed the highest percentage increase in the last decade (86-99%), yet these categories also had the lowest absolute numbers. This could simply reflect a low baseline (e.g., going from 10 to 20 publications = 100% increase). Doesn’t this suggest that environmental publications in veterinary medicine remain quantitatively minimal despite proportional growth?