Collective Intelligence in Polish-Ukrainian Internet Projects. Debate Models and Research Methods
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article presents models of civic debate suitable for use in Polish-Ukrainian
internet projects, as well as methods of researching collective intelligence that can help to monitor particular aspects of such debates and consequently create social bridging capital between these groups. Article is quite well written, in a good English following the main steps for presinting this kind of research. One problem of this article is that is less technical and more towards the social sciences research. However we can still say that it fits within the scope of the journal. The major comment that I have regarding this article is to try to make a comparison between the presented results and what one finds in the existing literature. I will recommend a major revision.
Author Response
Following the reviewer's comments, I made a significant improvement of the text. I wrote the "Discussion" part again and put there a comparison between the results of our work and the state of knowledge in the existing literature. I have also made some language corrections. In accordance with the editorial recommendations, I prepared the file in tracking mode.
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting and well written paper about exploiting collective intelligence within the peculiar context of Poland and Ukraine. The authors appeal to literature review and qualitative in-depth interviews (IDIs) to assess which research methods and theoretical models may be employed a new participative model of social life based on internet projects.
I have a couple of minor observations that, in my opinion, could improve the quality of the paper. First, the collective intelligence topic is addressed without any reference to the cognitive factor. I’m aware that the authors have a different focus, however I think that it can be interesting to extend their considerations taking into account the social dimension of cognition. For example:
Hemmatian, B., & Sloman, S.A. (2019). Two systems for thinking with a community: outsourcing versus collaboration. In Festschrift for David Over. Psychology Press.
Keil, F. (2005). Doubt, deference, and deliberation: Understanding and using the division of cognitive labor. In T.S. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Oxford studies in epistemology (pp. 143-166). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Sloman, S., & Fernbach, P. (2018). The knowledge illusion: Why we never think alone. Penguin.
Albeit the authors make some brief outline in the last part of the manuscript, I think that it could be useful to make more explicit the conclusions of their study in terms of empirical predictions. In other terms, on the basis of the review and the IDIs, what are the main predictions that can be empirically validate in future research?
Author Response
Following the reviewer's comments, we have made several corrections of the text.
First, I included a short reference to the literature on cognitive psychology mentioned by the reviewer. All these texts present a very interesting approach and we hope to return to this topic in future articles.
We have also written the "Discussion" part again and put there main topics that can be empirically validated in future research.
We have also made some language corrections. In accordance with the editorial recommendations, we prepared the file in tracking mode.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors implemented the comments. I will propose acceptance
