Mind the Gap: A Policy Gap Analysis of Programmes Promoting Timber Construction in Nordic Countries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the article is very interesting and up-to-date. Timber construction in Europe is constantly evolving and the analysis of the challenges facing the timber industry are a valuable source of information. The manuscript has been prepared carefully. The only remark concerns the first two sentences in section  ‘Conclusions’. In my opinion, there is no need to repeat the purpose of the work in that section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

It is an interesting paper, important in the context of global warming, but it needs some additions/clarifications as suggested in the Report attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Maniak-Husser, M., et al. submitted an interesting study on a policy gap analysis of programmes promoting timber construction in Nordic Contries. This paper needs considerable work before it can be considered for publication.  The authors are recommended to revise the paper based on the following comments.

General Comments:

1. Keywords need to be more specific. Do not use the words you already mentioned in the title.
2. This paper should be structured well and ensure a better flow of ideas.
3. Insert more references where necessary

This paper can be considered for publication after addressing the following specific comments.

1. The introduction section needs substantial rewriting, which requires the need of this research, research gap in terms of current knowledge, and the beneficiaries of this research.
   1. What is the novel in what you are doing? What is the scientific contribution of the paper? Please explain clearly.
   2. Who are the potential beneficiaries of this study? Indicate the target beneficiaries at the end of this section.
2. Recommend to provide a separate literature review if possible before the methodology.
3. The methodology section needs to be rewrite with complete details in order to ensure the validity of this research content. In that case, the generalizability of the respondent sample need to be discussed considering their subject expertise and the way they contribute to the study.
4. Discuss the generalizability and reproducibility of these research findings for similar applications in other countries. The limitations and the future research potential of this study should also be indicated at the end of the discussion section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf