Research and Scientific Advice in the Second Modernity: Technology Assessment, Responsible Research and Innovation, and Sustainability Research

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is interesting and potentially quite important.

However there are several areas for improvement.

First, I know TA and SR, but where does the term "Responsible Research and Innovation" come from? I know the term "Responsible innovation". Should the term RRI or RI be used? Whatever term the authors decide to use, they should quote the origin of that term. Similarly, they should also talk more about the origin of the other two terms TA and SR.

The authors should also give a more convincing rationale why these three fields of research are chosen for this topic. Are there other fields of research that are also appropriate for this topic? I believe so. Why these three fields and not the other fields? The authors need to talk about this in order to avoid being regarded as too subjective in the choice.

I feel the results and discussion could not more in-depth. But I leave this issue to the authors to decide. The paper can be even better if you can go in greater depth in the results and discussion.

The conclusion could be enhanced. For example, you can talk more about the limitations and suggested research directions of this study (paper).

There is a spelling mistake in the heading for 3.3.

Author Response

Many thanks for your careful consideration and constructive recommendations for improvement!

This paper was submitted to the Special Issue "Technology Assessment, Responsible Research and Innovation, Sustainability Research: conceptual demands and methodical approaches for societal transformations". So your concerns whether RI or RRI, and why these three and no others,  are not dealt with in my paper. There will be an Introduction to the SI elaborating on these issues - this cannot be done in each of the papers separatedly.

The Call for Papers for this SI included the desire to receive also conceptual and theory-related submissions, this explains (and hopefully legitimates) the more general nature of my submission. However, following your recommendation, I added some considerations in the "Discussion" and I also added a new Section "Conclusion" in order to be more specific.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript deals with the topic of interrelations between three concepts (also called 'scientific approaches' by the Author): Technology Assessment (TA), Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), and Sustainability Research (SR). It is relevant to the aims and scope of the  "Sustainability" journal.

The text is of a conceptual nature. It rightly points at the insufficient clarity in understanding the commonalities and differences of the three above mentioned concepts. Consequently, in my opinion, it identifies a real gap in the body of sustainability-related scientific knowledge, and it makes a contribution to filling it.

Structure of the manuscript suits the contents. It is logical and balanced.

The text is written in a grammatically correct and stylistically appropriate  English language. The construction of sentences and their logical flow makes it easy for a reader to follow Author’s line of thought. The only language-related suggestion from me is to add a comma in line 165 after the word ‘contrast’.

Referenced literature is relevant and up to date.

I would like to make the following suggestions for consideration by the Author:

1. It would be interesting and justified to add Corporate Social Responsibility as the fourth related concept. It is especially linked to RRI and is important inasmuch more and more R&D is carried our by corporate entities and not by public institution.
2. Lines 224-228. Complexity as a field/dimension of TA practice could be explained better here. I assume it is about reducing the cognitive complexity of the issues tackled in TA process (lines 231,236) but the lines 234-228 don’t mention it.
3. Table 1 could be enriched with a row “Who?” i.e. specifying the primary actors of TA, RRI and SR. A row with a question “How?” might also be considered but this may not be easy.
4. Directions for further research that could bring more clarity to the key concepts could be developed in the Discussion/Conclusion.

Summing up, I think it is a valuable piece of theoretical/conceptual scholarship worth sharing the scientific community. It may be a basis for further exploration by other researchers in the field. I sympathise with the Author's statement that it is more sensible to integrate sustainability-related research and practice rather than creating isolated communities focused on one particular concept.

Author Response

Many thanks for your careful consideration and the valuable recommendations:

I followed recommendation 1 partially by mentioning CSR two times in the text, close to the RRI discussions. Taking up it as a fourth concept was not possible because the paper was submitted to the Special Issue "Technology Assessment, Responsible Research and Innovation, Sustainability Research: conceptual demands and methodical approaches for societal transformations", which focuses exactly on these three.

Recommendation 2: fulfilled by better explanation in the lines mentioned

Recommendation 3: in my understanding, one of the lines was already dedicated to the "Who". Probably this was not clear enough, I tried to find better entries. The "How" is really interesting but a realization seems to be impossible in only few words. This remains for further work

Recommendation 4: done (in the "Conclusions")

Reviewer 3 Report

Congratulations to the author on an interesting topic. The author had an interesting idea. I regret that the article is very theoretical and quite general in my opinion.

The structure of the work is good. The introduction presents the outline of the work and the structure of the article. The thesis of the article was also presented.

Since I think that the issue is interesting and fits the Journal, I propose to correct it:

1. Refer to research in the area of ​​TA, RRI and SR. The author considers these issues, theoretically, it is worth looking for research carried out by other authors and referring to them.
2. Adding the research-  I wrote about in point 1 -  will improve the bibliography. Because the author should refer to new publications and sources.
3. Point 6 is missing - conclusions. In such an article, discussion is not enough. You need to do a strong conclusions section in which the author demonstrates contributions to the field and research gaps.
4. The considerations are very general, and the topic dealt with varies greatly in different countries. I recently did research on two different countries, Poland and Malaysia, and you can see significant differences. So the generalizations should be better argued.

Author Response

Many thanks for your careful consideration and the valuable recommendations.

This paper was submitted to the Special Issue "Technology Assessment, Responsible Research and Innovation, Sustainability Research: conceptual demands and methodical approaches for societal transformations". This SI and the respective CfP include the wish to receive also more conceptual and theoretical papers. This might explain the nature of my submission - and shall (hopefully) legitimite its more theoretical approach.

Recommendation 1: In the theoretical framework chosen, it is not possible to refer to empirical research in a comprehensive manner. However, I added references to some sources where readers can find reviews or overviews of current research.

Recommendation 2: Please see the response above. I hope that you could accept references at the metalevel. Giving references at  the object level for all the three concepts discussed would not be possible within the limitations of this paper.

Recommendation 3: done, I added a new section "Conclusion", including hints to further research needs

Recommendation 4: I see the point and tried to make the conceptual nature of this paper as clear as possible. Country studies as well as other case studies are welcome the more in-depth level - which is, however, not the target of this submission, in accordance with the CfP of the SI mentioned.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciate the work of the author. Next time I propose to try to present some research considerations. Certainly, with the author's knowledge, they will be interesting and relevant.