Outcomes from the First European Planetary Health Hub Convening at ARTIS in Amsterdam
, Jeremy Pivor 3,4, Josep M. Antó 5,6, Annemarie Bergsma 7, Peter J. Blankestijn 8, Olette Bollen 9, Egid van Bree 10, Joyce L. Browne 8, Judith de Bruin 1, Jasper Buikx 1, Chiara Cadeddu 11, Jennifer Cole 12, Francesca Costabile 13, Aimée de Croon 14, Anneliese Depoux 15, Ian Fussell 16, Bernhard Goodwin 17, Arte Groenewegen 7, Milo Grootjen 1, Jaana I. Halonen 18, Riitta-Maija Hämäläinen 19, Marija Jevtic 22, Nathalie Lambrecht 23,24, Vincenzo Lionetti 25, Maarten Manten 14, Pim Martens 26, Cristina O’Callaghan-Gordo 5,6,28,29, Lekha Rathod 8, Andrée Rochfort 33, Peter Stenvinkel 39, Valesca Venhof 7, Martine Veenman 26, Leonardo Villani 11, Maike Voss 21, add
Show full author list
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
thank you for the opportunity to read this conference report and the important work involved in the Planetary Health European Hub. I have only one suggestion for amendment related to your article:
The sentences from line 410-415 don't fit the paragraph they are placed in as you are suddenly addressing a somewhat specialised issue right after more general comments on planetary health research. My recommendation would be to either delete or move these sentences to another place in the text. One option might be to compress and rephrase this as one of the priorities listed a few paragraphs before.
Congratulations on a great conference and report.
Author Response
The sentences from line 410-415 don't fit the paragraph they are placed in as you are suddenly addressing a somewhat specialised issue right after more general comments on planetary health research. My recommendation would be to either delete or move these sentences to another place in the text. One option might be to compress and rephrase this as one of the priorities listed a few paragraphs before.
>A
Thank you for this comment, we have reviewed the lines 410-415 as listed above and have decided to follow your recommendation and delete them.
Congratulations on a great conference and report.
>A
Thank you very much.
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a report of a conference held by The Royal Zoological Society, Natura Artis Magistra (ARTIS) in Amsterdam, September 26-27, 2022, for the purpose of defining the aims, vision, and mission of various working groups to help promote Planetary Health and providing forward thinking approaches to this through the viewing and analysis of artwork produced by the “Beeldvormers” during the conference.
Conference reports are not usual for this journal. However, one other has been published by Challenges: Designing the Microbes and Social Equity Symposium: A Novel Interdisciplinary Virtual Research Conference Based on Achieving Group-Directed Outputs (https://doi.org/10.3390/challe13020030), and this present submission must be judged in relation to that publication.
The strengths of this submission are that it is generally easy to follow. However, there are a number of weaknesses. Unlike in the already published conference report, this report has only focused on a general feeling of the conference. There are no specific details on the number of registrants, the workshops attended by each, or a comparison of online and in person participation. Furthermore, the authors make many vast claims that are not supported in their report by current peer reviewed research. This type of researched support must be provided.
There are four different working groups reported on in this submission. Each appears to have been written by different authors as there is no consistency among the reporting structure used for each of the subsections devoted to the different working groups. The most easily understandable subsection concerning one of the working groups is, 2.3. The Planetary Health Policy Engagement Working Group. The reason is that this subsection states the vision in the first paragraph, the mission in the second and then clearly enumerates the priorities of the working group followed by the activities undertaken to meet these priorities. What is missing from this subsection is something 2.2. The Planetary Health Education Working Group also provides—the aim of the working group at the beginning. Each of the subsections regarding the individual working groups should be rewritten to follow the outline used in 2.3. The Planetary Health Policy Engagement Working Group, with the addition of stating the aim as the first paragraph.
Additional concerns are noted in the line by line suggested edits below.
61-75 Please rewrite this Abstract to explain the purpose of the conference, its goals, the results of the conference in relation to the goals, and conclusions based on the results. As it is written now, the Abstract reads as if it is an article for a community newspaper, not a peer reviewed journal.
62 Before using the acronym ARTIS, please spell out the name of the organization in full.
76-78 As per the Instructions for Authors of Challenges, “Three to ten pertinent keywords need to be added after the abstract. We recommend that the keywords are specific to the article, yet reasonably common within the subject discipline.” Consequently, the authors are asked to reduce the number of keywords to at the most 10 and to make sure that these keywords are common within the disciple. Furthermore, the keywords should be found in the Abstract and follow the order in which they there appear. As an example of a keyword that will need to be rethought, “political/social/environmental sciences” is not an acceptable keyword in this regard.
81 Please explain in what way “Planetary Health is a new, integrated health science for exceptional actions.” Indicate the history of Planetary Health, its goals, and cite significant peer reviewed research that has been conducted in the area at this point in the report.
84 Please provide a reference for the UN organizations.
85-87 “It demands new coalitions and partnerships across many disciplines and actors to solve the enormous existential challenges of today.” Please provide a peer reviewed reference to support this claim.
87-90 “New attention should be paid to governance, implementation, and a more creative imagination among scientists and practitioners to redefine the meaning of human progress, rethink the possibilities for human cooperation and science, revitalize the prospects for the restoration and care of our common home, and develop a new way of thinking [3].—This statement presupposes a variety of assumptions: (1) it is a lack of “creative imagination” that stops scientists and practitioners from redefining the meaning of human progress, (2) a redefinition of the meaning of human progress is required to restore and care for “our common home”, (3) there is an agreed up time period to which restoration of the earth should be directed, (4) there is a way of thinking that should be agreed upon regarding restoration of the earth that must be new. All of these presuppositions require support from current peer reviewed journals. As such, this statement needs to be broken down into each of the assumptions that are being made and individual citations provided for each assumption.
93 “restore human society”—the authors need to explain when human society was sustainable and under what conditions, supported by current peer reviewed references.
101-102 Change “now is the time to connect the dots, build collaborations, link” to “collaborations are being built with links”.
102-103 Change “, and access funding” to “with access to funding”.
199 “[16]”—a citation to a reference that is ten years old when making a claim about the present day is not acceptable. The authors are asked to find a current reference to make their point.
118-124 Please delete the reference to the opening speech of Samuel Myers. It does not belong in a peer reviewed journal. This type of speech is suited for reproduction in a community newspaper, but not here.
151-153 “A key facet of this is discussing the extent to which planetary health topics are integrated rather than displacing or replacing existing learning and training.” Please provide examples of how these topics are integrated and what it would look like for them to instead be (1) “displacing” and (2) “replacing” existing learning and training. Please provide peer reviewed references to research regarding displaced programs and also to research regarding replaced programs.
154-157 This vision offered is vast and sweeping. The authors need to explain what they mean by each of “the dimension of knowledge”, “values”, “skills”, and “confidence in Planetary Health” providing peer reviewed references to support the vision of the Education Working Group.
157-158 The authors cannot just “believe” that Planetary Health Education is integral to formal and informal education. They need to provide evidence that this is so from current peer reviewed journals.
171 Please explain the meaning of “One Health”.
185-187 Please explain why and in what way strategies need to extend to all of these professionals and policy makers supported by current peer reviewed references.
197-198 Please provide a peer reviewed reference to support the claim that computer science and information technology were “dumped” on school or university timetables in the 1980s.
206-207 Please provide a current peer reviewed reference to support and explain the challenges regarding intellectual material and ownership.
228 “[17,18]”—As citation 18 is used as a supporting reference for the more current citation 17, this 2004 reference is acceptable. Normally, references to scientific publications should be within the last five years.
228-229 Superlatives, such as “incredible enthusiasm”, don’t belong in peer reviewed research. Please indicate the type of actions the group has taken to create this judgement by the authors.
242-244 Please provide current peer reviewed references to support each of the claims made in this statement.
246 Before the authors refer to “complexity theory”, “socioecological systems theory” or “transdisciplinary”, these terms need to be defined and supported by current peer reviewed references.
252 Please provide examples regarding the “many of us”.
258 Please provide examples of the “more” in development.
259-261 Please provide references to current peer reviewed research to support each of the claims made in these lines.
387-388 Please explain why the 1999 ideas of Joseph Rotblat continues to be relevant today and provide a current supporting reference to a peer reviewed journal.
438 “[27]”—a citation to a reference from 1986 when making a claim about the present day is not acceptable. The authors are asked to find a current reference to make their point. This reference may only be used as a supporting reference for the current reference that the authors will find.
462-467 The authors need to explain the research behind using drawings in this way and provide a reference.
467 Please refer to the five sketches by their name—Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, and Figure 5.
483-484 Please provide citations to current peer reviewed research regarding this “scientific evidence”.
484-485 Please provide citations to current peer reviewed research supporting that Planetary Health is threatened contingent on the human activities mentioned in the statement preceding this one in lines 483-484.
490 Change “knocking on our door” to “””knocking on our door””.
497-500 Delete “New paradigms have introduced new issues related to definitions. Outlining the scope is not an academic exercise because it has implications for what we want to teach and learn, to improve or protect in real life, investigate, and fight for. Therefore, we must define Planetary Health without being orthodox.” This style of writing doesn't belong in a scientific peer reviewed journal and the information is unnecessary.
510 Change “become” to “come”.
533 If the authors are going to mention a quotation by Heraclitus, they must provide a reference to the quotation.
563-598 There is no reference to Figure 4 in this subsection. Please refer to the figure somewhere in this subsection.
563 Please provide a current peer reviewed reference to the term “symbiosis”.
563-566 Change “exact underlying complexity thinking” to “underlying complexity of thinking”.
569-571 Please provide a current peer reviewed reference to support this claim.
571-573 Please provide current peer reviewed references to support each of the claims made in this sentence.
577-579 Please provide a current peer reviewed reference to support this claim.
603-604 The authors need to provide a current peer reviewed reference to support this claim.
604-606 Please provide a current peer reviewed reference to support this claim.
623 -624 Please provide a limitations section to this report regarding the limitations to the reporting of this conference.
The concerns with English have been noted in the Comments and Suggested for Authors.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This is a report of a conference held by The Royal Zoological Society, Natura Artis Magistra (ARTIS) in Amsterdam, September 26-27, 2022, for the purpose of defining the aims, vision, and mission of various working groups to help promote Planetary Health and providing forward thinking approaches to this through the viewing and analysis of artwork produced by the “Beeldvormers” during the conference.
>A
We sincerely thank the reviewer for this elaborate review. In our opinion this review led to a significant improvement of our conference report.
Conference reports are not usual for this journal. However, one other has been published by Challenges: Designing the Microbes and Social Equity Symposium: A Novel Interdisciplinary Virtual Research Conference Based on Achieving Group-Directed Outputs (https://doi.org/10.3390/challe13020030), and this present submission must be judged in relation to that publication.
The strengths of this submission are that it is generally easy to follow. However, there are a number of weaknesses. Unlike in the already published conference report, this report has only focused on a general feeling of the conference. There are no specific details on the number of registrants, the workshops attended by each, or a comparison of online and in person participation.
>A
We thank the reviewer for the positive feedback. We did not accurately register of the number of on-line registrants and the number of registrants for each workshop. However, we had a total of 54 individuals representing 34 organizations from 11 countries attend the convening in person. We had a small number of people joining online as most sessions were hybrid. We added these numbers to the Introduction.
Furthermore, the authors make many vast claims that are not supported in their report by current peer reviewed research. This type of researched support must be provided.
>A
We thank the reviewer for this comment. However, this conference report should be regarded as an opinion piece/roadmap for the future rather than a systematic review. Some of the peer reviewed literature requested will come because of this document, not because such papers already exist (if they did, a vision would not be needed). Where relevant in the document, we have added references on the reviewer’s request.
There are four different working groups reported on in this submission. Each appears to have been written by different authors as there is no consistency among the reporting structure used for each of the subsections devoted to the different working groups. The most easily understandable subsection concerning one of the working groups is, 2.3. The Planetary Health Policy Engagement Working Group. The reason is that this subsection states the vision in the first paragraph, the mission in the second and then clearly enumerates the priorities of the working group followed by the activities undertaken to meet these priorities. What is missing from this subsection is something 2.2. The Planetary Health Education Working Group also provides—the aim of the working group at the beginning. Each of the subsections regarding the individual working groups should be rewritten to follow the outline used in 2.3. The Planetary Health Policy Engagement Working Group, with the addition of stating the aim as the first paragraph.
>A
We have followed the reviewer’s suggestion and harmonized the structure for each of the contributions of the Working Groups including the aim, the vision, the mission, the priorities and the activities in each section (2.2-2.5).
Additional concerns are noted in the line by line suggested edits below.
61-75 Please rewrite this Abstract to explain the purpose of the conference, its goals, the results of the conference in relation to the goals, and conclusions based on the results. As it is written now, the Abstract reads as if it is an article for a community newspaper, not a peer reviewed journal.
>A
We have added the main aim, results and conclusion of the First European Planetary Health Hub Convening to the abstract.
62 Before using the acronym ARTIS, please spell out the name of the organization in full.
>A
ARTIS is not an acronym, but we have included its full name Natura Artis Magistra in the abstract.
76-78 As per the Instructions for Authors of Challenges, “Three to ten pertinent keywords need to be added after the abstract. We recommend that the keywords are specific to the article, yet reasonably common within the subject discipline.” Consequently, the authors are asked to reduce the number of keywords to at the most 10 and to make sure that these keywords are common within the disciple. Furthermore, the keywords should be found in the Abstract and follow the order in which they there appear. As an example of a keyword that will need to be rethought, “political/social/environmental sciences” is not an acceptable keyword in this regard.
>A
We have reduced the number of key words to those that were most relevant for the conference report
81 Please explain in what way “Planetary Health is a new, integrated health science for exceptional actions.” Indicate the history of Planetary Health, its goals, and cite significant peer reviewed research that has been conducted in the area at this point in the report.
>A
The history of Planetary Health, its goals, and significant peer reviewed research have been extensively described in reference 1 (The standard book on Planetary Health containing over 500 pages). We have added (reference to) the definition of Planetary Health: “Planetary Health is ‘the achievement of the highest attainable standard of health, well-being, and equity worldwide through judicious attention to the human systems—political, economic, and social—that shape the future of humanity and the Earth’s natural systems that define the safe environmental limits within which humanity can flourish’ [1,2]. Planetary Health situates human health within human systems and concerns the natural systems within our species exist as an integrated health science for exceptional action [2]’ with reference to the Lancet paper by Horton, R., & Lo, S.
84 Please provide a reference for the UN organizations.
>A
We have added the reference UN organizations as a frame for connecting sustainability see Report: United Nations: Stockholm+50: a healthy planet for the prosperity of all – our responsibility, our opportunity https://www.stockholm50.global/.
85-87 “It demands new coalitions and partnerships across many disciplines and actors to solve the enormous existential challenges of today.” Please provide a peer reviewed reference to support this claim.
>A
We have added the reference. ‘It demands new coalitions and partnerships across many different disciplines to meet the pervasive knowledge failures identified by this Commission“.to the Lancet paper by Horton, R., & Lo, S
87-90 “New attention should be paid to governance, implementation, and a more creative imagination among scientists and practitioners to redefine the meaning of human progress, rethink the possibilities for human cooperation and science, revitalize the prospects for the restoration and care of our common home, and develop a new way of thinking [3].—This statement presupposes a variety of assumptions: (1) it is a lack of “creative imagination” that stops scientists and practitioners from redefining the meaning of human progress, (2) a redefinition of the meaning of human progress is required to restore and care for “our common home”, (3) there is an agreed up time period to which restoration of the earth should be directed, (4) there is a way of thinking that should be agreed upon regarding restoration of the earth that must be new. All of these presuppositions require support from current peer reviewed journals. As such, this statement needs to be broken down into each of the assumptions that are being made and individual citations provided for each assumption.
93 “restore human society”—the authors need to explain when human society was sustainable and under what conditions, supported by current peer reviewed references.
>A
This section is a very short summary based on the well-known report of the Lancet commission (and references herein).: to which we refer Whitmee, S., Haines, A., Beyrer, C., Boltz, F., Capon, A.G., de Souza Dias, B.F., Ezeh, A., Frumkin, H., Gong, P., Head, P. and Horton, R., 2015. Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: report of The Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet Commission on planetary health. The lancet, 386(10007), pp.1973-2028. As there is a clear reference to this report, we do not find it appropriate to reproduce the text of the report here and keep this section concise as it is:
From the report:
‘We identify three categories of challenges that have to be addressed to maintain and enhance human health in the face of increasingly harmful environmental trends. Firstly, conceptual and empathy failures (imagination challenges), such as an over-reliance on gross domestic product as a measure of human progress, the failure to account for future health and environmental harms over present day gains, and the disproportionate effect of those harms on the poor and those in developing nations. Secondly, knowledge failures (research and information challenges), such as failure to address social and environmental drivers of ill health, a historical scarcity of transdisciplinary research and funding, together with an unwillingness or inability to deal with uncertainty within decision making frameworks. Thirdly, implementation failures (governance challenges), such as how governments and institutions delay recognition and responses to threats, especially when faced with uncertainties, pooled common resources, and time lags between action and effect.
101-102 Change “now is the time to connect the dots, build collaborations, link” to “collaborations are being built with links”.
102-103 Change “, and access funding” to “with access to funding”.
>A
We have rephrased this to: The European Green Deal [6], the Health Environment Research Agenda for Europe (HERA) [7], and the Horizon Health 2023-2024 Work Program [8] contribute to a productive environment in Europe to build collaborations, link to the policy community, and access funding to address Planetary Health priorities at scale.
118-124 Please delete the reference to the opening speech of Samuel Myers. It does not belong in a peer reviewed journal. This type of speech is suited for reproduction in a community newspaper, but not here.
>A
We consider the opening speech by Prof Sam Myers inspirational and of great interest to the readers of this conference report. By placing it in a separate from the main text of the document (in a text box) we consider the speech appropriate for this report.
151-153 “A key facet of this is discussing the extent to which planetary health topics are integrated rather than displacing or replacing existing learning and training.” Please provide examples of how these topics are integrated and what it would look like for them to instead be (1) “displacing” and (2) “replacing” existing learning and training. Please provide peer reviewed references to research regarding displaced programs and also to research regarding replaced programs.
>A
The discussions around this are based on what could happen - not what has. The Working group is at an early stage of development where ideas are being formulated and discussed. Peer reviewed literature is not yet available for all the ideas under consideration. An illustrative example has been provided instead.
154-157 This vision offered is vast and sweeping. The authors need to explain what they mean by each of “the dimension of knowledge”, “values”, “skills”, and “confidence in Planetary Health” providing peer reviewed references to support the vision of the Education Working Group.
>A
Explanations and peer reviewed references have been added.
157-158 The authors cannot just “believe” that Planetary Health Education is integral to formal and informal education. They need to provide evidence that this is so from current peer reviewed journals.
>A
The authors can and do "believe" this. A vision does not have to have been proved to be factually accurate to be a vision - it is aspirational and hoped for. The article is not a systematic review of what has been achieved, but an attempt to envision a potential future of what could be.
171 Please explain the meaning of “One Health”.
>A
This has been defined.
185-187 Please explain why and in what way strategies need to extend to all of these professionals and policy makers supported by current peer reviewed references.
>A
Peer reviewed references have been provided.
197-198 Please provide a peer reviewed reference to support the claim that computer science and information technology were “dumped” on school or university timetables in the 1980s.
>A
We have decided to remove this section from the ms
199 “[16]”—a citation to a reference that is ten years old when making a claim about the present day is not acceptable. The authors are asked to find a current reference to make their point.
>A
We have decided to remove this section from the ms
206-207 Please provide a current peer reviewed reference to support and explain the challenges regarding intellectual material and ownership.
>A
Peer reviewed references have been provided.
228 “[17,18]”—As citation 18 is used as a supporting reference for the more current citation 17, this 2004 reference is acceptable. Normally, references to scientific publications should be within the last five years.
>A
This has been well noted.
228-229 Superlatives, such as “incredible enthusiasm”, don’t belong in peer reviewed research. Please indicate the type of actions the group has taken to create this judgement by the authors.
>A
The superlative has been removed.
242-244 Please provide current peer reviewed references to support each of the claims made in this statement.
>A
Peer reviewed references have been provided.
246 Before the authors refer to “complexity theory”, “socioecological systems theory” or “transdisciplinary”, these terms need to be defined and supported by current peer reviewed references.
>A
These terms have been defined. In some cases the definition was set more than the five years ago as preferred by the reviewer, but the original definition is the canonical one and this has been retained.
252 Please provide examples regarding the “many of us”.
>A
Examples have been provided.
258 Please provide examples of the “more” in development.
>A
Peer reviewed references have been provided.
259-261 Please provide references to current peer reviewed research to support each of the claims made in these lines.
>A
Peer reviewed references have been provided.
387-388 Please explain why the 1999 ideas of Joseph Rotblat continues to be relevant today and provide a current supporting reference to a peer reviewed journal.
>A
Based on the Hippocratic Oath,Rotblat believed that scientists should have their own moral code Rotblat, J. (1999). A Hippocratic Oath for scientists. Science, 286(5444), 1475-1475. ‘Because planetary health professionals are already confronted with many ethical questions today and especially in the future - a code is needed as a moral compass.’ Rotblat was one of the first to point this out for other sciences. The discussion is still going on today. Discussion: https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.1038/sj.embor.7400708. “ Revill, J., & Dando, M. R. (2006). A Hippocratic Oath for life scientists: A Hippocratic‐style oath in the life sciences could help to educate researchers about the dangers of dual‐use research. EMBO reports, 7(S1), S55-S60. We have added this reference.
438 “[27]”—a citation to a reference from 1986 when making a claim about the present day is not acceptable. The authors are asked to find a current reference to make their point. This reference may only be used as a supporting reference for the current reference that the authors will find. A
>A
We have replaced this reference for a more recent one
462-467 The authors need to explain the research behind using drawings in this way and provide a reference.
>A
We have added an explanation and reference as indicated below.
During the first European Planetary Health Hub Convening, the artist collective ‘De Beeldvormers’ sketched five drawings, including ‘To the backbone’ (Figure 1), ‘Sketching the river of hope and progress’ (Figure 2), ‘The Earthrise’ (Figure 3), ‘Every-thing is connected’ (Figure 4), and ‘Entangled with microbes’ (Figure 5). ‘De Beeldvormers’ create images that contribute to the way we perceive the world around us [65]. The drawings tell the story behind a specific theme and allow us to look closely and contribute to the development of the five perspectives described below. Such creative, imaginative approaches positively influence normative value systems, such as the power of inspiration with the profound example of the Apollo 8 Earthrise (Figure 3), which incited a fledgling planetary health movement over 50 years ago [66]. All attendees were asked to select the drawing that was most appealing to them and write their perspective inspired by the image on the drawing. The various perspectives for each image were merged into a joint effort by the Hub members resulting in the texts accompanying the five sketches below.
467 Please refer to the five sketches by their name—Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, and Figure 5.
>A
We have added the five names of the sketches.- see the text above.
483-484 Please provide citations to current peer reviewed research regarding this “scientific evidence”.
>A
Two citations have been added
484-485 Please provide citations to current peer reviewed research supporting that Planetary Health is threatened contingent on the human activities mentioned in the statement preceding this one in lines 483-484.
>A
A citation has been added.
490 Change “knocking on our door” to “””knocking on our door””.
>A
This change has been made in the text
497-500 Delete “New paradigms have introduced new issues related to definitions. Outlining the scope is not an academic exercise because it has implications for what we want to teach and learn, to improve or protect in real life, investigate, and fight for. Therefore, we must define Planetary Health without being orthodox.” This style of writing doesn't belong in a scientific peer reviewed journal and the information is unnecessary.
>A
This section has been deleted form the ms
510 Change “become” to “come”.
>A
This change has been made in the text
533 If the authors are going to mention a quotation by Heraclitus, they must provide a reference to the quotation.
>A
A citation has been added to the quote
563-598 There is no reference to Figure 4 in this subsection. Please refer to the figure somewhere in this subsection.
A>
This reference is present in line 3 of this subsection:
Symbiosis has a significant track record in the history of thriving natural development. The dependency on uncountable connections, especially those that remain underneath the surface, as depicted in the artwork ‘Everything is connected’ (Figure 4),
563 Please provide a current peer reviewed reference to the term “symbiosis”.
>A
A citation has been added
563-566 Change “exact underlying complexity thinking” to “underlying complexity of thinking”.
>A
Exact has been deleted
569-571 Please provide a current peer reviewed reference to support this claim.
>A
This a perspective, we consider this statement as an opinion rather than a claim that requires a reference
571-573 Please provide current peer reviewed references to support each of the claims made in this sentence.
>A
Three references have been added for the various outbreaks of zoonotic diseases, including the recent coronavirus pandemic, the current climate crisis, and a global decline in biodiversity
577-579 Please provide a current peer reviewed reference to support this claim.
>A
A reference has been added
603-604 The authors need to provide a current peer reviewed reference to support this claim.
>A
A reference has been added
604-606 Please provide a current peer reviewed reference to support this claim.
>A
A reference has been added
623 -624 Please provide a limitations section to this report regarding the limitations to the reporting of this conference.
>A
We do not consider a limitation section appropriate for this conference report, as this conference report should be regarded as an opinion piece/roadmap for the future rather than a systematic review (see also comment above).
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have done an admirable job of improving this paper and moving it closer to publication. Each of the changes they have made have greatly improved the paper.
There are two important changes that the reviewer requested that were not thought necessary by the authors. The one is removing the speech by Samuel Meyers from the submission and the other is including a limitations section. More is said about the reasons this reviewer is continuing to state that these changes are required for publication in the line by line suggested edits below. One major problem noted in these suggested edits regards the submission containing only 83 citations but 84 references. Where the problem has occurred is also mentioned below, in the line by line suggested edits.
Line by line suggested edits
81 Is “The Need for a European Planetary Health Hub Planetary Health” the title of something? If it is not a title, please change to “The aim of a European Planetary Health Hub”.
101 Please provide a reference for the mission of the Hub.
128-131 The authors have opted to retain this opening speech of Samuel Myers in contrast to the advice of this reviewer because the remarks are “inspirational and of great interest to the readers of this conference report”. This is a scholarly journal to which the authors have submitted their paper; however, this speech has no scholarly merit. Including this speech would be similar to the requests made by other authors who at times ask in their paper to provide thanks to religious figures. Similar to their requests, this speech is inappropriate for this journal and, if this paper is to be published in Challenges, it must be deleted.
161 The authors have made an error in citation at this point. The citation to [18] should be to [18,19], as the authors included an additional reference in their reference list that is not cited here. As a result, all of the citations from this point onwards are incorrect as they cite a number one less than the actual reference. This must be corrected
167 The reference is to Bloom’s original work. This is not sufficient. The authors must demonstrate that Bloom’s taxonomy is still relevant for use today as the work was published in 1956.
243 The authors have mentioned the use of MOOC for teaching planetary health but have provided no references in support of this practice. Here is a Google Scholar search demonstrating that there are a number of references that the authors can cite in this regard: https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=use+of+MOOC+for+teaching+planetary+health&btnG=
245-246 The authors have noted the challenges regarding intellectual property and the ownership of MOOC material but have not provided a reference. Here is a Google Scholar search that may be helpful in this regard, as a reference is required for this claim. “https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=challenges+regarding+intellectual+property+and+the+ownership+of+MOOC+material&btnG=
253 Change “realize ambitions” to “realize these particular ambitions”.
288 Please provide a citation to a reference link to this new program.
290 Please delete citation 19. This reference makes no mention of “strong links to educators and education programs in other Planetary Health regions”.
295 The authors say there is “less interest” in Planetary Health in schools. If there is some interest, the authors need to provide references. If the authors means that they know of no interest in schools, this needs to be made clear.
368 Please provide cite a reference to these briefings.
403-432 Please number these using Arabic numerals rather than Roman numerals and do so as in section 2.3. for consistency and ease of reading.
441 -442 Please provide a supporting reference to this claim. The original claim regarding the frequency of paradigm shifts was made by Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. This must be cited. As well, a current reference indicating that Kuhn’s work is still relevant is Kuhn's 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions' at Fifty by Richards, R. J., & Daston, L. Please cite one of the relevant chapters in this book as well (available online).
485-500 Please number these using Arabic numerals rather than Roman numerals and do so as in section 2.3. for consistency and ease of reading.
504 Change “A sense of community is” to “A sense of community for this working group is”.
550-551 “Conventional science does not match well with current complex Planetary Health challenges.”—Please provide a current supporting reference to peer reviewed research for this claim. If this is merely the opinion of the people who responded to this illustration then this needs to be made clear and the statement changed to “It is the consensus view of those who responded to this painting that conventional science does not match well with current complex Planetary Health challenges.”
591-607 Even if the statements made in this paragraph are the opinions of those who responded to this illustration, these sentences are written as if they are purporting facts. Either change these sentences to say that these are the views of those who responded to this painting or find peer reviewed references to support each of the claims of the sentences in this paragraph (as the authors have done in the section to follow, 3.4).
672-673 The authors have replied to this reviewer that they do not believe a limitations section is necessary for this report. Given that the point of a limitations section is to consider where the work that was done may have limitations, it is entirely relevant to this paper. The authors need to think about what was not as effective in the accomplishments of the group and, as a result, where further research is required. To be acceptable, this submission will need a limitations section.
Author Response
The authors have done an admirable job of improving this paper and moving it closer to publication. Each of the changes they have made have greatly improved the paper.
>A
We thank the reviewer for this positive feedback and his thorough, second round of review of our conference report.
There are two important changes that the reviewer requested that were not thought necessary by the authors.
The one is removing the speech by Samuel Meyers from the submission and the other is including a limitations section. More is said about the reasons this reviewer is continuing to state that these changes are required for publication in the line by line suggested edits below.
>A
Apparently, we disagree on the inclusion of the opening speech and a limitation section in this conference report (which is in our opinion more suitable in systematic review rather than a conference report). We have decided to leave this decision to the editors of Challenges.
One major problem noted in these suggested edits regards the submission containing only 83 citations but 84 references. Where the problem has occurred is also mentioned below, in the line by line suggested edits.
Line by line suggested edits
81 Is “The Need for a European Planetary Health Hub Planetary Health” the title of something? If it is not a title, please change to “The aim of a European Planetary Health Hub”.
>A
Yes, this is the title of this section; there was a problem in the formatting, and this has been corrected
101 Please provide a reference for the mission of the Hub.
>A
Reference has been added
128-131 The authors have opted to retain this opening speech of Samuel Myers in contrast to the advice of this reviewer because the remarks are “inspirational and of great interest to the readers of this conference report”. This is a scholarly journal to which the authors have submitted their paper; however, this speech has no scholarly merit. Including this speech would be similar to the requests made by other authors who at times ask in their paper to provide thanks to religious figures. Similar to their requests, this speech is inappropriate for this journal and, if this paper is to be published in Challenges, it must be deleted.
>A
Apparently, we disagree on the inclusion of the opening speech in this conference report. We have decided to leave this decision to the editors of Challenges.
161 The authors have made an error in citation at this point. The citation to [18] should be to [18,19], as the authors included an additional reference in their reference list that is not cited here. As a result, all of the citations from this point onwards are incorrect as they cite a number one less than the actual reference. This must be corrected
>A
The authors did not make an error: 17 and 18 is a single reference to a book section, thus the total number of references is 83. This error in the refence list has been introduced by production editor of Challenges (and corrected in the revised submission).
167 The reference is to Bloom’s original work. This is not sufficient. The authors must demonstrate that Bloom’s taxonomy is still relevant for use today as the work was published in 1956.
>A
Bloom's seminal work, despite being from the 1950s, is foundational to higher education learning and teaching across the world. It is still widely taught, in its original form, and though regularly critiqued it has stood the test of time. It would be inappropriate NOT to ground planetary health education in Bloom's taxonomy. In fact, the work is so seminal and universally accepted that there are no systematic reviews or revisions of it within the five-year timeframe of references the author requests. However, we identified one paper from a minor journal that could be used to illustrate more recent thinking on the topic if the five-year rule is inflexible:
Gul, R., Kanwal, S. and Khan, S.S., 2020. Preferences of the teachers in employing revised blooms taxonomy in their instructions. sjesr, 3(2), pp.258-266.
The most recent scholarly and thorough review of its continued value (by one of the original co-authors) is:
Krathwohl, D.R., 2002. A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), pp.212-218.
We have added both references and kept the original one
243 The authors have mentioned the use of MOOC for teaching planetary health but have provided no references in support of this practice. Here is a Google Scholar search demonstrating that there are a number of references that the authors can cite in this regard: https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=use+of+MOOC+for+teaching+planetary+health&btnG=
>A
We would like to thank the reviewer for this suggestion and we have added the references
245-246 The authors have noted the challenges regarding intellectual property and the ownership of MOOC material but have not provided a reference. Here is a Google Scholar search that may be helpful in this regard, as a reference is required for this claim. https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=challenges+regarding+intellectual+property+and+the+ownership+of+MOOC+material&btnG=
>A
We would like to thank the reviewer for this suggestion and we have added the references
253 Change “realize ambitions” to “realize these particular ambitions”.
>A
Change has been made
288 Please provide a citation to a reference link to this new program.
>A
We have removed these example from the ms
290 Please delete citation 19. This reference makes no mention of “strong links to educators and education programs in other Planetary Health regions”.
>A
Reference 19 has been removed here
295 The authors say there is “less interest” in Planetary Health in schools. If there is some interest, the authors need to provide references. If the authors means that they know of no interest in schools, this needs to be made clear.
>A
We have added a reference addressing this issue
368 Please provide cite a reference to these briefings.
>A
This is a list of activities; we do not think that they should be underpinned with scientific references,
403-432 Please number these using Arabic numerals rather than Roman numerals and do so as in section 2.3. for consistency and ease of reading.
>A
Numbers have been replaced
441 -442 Please provide a supporting reference to this claim. The original claim regarding the frequency of paradigm shifts was made by Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. This must be cited. As well, a current reference indicating that Kuhn’s work is still relevant is Kuhn's 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions' at Fifty by Richards, R. J., & Daston, L. Please cite one of the relevant chapters in this book as well (available online).
>A
We cannot find a claim at lines 441-442 (or in the vicinity of these lines): The key message from the webinars facilitated by the Research Working Group is summarized in the following paragraph.
485-500 Please number these using Arabic numerals rather than Roman numerals and do so as in section 2.3. for consistency and ease of reading.
>A
Numbers have been replaced
504 Change “A sense of community is” to “A sense of community for this working group is”.
>A
Change has been made
550-551 “Conventional science does not match well with current complex Planetary Health challenges.”—Please provide a current supporting reference to peer reviewed research for this claim. If this is merely the opinion of the people who responded to this illustration then this needs to be made clear and the statement changed to “It is the consensus view of those who responded to this painting that conventional science does not match well with current complex Planetary Health challenges.”
>A
It is already evident that this section reflects opinions/perspectives: it is titled ‘Artwork-inspired perspectives on Planetary Health’
672-673 The authors have replied to this reviewer that they do not believe a limitations section is necessary for this report. Given that the point of a limitations section is to consider where the work that was done may have limitations, it is entirely relevant to this paper. The authors need to think about what was not as effective in the accomplishments of the group and, as a result, where further research is required. To be acceptable, this submission will need a limitations section..
>A
Apparently, we disagree on the inclusion of a limitation section in this conference report (which is in our opinion more suitable in systematic review rather than a conference report). We have decided to leave this decision to the editors of Challenges.
