The title and the abstract suggest the reader that the paper explains the mentioned conceptual framework. The term is mentioned in numerous instances in the text, however, the text does not include any concept. So, the paper fails its purpose totally. How can it be that the main subject of an article is hidden in the supplement? Impossible. The supplementary itself is a very long list (44 pages) of the 10 key themes of the RSSR mentioned in the article.

As I assume from reading the text as is, such a framework would be a needed instrument to monitor success of the implementation of the RSSR to achieve RRI. However, it is not really clear to me and I do not see the conceptual framework itself.

Journal policy obviously requires to keep articles short. It is therefore clear that explanations of a concept need to be short (possibly with an extended document as supplementary material), but nevertheless it must be explained in the main text. This should be possible as the text is full of repetitions and redundant information. Moreover, it uses flowery language and remains vague/unclear in many instances. This, in turn, allows to shorten the text by about 50 % and instead enter relevant information explaining the concept itself.

Unfortunately, this manuscript comes without line numbers, which makes it difficult to provide specific comments. So, I will do it related to sections/paragraphs.

Abstract: The very first sentence mentions RRI and RSSR, but does not really clarify the relation. Is the RSSR the vehicle/mechanism that should lead to RRI, or is the mentioned "conceptual framework" required to monitor/assess the success of the RSSR to achieve RRI? By the way, is the term "social" relevant content-wise? If so, it should be abbreviated "SRRI". A clear statement in the beginning would be extremely helpful for understanding the article. Later parts of the abstract can be shortened substantially (in particular the last paragraph starting from "The paper explicates..." can be deleted) and should introduce the main idea of the concept itself.

Introduction: The second paragraph is full of vague/unclear statements and repetitive; it doesn't provide a lot of relevant information. Shorten this.

Context for conceptual framework: The context should be given in the introduction. Some (little) of the information presented here (mainly the 10 priority areas of the RSSR, maybe including table 1, possibly plus one explanatory sentence each) can be moved to the introduction, the rest can be deleted.

Development of the conceptual framework: Where is the framework? It is not there. Is it necessary to describe the history of development through case studies from various regions without having an idea about the concept itself? The final sentence of the first paragraph states an "overlap" between RRI and RSSR. So, what does that mean? Is there a gap? How is this gap going to be closed, with the "conceptual framework" mentioned? Please describe the framework and explain how it closes the gap (The term "overlap" is not very helpful, because it is quite vague).

Using this conceptual framework: In the current version of the article this section is meaningless as the reader did not see the conceptual framework as yet. The last paragraph is a repetition and can be deleted.

Conclusion: As is the conclusion is rather a summary of the previous, again full of repetition. It is lacking a real conclusion, a potential impact/implication of the conceptual framework (if there were one). Moreover, it includes the quite bold and not very respectful statement "Research systems need to improve to be worthy of this public trust". Do you want to question research ethics, or what is it that you challenge here?

References: The majority of refs are the author's own publications, besides there is a number of UN documents. Are there no other papers/views/opinions?

Supplement: It says it contains the "full text conceptual framework", however, I see a long listing of the 10 RSSR priority areas, but not really a conceptual framework.

Where applicable, are recommendations and next steps explained clearly for others to follow? (Please consider whether others in the research community would be able to implement guidelines or recommendations and/or constructively engage in the debate)

Partly

Does the article adequately reference differing views and opinions?

No

Are all factual statements correct, and are statements and arguments made adequately supported by citations?

Partly

Is the rationale for the Open Letter provided in sufficient detail? (Please consider whether existing challenges in the field are outlined clearly and whether the purpose of the letter is explained)

No

Is the Open Letter written in accessible language? (Please consider whether all subject-specific terms, concepts and abbreviations are explained)

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Biogeochemistry, global carbon and nutrient cycles, climate change, environmental change, science - society interface, knowledge exchange, research impact, transdisciplinary science, evidence-informed decision-making, stakeholder engagement

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

This letter is labelled a conceptual framework but there is no conceptual framework. The supplementary document is more of an expansion of the ten key themes rather than what I would consider an operational conceptual framework. 

There are many references to the authors work (over half the reference list) and I am sure there are other relevant works concerning the science of responsible innovation as a process of practices - eg the original conceptualisations (Owen, Stilgoe, et al).

Is the rationale for the Open Letter provided in sufficient detail? (Please consider whether existing challenges in the field are outlined clearly and whether the purpose of the letter is explained) – No

The Open Letter suggests a conceptual framework that is not presented in the text nor in an appropriate format for me to consider it a conceptual framework. I appreciate that the format has only allowed limited representation of the conceptual framework in text, but that suggests to me this is the wrong format if the contribution of the letter cannot be made within the letter.

Where applicable, are recommendations and next steps explained clearly for others to follow? (Please consider whether others in the research community would be able to implement guidelines or recommendations and/or constructively engage in the debate)

Partly

Does the article adequately reference differing views and opinions?

No

Are all factual statements correct, and are statements and arguments made adequately supported by citations?

Partly

Is the rationale for the Open Letter provided in sufficient detail? (Please consider whether existing challenges in the field are outlined clearly and whether the purpose of the letter is explained)

No

Is the Open Letter written in accessible language? (Please consider whether all subject-specific terms, concepts and abbreviations are explained)

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Agricultural innovation; innovation studies; human geography

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

Abstract

The abstract is well-written, summarizing the aim, methodology, and key points of the paper, including the creation of a conceptual framework for monitoring socially responsible research and innovation (RRI) in alignment with UNESCO’s Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers (RSSR). The importance of fostering global learning and improvement in RRI is clearly articulated.

Introduction

The introduction offers an adequate overview of the international accord RSSR and its alignment with the RRI concept, emphasizing the importance of monitoring and evaluation. A clear connection to EU policy and research regarding RRI is presented, but it may still need a bit more clarity in framing the relationship between RRI and RSSR as per reviewer two's comments.

Context for conceptual framework

This section details the framework's design, tone, and intended audience. While it is informative and extensive, it might still benefit from a brief summary or visual representation (like a diagram) of the framework itself in the main body to address reviewer one's concern about structure.

Development of the conceptual framework

The development process of the framework is explained, including the involvement of UNESCO and the logical deductions applied in its creation. While comprehensive, the absence of the detailed framework in the main text might still leave some readers wanting a more concrete understanding of what it contains.

Using this conceptual framework

This section provides practical guidance on how to use the framework, targeting specifically UNESCO Member States. It's clear, informative, and engages the reader with a specific call to action.

Conclusion

The conclusion highlights the need for evidence-based approaches to enhancing RRI principles, emphasizing the importance of the RSSR and the ongoing monitoring process. The author has addressed the initial concern about redundancies.

Author's Response

The author's response indicates they have taken the initial reviews seriously, making adjustments where feasible and explaining why other changes were not made. The clarification regarding the removal of the framework's content due to editorial requirements is important but leaves an unresolved concern about the structure.

Recommendations for Improvement

Clarify the Relationship Between RRI and RSSR: As suggested by reviewer two, the introduction should provide a clearer framing of how RRI aligns with RSSR.

The revised manuscript has made efforts to address the concerns raised by the initial reviewers. While some improvements have been made, further refinement could enhance the clarity and comprehensibility of the paper, especially in the context of the relationship between RRI and RSSR, and the visualization or summarization of the framework. The paper represents an essential contribution to the understanding of RRI and offers a valuable tool for UNESCO Member States and others in their monitoring efforts.

Where applicable, are recommendations and next steps explained clearly for others to follow? (Please consider whether others in the research community would be able to implement guidelines or recommendations and/or constructively engage in the debate)

Yes

Does the article adequately reference differing views and opinions?

Yes

Are all factual statements correct, and are statements and arguments made adequately supported by citations?

Yes

Is the rationale for the Open Letter provided in sufficient detail? (Please consider whether existing challenges in the field are outlined clearly and whether the purpose of the letter is explained)

Yes

Is the Open Letter written in accessible language? (Please consider whether all subject-specific terms, concepts and abbreviations are explained)

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

RRI, value sensitive design, and ethic-by-deisgn approaches to novel and transformative technologies

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Dear author,

Thank you for submitting your work to Open Research Europe.

The topic that addresses this letter is relevant and timely and it tries to engage with ongoing efforts and strategies for strengthening science-society interactions. The open letter pays attention to the synergies between RRI and the UNESCO “Recommendation on science and scientific researchers’ (RSSR) that was ratified by 195 UNESCO Member States in 2017. The article is well-written, and the language employed is accessible.

However, there are several issues that demand attention from the author to improve this open letter. Some of them are related with the content whilst others are more related with the format. In this sense, I tend to agree with the other prior reviews in several issues. I propose to the author several changes in order to strength this manuscript:

It is important to frame the “RRI discourse” on the text and to illustrate which synergies with RSSR have. It is hard to understand for a not-specialized reader.

Where applicable, are recommendations and next steps explained clearly for others to follow? (Please consider whether others in the research community would be able to implement guidelines or recommendations and/or constructively engage in the debate)

Partly

Does the article adequately reference differing views and opinions?

No

Are all factual statements correct, and are statements and arguments made adequately supported by citations?

Partly

Is the rationale for the Open Letter provided in sufficient detail? (Please consider whether existing challenges in the field are outlined clearly and whether the purpose of the letter is explained)

Partly

Is the Open Letter written in accessible language? (Please consider whether all subject-specific terms, concepts and abbreviations are explained)

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

RRI, RI, science-society interactions, STS

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

This is a well articulated article written in language that is accessible. The article addresses the need for the inclusion of socially responsible research and innovation in UNESCO’s RSSR quadrennial monitoring process. It gives a clear rationale for the need for a conceptual framework intended to monitor the development of socially responsible research and innovation systems. Although the article’s language is accessible with subject-specific terms such as RSSR explained and abbreviations given, the concept of RRI could have benefited from an in-depth explanation of what it is and what it entails particularly for stakeholders unfamiliar with the term or with its practices. Further, in as far as RRI is concerned, the paper could have done well to offer differing views and opinions of RRI which may not necessarily be a universal concept that is understood and practiced in the same way across the 195 UNESCO member states. As such, different views and opinions, particularly in as far as its understanding and practice in different geographical locations are concerned would have been valuable. Therefore, given that there are 195 member states who may or may not fully understand the rationale or concept of RRI or who no doubt may practice it differently, a presentation of competing assertions would have been an ideal consideration in the article. By so doing, the article would have given insight to potential challenges in the field, therefore providing possible considerations on how to address evaluation challenges and potential mutual learning points in the monitoring process of RSSR. Further, such considerations could offer a much deeper understanding of the challenges that have prompted the need for the incorporation of socially responsible research and innovation systems when it comes to RSSR. This is important, particularly for stakeholders unfamiliar with RRI.

The article makes a great point about UNESCO’s omission, albeit deliberately, in providing specifics of how to assess and improve the social responsibility of science systems in line with the RSSR policy instrument. Although the intention was to allow context-appropriate adaption of RRI, it would still have been beneficial to have some criteria or as indicated by the author specifics on the assessment and RRI systems. This could avoid unwieldy interpretations, implementations, and evaluations of the RSSR to the extent that the varied interpretations become challenging in their address of RSSR policy, especially in terms of comparability between member states. Similarly, the fact that member states can use the conceptual framework selectively to target aspects of the RSSR where clarification and orientation would be helpful may not bode well for comparability between member states. Granted, this is intended to be helpful for those member states who may not be able to address all 10 key priority areas in full. Despite this, it would have been beneficial to have compulsory aspects of the RSSR that each member state would need to address as a way of ensuring uniformity while leaving some as optional in the event of a failure in addressing all 10. That said, this is a timely article that is useful in its contribution to the importance of having socially RRI systems in RSSR policy.

Where applicable, are recommendations and next steps explained clearly for others to follow? (Please consider whether others in the research community would be able to implement guidelines or recommendations and/or constructively engage in the debate)

Partly

Does the article adequately reference differing views and opinions?

No

Are all factual statements correct, and are statements and arguments made adequately supported by citations?

Yes

Is the rationale for the Open Letter provided in sufficient detail? (Please consider whether existing challenges in the field are outlined clearly and whether the purpose of the letter is explained)

Partly

Is the Open Letter written in accessible language? (Please consider whether all subject-specific terms, concepts and abbreviations are explained)

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Information and communication technologies for development; Emerging Technologies; Computer Ethics; Gender; Responsible Research and Innovation

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

The open letter is about suggesting a conceptual framework for monitoring RRI under the UNESCO-led Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers. The open letter is difficult to follow. The author suggests a framework for monitoring the RRI. The framework has been attached under supplementary information. The letter needs to be substantially improved. A few suggestions: 

The author writes a lengthy introduction (almost half of the text), but the reader receives almost no information about what the monitoring framework is about. This needs to be added to the main body of the text. At least a summary about the key aspects of the framework one would expect in the main body of the text.

Where applicable, are recommendations and next steps explained clearly for others to follow? (Please consider whether others in the research community would be able to implement guidelines or recommendations and/or constructively engage in the debate)

Partly

Does the article adequately reference differing views and opinions?

Partly

Are all factual statements correct, and are statements and arguments made adequately supported by citations?

Partly

Is the rationale for the Open Letter provided in sufficient detail? (Please consider whether existing challenges in the field are outlined clearly and whether the purpose of the letter is explained)

Partly

Is the Open Letter written in accessible language? (Please consider whether all subject-specific terms, concepts and abbreviations are explained)

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Agricultural, environmental, and natural resource economics. Substantial experience in reviewing interdisciplinary research proposals. Expertise in developing and assessing monitoring frameworks.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.