Greening the Audiovisual Sector: Towards a New Understanding through Innovation Practices in Wales and Beyond

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.   The contribution to research on both the modelling and literature sides needs to be clarified further.

2.   There are some repetitions and inaccurate expressions.  In this respect, I believe that moderate changes to the text are necessary.

3. Please provide the strengths and weaknesses of your manuscript.

Author Response

Dear,

 

We would like to extend our sincere thanks to evaluators for the valuable help they provided. We found the comments encouraging and appropriate. They have significantly helped to improve the text and make the research more compelling in its arguments and especially in regard to the methodology and the contribution to research. The core changes compared to the previous version of the article can be found in different sections of the article: 1. Introduction (we included a more detailed overview of the contribution of the audiovisual sector to gashouse emissions and improved the section discussing the research question and the way in which it addresses a gap in the literature around green innovation);  2 Materials and Methods (we restructured section 2.1.1 to harmonise it with the rest of the text and included a final section making the passage between the identified context and the need for the study that we have conducted); 2.2. Methodology (we added a more detailed explanation of the logic behind the methodology); 3. Results and discussion (this section underwent major reformulation and re-structuring to better explain the methodology and how the quantitative analysis informed the qualitative one; important comments and reflections around the identified routes to green innovation were included for the qualitative analysis, to highlight findings and the contribution to literature; the logic for the proposed framework has been rendered clearer and a detailed description of the framework elements was added); 5 Conclusions (ideas in this part have been better articulated and we have also added the strengths and weaknesses of our manuscript). The entire article was revised, paying attention to English language formulation. Below we present in more detail how we have made changes to the article based on the reviewers’ comments.

 

Evaluator 1:

The contribution to research on both the modelling and literature sides needs to be clarified further. There are some repetitions and inaccurate expressions.  In this respect, I believe that moderate changes to the text are necessary. Please provide the strengths and weaknesses of your manuscript.

Thank you for the feedback on how to improve the quality of our manuscript. To address the modelling and literature side we have undertaken major revision of the Materials and Methods section and added key literature sources which inform our study. More exactly we have further detailed the contribution of our study to research in section 1 Introduction (lines 77-90). This section is now supported by the literature review undertaken in section 2.2 Methodology (lines 356-418). Moreover, a review of the entire article was undertaken by authors to eliminate inaccurate expressions and repetitions. In the closing section we have provided the strengths and weaknesses of the article (lines 976-982).

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The research question must be improved to contribute to academic knowledge.

The methodology also needs a more accurate method.

The analysis must be improved to find deeper findings for academic quality, and findings and analysis must be improved.

So reviewer proposes that the paper submission should be rejected.

 

Author Response

Dear,

 

We would like to extend our sincere thanks to evaluators for the valuable help they provided. We found the comments encouraging and appropriate. They have significantly helped to improve the text and make the research more compelling in its arguments and especially in regard to the methodology and the contribution to research. The core changes compared to the previous version of the article can be found in different sections of the article: 1. Introduction (we included a more detailed overview of the contribution of the audiovisual sector to gashouse emissions and improved the section discussing the research question and the way in which it addresses a gap in the literature around green innovation);  2 Materials and Methods (we restructured section 2.1.1 to harmonise it with the rest of the text and included a final section making the passage between the identified context and the need for the study that we have conducted); 2.2. Methodology (we added a more detailed explanation of the logic behind the methodology); 3. Results and discussion (this section underwent major reformulation and re-structuring to better explain the methodology and how the quantitative analysis informed the qualitative one; important comments and reflections around the identified routes to green innovation were included for the qualitative analysis, to highlight findings and the contribution to literature; the logic for the proposed framework has been rendered clearer and a detailed description of the framework elements was added); 5 Conclusions (ideas in this part have been better articulated and we have also added the strengths and weaknesses of our manuscript). The entire article was revised, paying attention to English language formulation. Below we present in more detail how we have made changes to the article based on the reviewers’ comments.

 

Evaluator 2:

The research question must be improved to contribute to academic knowledge. The methodology also needs a more accurate method. The analysis must be improved to find deeper findings for academic quality, and findings and analysis must be improved. So reviewer proposes that the paper submission should be rejected.

Thank you for your comments. We have addressed each of them in our revision of the manuscript and made the following important changes: The research question has been re-formulated in section 1 Introduction (lines 77-90) to clearly present the contribution of the study to academic knowledge. Further data about the unsustainable production levels in the audiovisual industry was included as evidence for this. We have restructured section 2.2. Methodology. Here, we better detailed our mixed method approach and the way in which quantitative analysis looking at adoption levels for green innovation informs the qualitative study where we try to identify different routes to innovation and the barriers/enablers associated to them. The changes for this part are most significant in lines 398-418. Section 3. Results and Discussion has undergone major revision and restructuring. New paragraphs have been introduced to detail the analysis and to render the findings more relevant for academic research: lines 420-427, lines 508-526 lines 629-639, lines 688- 697, lines 722-731, lines 772- 782. We now believe that the quality of the analysis and findings have been significantly improved, so as to demonstrate the contribution of the article to research.

Reviewer 3 Report

The domain of the manuscript is valuable however the manuscript is written poorly. Therefore to improve the manuscript, following changes must be made;

1.       Introduction section- Example of TV and its footprints is discussed. The data to support that the audiovisual sector has significant footprints is not included. Only examples to present the argument is not enough for the manuscript. The data and figures needs to be discussed from the sector and sub sectors to make the argument strong enough and concrete.

2.       In section 2.1.1, lines 113-179- Some of the paragraphs are long and some are short. The harmony is not there.  Some of the discussion can be merged to bring the harmony in the discussion. Please revise the section thoroughly.

3.       Section 3.1, lines 276-283-These lines are poorly written. The data or what questions were asked need to be included and how these question were designed also need to be included. Notably questions in the survey need to matchup the results in figure 1 and figure 2. As a result, this section appeared to be fragmented. Please review and present the qualitative enquiry comprehensively. Research design must based on both ( Qualitative and Quantitative) and clearly presented.

4.       Line 284 has “innovation have green impact” and line 278 has “positive environmental impact”, notably both of these are two different domains. Please be specific and explain clearly which one of these was explored in the research via survey conducted.

5.       Line 286-Figure 1 shows “willingness” of different sector. This is confusing. Where “willingness” is coming from? Please note positive environmental impact will only come from actual practice not with showing willingness. Please review and rephrase the lines 286-287.

6.       Lines 315-321- Claiming sentences are written without references. Please add references appropriately.   

7.       Lines 338-342- These lines are poorly written. Please revise them.

8.       Section 3.2.2 heading- Heading should be “Media Content” not the “Green Content” as it was mentioned in line 339. Please review

9.       Section3.3, New Framework- Observably the whole section is very poorly written. Figure 3 is not representing the framework appropriately. The suggestion is that this section should discuss what results have been identified through qualitative and quantitative analysis. Then framework to discuss the way forward based on results and their improvements. Also framework is needed to be discussed comprehensively so that next section of conclusion can be written accordingly.  

Author Response

Dear,

 

We would like to extend our sincere thanks to evaluators for the valuable help they provided. We found the comments encouraging and appropriate. They have significantly helped to improve the text and make the research more compelling in its arguments and especially in regard to the methodology and the contribution to research. The core changes compared to the previous version of the article can be found in different sections of the article: 1. Introduction (we included a more detailed overview of the contribution of the audiovisual sector to gashouse emissions and improved the section discussing the research question and the way in which it addresses a gap in the literature around green innovation);  2 Materials and Methods (we restructured section 2.1.1 to harmonise it with the rest of the text and included a final section making the passage between the identified context and the need for the study that we have conducted); 2.2. Methodology (we added a more detailed explanation of the logic behind the methodology); 3. Results and discussion (this section underwent major reformulation and re-structuring to better explain the methodology and how the quantitative analysis informed the qualitative one; important comments and reflections around the identified routes to green innovation were included for the qualitative analysis, to highlight findings and the contribution to literature; the logic for the proposed framework has been rendered clearer and a detailed description of the framework elements was added); 5 Conclusions (ideas in this part have been better articulated and we have also added the strengths and weaknesses of our manuscript). The entire article was revised, paying attention to English language formulation. Below we present in more detail how we have made changes to the article based on the reviewers’ comments.

 

Evaluator 3:

 

Thank you for the very detailed comments and suggestions for improving the manuscript. They have enabled us to make considerable improvements to the article. In the following we explain how we have addressed each of your comments.

 

1. Introduction section- Example of TV and its footprints is discussed. The data to support that the audiovisual sector has significant footprints is not included. Only examples to present the argument is not enough for the manuscript. The data and figures needs to be discussed from the sector and sub sectors to make the argument strong enough and concrete.

Thank you for signalling this gap. We agree that this data is necessary to make the case of our research stronger. To this aim we have introduced a new section discussing the audiovisual sector and its footprints (lines 38-50).

2. In section 2.1.1, lines 113-179- Some of the paragraphs are long and some are short. The harmony is not there.  Some of the discussion can be merged to bring the harmony in the discussion. Please revise the section thoroughly.

We have streamlined section 2.1.1., re-writing sections and merging some of the content. We feel now that this section is much more balanced and mirrors much better the next section 2.1.2

3. Section 3.1, lines 276-283-These lines are poorly written. The data or what questions were asked need to be included and how these question were designed also need to be included. Notably questions in the survey need to matchup the results in figure 1 and figure 2. As a result, this section appeared to be fragmented. Please review and present the qualitative enquiry comprehensively. Research design must based on both ( Qualitative and Quantitative) and clearly presented.

Thank you for signalling this. We have revised text in lines 276-283, as you suggested. The entire section 3.1. has been re-designed to better explain the structure of the survey (how questions were designed) and present the link to the qualitative enquiry. We now feel that fugure 1 and 2 better reflect the responses to the survey questions. The process for setting up the qualitative enquiry was also better detailed, and some paragraphs have been reformulated.

4. Line 284 has “innovation have green impact” and line 278 has “positive environmental impact”, notably both of these are two different domains. Please be specific and explain clearly which one of these was explored in the research via survey conducted.

Thank you for signalling this inconsistency. We have amended this by explaining (lines 508-509) that the purpose of the survey was to assess the types of impact of innovations in the Welsh audiovisual sector ( environmental, cultural and societal).

5. Line 286-Figure 1 shows “willingness” of different sector. This is confusing. Where “willingness” is coming from? Please note positive environmental impact will only come from actual practice not with showing willingness. Please review and rephrase the lines 286-287.

We acknowledge the lack of clarity in the formulation. To amend this, we have re-formulated this section to underline that the graph refers to a state of facts and not willingness. The graph provides an overview of respondent groups based on the frequency with which their innovations have a green impact.

6. Lines 315-321- Claiming sentences are written without references. Please add references appropriately.   

Thank you for signalling the absence of references. We have now supported all statements through key literature present in reference numbers 54 and 55 (now lines 618-627).

7. Lines 338-342- These lines are poorly written. Please revise them.

Thank you for signalling this. We have revised this section and reformulated the content for more clarity and precision. Please see lines 629-639

8. Section 3.2.2 heading- Heading should be “Media Content” not the “Green Content” as it was mentioned in line 339. Please review

The headings of the sub-sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2. and 3.2.3 have been re-formulated for more clarity and to reflect the different types of routes to green innovation identified by qualitative analysis: Green Solutions has been re-named ‘solution-oriented route’, Green Content has been renamed ‘content-oriented route’ and Green Mindset has been renamed ‘Mindset-oriented route’.

9. Section3.3, New Framework- Observably the whole section is very poorly written. Figure 3 is not representing the framework appropriately. The suggestion is that this section should discuss what results have been identified through qualitative and quantitative analysis. Then framework to discuss the way forward based on results and their improvements. Also framework is needed to be discussed comprehensively so that next section of conclusion can be written accordingly.  

The entire section presenting the proposed framework has been re-written following recommendations. The first paragraph of section 3.3. (lines 812-824) discusses now the findings of the mixed method approach and the logic for proposing a framework that is able to better map different roadmaps to green innovation. The middle section (lines 825-834) discusses the framework more in-depth and gives examples for each identified route to green innovation. In lines 852-870 we discuss the logic for such a framework, stressing both the theoretical and practical benefits.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Sentences are added to explain.

Analysis and evidence still need to be more.

Author Response

Dear,

 

We would like to extend our sincere thanks to evaluators for the valuable help they provided. We found the comments encouraging and appropriate. They have significantly helped to improve the text and make the research more compelling in its arguments and especially regarding the referencing system and the contribution to research. The core changes compared to the previous version of the article regards two parts: the referencing system of the article and the presentation of the framework for mapping R&D routes to innovation. For the referencing system, we have checked the entire article for claiming sentences and included references to back up these statements. After this work, we feel that our article has now a solid basis. We have also added a detailed explanation of the framework and its benefits. The entire article was revised, paying attention to English language formulation. Below we present in more detail how we have made changes to the article based on the reviewers’ comments.

 

Evaluator 2:

Analysis and evidence still need to be more.

Thank you for your comments. Regarding the quantitative analysis we are not able to go beyond the existing dataset (survey) and bring more evidence. However, we were able to bring more evidence for the qualitative results through a more detailed discussion of how the case study analysis enables us to formulate a new framework for mapping R&D routes to green innovation.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The manuscript has been revised as suggested. However, I still believe that the referencing is still not done appropriately. Please review and revise the references as there are still claiming sentences in the manuscript. Lastly, the framework is not being clearly presented and explained, please revise it.

Author Response

Dear,

 

We would like to extend our sincere thanks to evaluators for the valuable help they provided. We found the comments encouraging and appropriate. They have significantly helped to improve the text and make the research more compelling in its arguments and especially regarding the referencing system and the contribution to research. The core changes compared to the previous version of the article regards two parts: the referencing system of the article and the presentation of the framework for mapping R&D routes to innovation. For the referencing system, we have checked the entire article for claiming sentences and included references to back up these statements. After this work, we feel that our article has now a solid basis. We have also added a detailed explanation of the framework and its benefits. The entire article was revised, paying attention to English language formulation. Below we present in more detail how we have made changes to the article based on the reviewers’ comments.

Evaluator 3:

 

Thank you for the comments and suggestions for improving the manuscript. We have checked claiming statements and provided a more solid referencing system. Now the article includes 84 references to literature, which we feel represents a substantial set of resources to back up the claims made in our paper. We have also provided a more detailed discussion of the proposed framework (lines 628-666).