Early Ethical Assessment: An Application to the Sustainability of Swine Body Scanners

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject of the article is interesting, and it is linked to the objectives of the journal, however, there are some issues that have to be reconsidered.

The article is a bit difficult to follow. A short part describing the parts of it could help.

The Conclusion part is too long. The information from this part should focus on the findings that clarify the objectives of the research (as they were stated in the article, somewhere on lines 82-96).

Author Response

We appreciate the effort that reviewers have put into reading our manuscript. Questions and suggestions revealed a significant problem in our approach. The original manuscript described two objectives for the study: reporting results the exercise’s analysis of Benjamin’s sensing technology, and a test of the ethical matrix method, itself. Comments from the reviewers demonstrated the need to emphasize only the second of these objectives, simply in order to provide a clear and consistent line of argument for readers. We have made changes throughout the manuscript to achieve this end, resulting in a more straightforward argument. We have also rewritten the introductory section to emphasize the complexity and interpretive tension among definitions of sustainability for livestock production, in general. This should help readers understand how the ethical matrix approach deployed in the paper contributes to any researcher’s attempt to integrate sustainability goals into a technological innovation.

Specific to this reviewer's requests, the Introduction has been reworked, making a clearer statement of the research design and goals. It includes a clear description of each section and its relevance to the thesis. The conclusion has be significantly shortened, with extraneous comments either deleted or moved to other parts of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, I have indeed read your manuscript with great interest and I commend you for the clarity in describing the issue under research and the methodological approach of the study you have adopted.

However, I would recommend a few improvements:

1. Identify a more robust link between sustainability and Early ethics assessment in the literature. If there is not one, point it out as a theoretical gap and state that your study fills it.
2. In paragraph 6. Conclusions, argue both the theoretical and professional implications of your research findings, and also include limitations and outline future lines of research.

Author Response

We appreciate the effort that reviewers have put into reading our manuscript. Questions and suggestions revealed a significant problem in our approach. The original manuscript described two objectives for the study: reporting results the exercise’s analysis of Benjamin’s sensing technology, and a test of the ethical matrix method, itself. Comments from the reviewers demonstrated the need to emphasize only the second of these objectives, simply in order to provide a clear and consistent line of argument for readers. We have made changes throughout the manuscript to achieve this end, resulting in a more straightforward argument. We have also rewritten the introductory section to emphasize the complexity and interpretive tension among definitions of sustainability for livestock production, in general. This should help readers understand how the ethical matrix approach deployed in the paper contributes to any researcher’s attempt to integrate sustainability goals into a technological innovation. We are especially appreciative of this reviewer's suggestion to emphasize additions that link our study more clearly to conceptual and theoretical problems in the way that theories of sustainability are applied in agriculture. These revisions take note of the role that animal welfare has played in debates over sustainable livestock production, and stress consumer and activist reactions to technological innovations that challenge traditional farm roles.

The conclusion has been shortened and modified with an eye toward the reviewer's request for a statement on theoretical and practical implications.

Reviewer 3 Report

Line                     Obs

12                        What do you mean with R&D? Research and development (R&D)?

20                        Correct "agricultural ethics;" to "agricultural ethics."

You must correct ALL reference isn't acceptable to use for example "assessment process 27 (Wynne, 1983; Sclove, 1995)" you must use like "assessment process 27 [1]"

 In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ] and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. For embedded citations in the text with pagination, use both parentheses and brackets to indicate the reference number and page numbers; for example [5] (p. 10), or [6] (pp. 101–105).

97                        Try to move in next page. At my pdf exemplar this line are alone in page 2.

210                      "2. The Workshop and Its Analysis" Rong numbering, correct are "3. The Workshop and Its Analysis"

Isn't correct to use numbering in text like "will (1) Design" and "lactation. (2) Utilize". If you want to numbering something you cand use, for example "the technology have three stages. In fist stage we design ..." or you cand use bullets or numbering list.

282                      wrong numbering is 4 not 3

436                      wrong numbering is 5 not 4

528                      wrong numbering is 6 not 5

654                      wrong numbering is 7 not 6

Try to use Dictionary

for example, some mismatches

principlist or principles is correct?

principlism or principles is correct?

environment.This missing space between . and This

This paper:

The work seems to be a story with what it was.

It doesn't present anything new.

It does not show the concrete methods used

It does not show which materials were used.

It does not show exactly what the results of this research were

Try to use some photos at "materials and methods"

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

From line 

85 to 102 the text are bolded, Also in line 101 "ogy as it was applied to this particular study.2. Early Ethics Assessment: Materials and" from "2. Early .. " must move to next line 
In line 320 you have ",." 

You correct all observation but, for me still looking a story I can find what is new, what methods do you use and what are the conclusion of this work. 

All past remarks  (comments) were made to increase the quality of the work, not to criticize the authors or the work 

Author Response

We have made all the corrections pointed out by the reviewer.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Line 62 "regions. [12]." correct to "regions [12]."

Line 128 "or use" correct to "or use."

Line 157 "[21, 22, 31-34]." remove spaces after comma 

Line 198 between ”allow. The” check if  is an extra space. 

Line 205  [39.40]. correct to  [39,40].

Line 219 between ”tives. The” check if  is an extra space. 

Line 268  (see Table 1) why the table is at he end of work and not bellow text as is normally? 

Line 324,  367, 387, 408, 432, why you didn't use paragraph tab? 

Line 504 between ”invisible. The question,” check if is an extra space. 

Line 569 between ”technology. The conversation” check if is an extra space. 

Line 585  "groups disproportionately [51[." remove "["

Line 608 between ”animals. Whether” check if is an extra space. 

Line 654 between ”voices. On one hand,” check if is an extra space. 

Line 662 ”contain it [54.” correct to ”contain it [54].”

 

 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for meticulous attention to errors. We found working with the template to complicate our ability to control type formatting errors and to see problems. The reviewer has been instrumental in helping us with these problems. We have either made corrections or responded to the reviewers queries in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf