A New Time of Reckoning, a Time for New Reckoning: Views on Health and Society, Tensions between Medicine and the Social Sciences, and the Process of Medicalization
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
An attempt to capture variations and tensions in the relationships between the health-illness-medicine complex and society is ambitious.
This contribution may add something new and cover some knowledge gaps in the existing literature.
Yet its evidence base has to be substantially diversifed and expanded.
In order to grasp such a broad issue with plausible transnational or global implication of its findings, it has to refer to the Emerging Markets.
THese BRICS / EM7 / MIST nations are the engine of real world economic growth and the driver of overall morbidity patterns as well as medical services demand and supply worldwide.
Thus it is crucial to convey to the readership at least basic understanding of the participation of BRICS to the inner dynamics of these processes.
For this purpose I warmly recommend consideration for inclusion of at least several of the sources listed below alongside few additional ones at the authors own disposal:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7585857/
https://globalizationandhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12992-020-00590-3
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13696998.2021.2013675
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13696998.2019.1600523
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13696998.2021.2007691
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/19/11038
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/17/3043
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12961-022-00822-5
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6835015/
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2725414
I remain willing to review the manuscript revision.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We want to thank you for your effort in reading and comments. For our part, we were thrilled to see the recognition of this paper as a contribution to knowledge.
Since neither of the two reviewers felt qualified tojudge about the English language and style, we proceeded to an intensive linguistic review of the entire text. The alterations are due to reformulations resulting from these corrections or the respective corrections, taking textual coherence and cohesion into account. Along the same lines, there are also corrections of bibliographical lapses that we found during the review or additions of clarifications of missing details (namely, references in the wrong order, repeated, or missing). Some of these changes are in line with suggestions made by the other Reviewer, namely the changes to lines 360 and 883, the rewording of section 10 and the removal of section 11.
Regarding the comments made by the Reviewer, with which we agree, we decided to add to the end of the third section the crucial references to emerging markets, recognizing the relevance of BRICS / EM7 / MIST nations and their respective long-term trends research. We also added references that, converging with these studies, seek from the perspective of medicalization studies to challenge the agenda of social determinants of health.
Reviewer 2 Report
Paper presented is really wonderful and suggestive. I think it is a great contribution to current knowledge and, without any doubt, it will help social researchers. However, I would like to suggest to the author(s) to reflect on the appropriateness of keeping sections 10 and 11. I humbly have the feeling that they break the discourse a bit and do not go deep enough into the phenomenon of medicalization to keep them. In this sense I dare to suggest that these sections be developed in a new article. I am sure it will also be a great work.
On the other hand, I think it would be convenient that the title be modified by a shorter and more concise one. That would help the reader to better detect the subject of the research.
I have detected two errors:
- On line 360 it says Boology and should read Biology.
- In line 883 I suggest putting Homo sanitas instead of homo sanitas.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We want to thank you for your effort in reading and commenting. It was crucial for us your recognition of this paper as a contribution to knowledge.
We considered the suggestion to reflect on the appropriateness of keeping sections 10 and 11, as the Reviewer suggested. We fully agree that there is a certain discursive break from section 10 onwards, so we decided to reformulate some passages in this section and remove section 11. We hope to be able to recover the issues developed there in more depth in another article.
However, we disagree with the question posed regarding the title. In our opinion, the title is enough to understand the research subject. As you can see, the title has two parts. The first is a restatement of E. Freidson's sentence, which we explicitly mention at least three times in the text. In the second part, we tried to synthesize the major themes that run through the entire text through a triptych. We believe that this part gives an accurate description of these themes. As these are general and broad questions, we understand that they may not seem very concise. However, we do not think of more direct formulations that can remain a faithful description of the text's content and, simultaneously, be short. In any case, if in the next round of revisions, the Reviewer has any concrete suggestions for a new title, we are willing to re-evaluate our initial proposal.
The two errors detected on lines 360 ​​and 883 have been corrected in accordance with the suggestion.
Since neither of the two reviewers felt qualified to judge about the English language and style, we proceeded to an intensive linguistic review of the entire text. The alterations in lines are due to reformulations resulting from these corrections or the respective corrections, taking textual coherence and cohesion into account. Along the same lines, there are also corrections of bibliographical lapses that we found during the review or additions of clarifications of missing details (namely, references in the wrong order, repeated, or missing).
