Expert Advice and Global Environmental Governance: Institutional and Epistemic Challenges for Assessment Bodies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents the institutional and epistemic challenges for assessment bodies related to expert advice and global environmental governance.

Abstract: This section includes all the necessary elements enabling understanding the study design and results.

1. Introduction: Towards a Transformed Scientific Expertise? In this section the authors presented the study’s background and objectives. There is also the paper’s structure presented.
2. Expertise: Science for Policy: In this section the introduction to expertise issue is presented. In my opinion there is no need to make this a separate section and it should be part of the introduction.
3. Materials and Methods: This section is divided into sub-sections. In the first sub-section the IPCC is presented. The interview study sub-section the authors described the rationale for choosing the interview participants. The authors presented the demographic characteristics of the interview participants but not in relation to their age group which could be highly relevant to the results. In my opinion in this section there is no sufficient information related to the assessments conducted – I suggest adding characteristics of the interviewees participating in each of the assessments.

I do not understand the relevance of sub-section 3.3. It includes only 2 paragraph and only one of them is related to the sub-section’s title. This subsection can be part of sub-section 3.2.

The limitations of the study are presented in the last sub-section. It is not a typical place in the paper of these.

The methods of the study are correct but they should be described in more detail. It would be useful to explain the number of the interviewees.

4. Results: This section is divided into sub- and sub-sub-section which is not needed and in fact makes the section less comprehensible and compelling. The results are not described sufficiently as the authors do not mention the differences in responses related to the demographic statistics presented.
5. Discussion: This section is also divided into sub-section which is not needed. It presents an analysis of the results. Still it could be made more deeply by adding gender and age.
6. Conclusions: This section constitutes a summary of the study. I suggest adding further research pathways that should be explored according to the authors.

Author Response

First, I would like to express my appreciation for the reviewers’ constructive feedback on my manuscript. Their comments have been instrumental in guiding the revision process—sometimes prompting substantial restructuring of sections, and in other cases leading to clarifications regarding the study’s purpose, focus, and research design.

The revisions include the following:

• Abstract: Additional information has been included regarding the article’s methodology.
• Section 1 – Introduction: Lightly revised and shortened, with a clearer articulation of the study’s aim.
• Section 2 – Theoretical Context: Significantly shortened, with a more explicit presentation of the problem context—namely, how to produce scientifically legitimate, politically relevant, and credible advice.
• Section 3 – Methodology: Substantially expanded to provide more detail on the study’s purpose. The first subsection on the IPCC has been shortened and clarified. The second subsection, describing the interview study, has been significantly developed and now includes more comprehensive information about the study itself. The third subsection on data analysis has been removed, and its content is now integrated into the interview study subsection.
• Section 4 – Results: Heavily revised and condensed. The section now relies less on

interview quotations, and the thematic content has been compressed to reduce overlap with the discussion section.

• Section 5 – Discussion: Revised and expanded. The four identified challenges are now more clearly articulated, and the section includes additional references to findings from other studies.
• Section 6 – Conclusion: Lightly revised to clarify the article’s contribution to the ongoing scholarly debate.

The original paper comprised 9,100 words, and this version contains 8,100 words.

A detailed response to the comments from the two reviewers is in the attached document. The reviewers’ comments are in black, and my responses are in red.

 

Reviewer 1

 

The paper presents the institutional and epistemic challenges for assessment bodies related to expert advice and global environmental governance.

 

Abstract: This section includes all the necessary elements enabling understanding the study design and results.

 

Q1. Introduction: Towards a Transformed Scientific Expertise? In this section the authors presented the study’s background and objectives. There is also the paper’s structure presented.

 

A1: No comments were provided by the reviewer for this section.

 

Q2 Expertise: Science for Policy: In this section the introduction to expertise issue is presented. In my opinion there is no need to make this a separate section and it should be part of the introduction.

 

A2: I have retained this as a separate section but made it more concise. Within my research tradition, it is customary to present the theoretical context and engage in conceptual discussion in a dedicated section. Therefore, I have chosen to keep it separate. However, I remain open to integrating it into the introduction if the editor recommends doing so.

 

Q3 Materials and Methods: This section is divided into sub-sections. In the first sub-section the IPCC is presented. The interview study sub-section the authors described the rationale for choosing the interview participants. The authors presented the demographic characteristics of the interview participants but not in relation to their age group which could be highly relevant to the results. In my opinion in this section there is no sufficient information related to the assessments conducted – I suggest adding characteristics of the interviewees participating in each of the assessments.

 

I do not understand the relevance of sub-section 3.3. It includes only 2 paragraph and only one of them is related to the sub-section’s title. This subsection can be part of sub-section 3.2.

 

The limitations of the study are presented in the last sub-section. It is not a typical place in the paper of these.

 

The methods of the study are correct but they should be described in more detail. It would be useful to explain the number of the interviewees.

 

A3: This section has been revised to include more detailed information about the study. In line with the reviewer’s recommendation, I have reduced the number of subsections to two: one focusing on the case (the IPCC) and one on the study itself. I have not included information about the age group of each interviewee, as biological age was considered less relevant than other parameters in this study. Consequently, age data were not collected during the interviews.

 

Additional information about the interview study has been added, and characteristics of the interviewees—specifically, the Working Group (WG) in which they participated—are now included in the analysis in Section 4. Furthermore, the subsection on study limitations has been moved from the methods section (Section 3) to the discussion section (Section 5)

 

Q4 Results: This section is divided into sub- and sub-sub-section which is not needed and in fact makes the section less comprehensible and compelling. The results are not described sufficiently as the authors do not mention the differences in responses related to the demographic statistics presented.

 

A4: I have removed the third-level subsection headings. Regarding the suggestion to relate the results to demographic statistics: this has been only partially addressed. Given the small sample size (N=18), analyzing the data in relation to social parameters offers limited analytical value. Instead, I have clarified in both the aim (Section 1) and methods (Section 3) that the paper primarily seeks to present and analyze key challenges, rather than examine how social determinants influence the interviewees’ experiences and reflections.

 

Q5 Discussion: This section is also divided into sub-section which is not needed. It presents an analysis of the results. Still it could be made more deeply by adding gender and age.

 

A5: I have retained the subsections due to the length of the section (over 1,600 words). In my view, the use of subsections enhances readability and helps to highlight the main challenges. However, I am open to removing them if the editor believes the section would be more effective without them.

 

Regarding the recommendation to incorporate gender and age more deeply into the analysis: age data were not collected, and gender is only referenced when quoting interviewees. As now more explicitly stated, the study was designed to capture a range of experiences by including interviewees with diverse social characteristics. However, it does not aim to explain these experiences by linking them to those characteristics, as the sample size is too small to support such comparisons (see Section 4).

 

Q6 Conclusions: This section constitutes a summary of the study. I suggest adding further research pathways that should be explored according to the authors.

 

A6 : I have not included suggestions for future research directions, primarily to maintain focus on the current study. However, I am open to incorporating proposals for further research if the editor recommends doing so.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study addresses an important topic and contains potentially valuable insights, but it requires significant improvements in methodological transparency, structural coherence, presentation of results, and adherence to journal formatting requirements. Given these issues, the manuscript is not yet publishable in its current form but could be reconsidered after substantial revision.

1.The abstract does not mention the sample size or key methodological details. Although it notes that the study “draws on interviews with leading scientists actively engaged in the IPCC’s work,” it omits essential information such as the number of participants (18), sample composition, and the time frame (March–November 2020). Including some numerical findings would enhance its informativeness. In addition, “global environmental assessment (GEA)” appears to be a key focus, yet it is not mentioned in the abstract.

2.The keywords cover the research topic but do not include any method-related terms (e.g., qualitative interviews, thematic analysis), which would improve methodological indexing.

3.Once the abbreviation global environmental assessment (GEA)is introduced, the full term should not be repeatedly used. The manuscript should be checked for consistency in this regard.

4.While the introduction clearly states that the study is “exploring how participating scientists perceive and evaluate the challenges of being an expert,” it does not explicitly list the research questions or explain how the study addresses existing research gaps. This should be further elaborated to clarify the study’s contribution.

5.In interviewee selection, the manuscript describes participant composition but does not explain how thematic saturation was achieved, nor does it indicate the number of coders or whether intercoder reliability checks were conducted. These are critical for methodological transparency in qualitative research. In addition, while the gender and regional composition are reported, the underrepresentation of the Global South is only noted in the Limitationssection; the Methods should explain how this imbalance was addressed.

6.The results are divided into 4.1 Opportunities and 4.2 Problems, but sections 4.1.1–4.1.3 rely heavily on direct quotations (e.g., p.8, lines 285–287: “policymakers trust it and they use it”) without systematic comparison across participant subgroups (by discipline, gender, region). This limits insight into the distribution of themes. The absence of any visual representation (tables or figures) of theme frequencies or relationships reduces clarity and accessibility.

7.Table 2 summarises Opportunities, Problems, and Key challenges, but its placement between the Results and Discussion sections makes its function ambiguous—it reads as both a results summary and the start of the discussion. The discussion on “epistemic hierarchies” and “leadership and management” repeats much of the results content (e.g., p.10 and p.12–13) without offering systematic comparison with previous literature.

8.Section 3.4 Limitations of the Study – This section’s current position at the end of the Methods is not consistent with standard scholarly practice. It should be placed before the Conclusion, following the Discussion, so that limitations are presented after the interpretation of results.

9.The reference list needs consistent formatting. For example, ensure consistency in author-year punctuation ((Leclerc 2022, Livingston 2022)), determine whether multiple citations are separated by semicolons or commas, and check whether publisher style requires numbered citations (e.g., [1]). Additionally, check citation formats such as (Bryman, 2012: 578–581) for consistency.

10.In addition, the similarity index of 24% is high and should be reduced before resubmission.

Author Response

First, I would like to express my appreciation for the reviewers’ constructive feedback on my manuscript. Their comments have been instrumental in guiding the revision process—sometimes prompting substantial restructuring of sections, and in other cases leading to clarifications regarding the study’s purpose, focus, and research design.

 

The revisions include the following:

• Abstract: Additional information has been included regarding the article’s methodology.
• Section 1 – Introduction: Lightly revised and shortened, with a clearer articulation of the study’s aim.
• Section 2 – Theoretical Context: Significantly shortened, with a more explicit presentation of the problem context—namely, how to produce scientifically legitimate, politically relevant, and credible advice.
• Section 3 – Methodology: Substantially expanded to provide more detail on the study’s purpose. The first subsection on the IPCC has been shortened and clarified. The second subsection, describing the interview study, has been significantly developed and now includes more comprehensive information about the study itself. The third subsection on data analysis has been removed, and its content is now integrated into the interview study subsection.
• Section 4 – Results: Heavily revised and condensed. The section now relies less on

interview quotations, and the thematic content has been compressed to reduce overlap with the discussion section.

• Section 5 – Discussion: Revised and expanded. The four identified challenges are now more clearly articulated, and the section includes additional references to findings from other studies.
• Section 6 – Conclusion: Lightly revised to clarify the article’s contribution to the ongoing scholarly debate.

The original paper comprised 9,100 words, and this version contains 8,100 words.

A detailed response to the comments from the two reviewers is in the attached document. The reviewers’ comments are in black, and my responses are in red.

 

 

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The study addresses an important topic and contains potentially valuable insights, but it requires significant improvements in methodological transparency, structural coherence, presentation of results, and adherence to journal formatting requirements. Given these issues, the manuscript is not yet publishable in its current form but could be reconsidered after substantial revision.

 

Thank you for the constructive comments. In my revision, I have improved methodological transparency by adding more information about the study’s aim and research design, presenting the results more clearly, and aligning the manuscript with the journal’s submission guidelines.

 

Q1. The abstract does not mention the sample size or key methodological details. Although it notes that the study “draws on interviews with leading scientists actively engaged in the IPCC’s work,” it omits essential information such as the number of participants (18), sample composition, and the time frame (March–November 2020). Including some numerical findings would enhance its informativeness. In addition, “global environmental assessment (GEA)” appears to be a key focus, yet it is not mentioned in the abstract.

 

A1. Thank you for this important point. I have revised the abstract to make it more informative and better reflect the content of the paper. It now includes information about the sample size and the method used. However, some of the requested details are included in the methods section rather than the abstract, in line with standard academic practice.

 

Q2. The keywords cover the research topic but do not include any method-related terms (e.g., qualitative interviews, thematic analysis), which would improve methodological indexing.

 

A2. I have included a keyword that refers to the chosen method.

 

Q3. Once the abbreviation global environmental assessment (GEA)is introduced, the full term should not be repeatedly used. The manuscript should be checked for consistency in this regard.

 

A3. Done.

 

Q4. While the introduction clearly states that the study is “exploring how participating scientists perceive and evaluate the challenges of being an expert,” it does not explicitly list the research questions or explain how the study addresses existing research gaps. This should be further elaborated to clarify the study’s contribution.

 

A4. I have clarified the current scholarly debate to which this paper contributes and made more explicit the need for further knowledge about individual experts’ experiences and evaluations of their engagement—highlighting a relevant knowledge gap. In the conclusion, I have also clarified the study’s contribution to this area.

 

Q5. In interviewee selection, the manuscript describes participant composition but does not explain how thematic saturation was achieved, nor does it indicate the number of coders or whether intercoder reliability checks were conducted. These are critical for methodological transparency in qualitative research. In addition, while the gender and regional composition are reported, the underrepresentation of the Global South is only noted in the Limitationssection; the Methods should explain how this imbalance was addressed.

 

A5. Section Interview Study: This section has been significantly expanded (from 500 to 750 words) and now includes more detail about the interview study, such as the topics covered in the interview guide and the aim of the interviews. While I agree with the reviewer’s perspective on qualitative methods, this paper has a more exploratory character. Its purpose is to examine the opportunities and challenges identified by the respondents in their expert involvement. As stated in the introduction and methods section (section 1 and 3), the study does not aim to identify differences in experiences or reflections, but rather to describe the overall experience. The limited sample size makes it difficult to relate these experiences to social determinants. For example, even if four additional participants from the Global South were included (thereby no longer been underrepresented in the study), it would still not be possible to draw meaningful conclusions.

 

Q6. The results are divided into 4.1 Opportunities and 4.2 Problems, but sections 4.1.1–4.1.3 rely heavily on direct quotations (e.g., p.8, lines 285–287: “policymakers trust it and they use it”) without systematic comparison across participant subgroups (by discipline, gender, region). This limits insight into the distribution of themes. The absence of any visual representation (tables or figures) of theme frequencies or relationships reduces clarity and accessibility.

 

A6. I have substantially revised this section to make it more concise and less reliant on direct quotations. I have not conducted systematic comparisons across subgroups and have explained the rationale for this in the introduction and methods sections. Regarding the lack of visual representation: I have included one table in the results section but have not added a table of theme frequencies.

 

Q7. Table 2 summarises Opportunities, Problems, and Key challenges, but its placement between the Results and Discussion sections makes its function ambiguous—it reads as both a results summary and the start of the discussion. The discussion on “epistemic hierarchies” and“leadership and management” repeats much of the results content (e.g., p.10 and p.12–13) without offering systematic comparison with previous literature.

 

A7. I have revised the table and moved it to the results section (Section 4). I have also revised both the results and discussion sections to reduce overlap and repetition. In the discussion, I have included references to findings from other studies to contextualize the results.

 

Q8. Section 3.4 Limitations of the Study – This section’s current position at the end of the Methods is not consistent with standard scholarly practice. It should be placed before the Conclusion, following the Discussion, so that limitations are presented after the interpretation of results.

 

A8. I have moved this content to the final part of the discussion section.

 

Q9. The reference list needs consistent formatting. For example, ensure consistency in author-year punctuation ((Leclerc 2022, Livingston 2022)), determine whether multiple citations are separated by semicolons or commas, and check whether publisher style requires numbered citations (e.g., [1]). Additionally, check citation formats such as (Bryman, 2012: 578–581) for consistency.

 

A9. According to the journal’s website, it accepts free-format submissions. This was the reason the initial manuscript did not fully adhere to the journal’s formatting style. I have now revised the manuscript to comply with the journal’s format, with the exception that references are not yet listed in order of appearance. This will be addressed if the paper is accepted for publication.

 

Q10. In addition, the similarity index of 24% is high and should be reduced before resubmission.

 

A10. I agree and was surprised by the high similarity index. Upon reviewing the similarity report, I found that it was largely based on two articles I recently published (2024 and 2025), which share similar descriptions of the study context and data collection. I have revised the manuscript to avoid self-plagiarism

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made significant revisions based on the comments. The revised version has basically addressed all my concerns.