Participatory Methodologies as People-Centered Social Innovation: Listening to Voices of People in Policy Practice

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper adequately presents its case regarding participatory methodologies as people-centred social innovation in policy making notably in India. However, there are areas where clarity and readability could be improved.

Additionally, attention should be given to the organization and structure of the article to improve clarity and coherence. Consider revisiting the ordering of sections and sub sections and the logical progression of ideas to facilitate a smoother flow of the narrative.

The abstract provides a comprehensive overview of the study's aims and methodology. Consider revising the abstract to include the key findings and highlight the originality/implications of the study.

I found that the overall clarity and organization could be improved. The structure appears somewhat disjointed, and certain sections lack coherence, making it challenging for readers to follow the logical flow of the arguments.

I recommend the structure to follow this sequence and names;

Section 2: Reviewing the literature

Section 3: Methodology (Data Collection)

Section 4: Data Analysis and Discussion

Section 5: Conclusion

Kindly ensure that each sub-section transitions smoothly into the next, maintaining a clear and logical progression of ideas.

Section 1 (Introduction) starting from para 99 to 125 should be taken out from Introduction section. They can be included in Methodology section.

Section 3 (Methodology) also lacking of reporting and discussion on instrument development and validation as well as ethical consideration since this study involved human participants.

Section 5 (Conclusion) explain further sub-section of Implications of the study; Limitations Retrospective evaluation and Future Studies

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The communication and the English language quality can be improved, consider revising complex and long sentence structures.

Author Response

Please see attachement

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

People Center Social Innovation is a critical new direction in the field. It not only invokes the urge for the inclusion of the subjects of research to be included in new knowledge creation, but it also advocates a broader conceptualization of the "social." The outcome should be not just a new means of collecting data for the research product; it should be a mechanism for reimagining social avenues for the flow of concertized forms of power enacted by those participating communities. The formation of enduring committees, as discussed in the closing section of this paper, hints at the element, but it seems to be an afterthought. For this research to adequately adopt a PCSI, this element should not be an afterthought but should be moved to the center of the project. The author(s) state(s) that "The primary goal was to develop a compensation policy that suggests an appropriate compensation package based on a thorough assessment of the impact of the work related to the project on the life and livelihoods of the fisherfolk affected by the project." In other words, the author(s) seem to admit that the project design and objectives preceded the inclusion of participants, and thus fails to appropriately qualify as a people centered social innovation project. How do they account for this? Can they clarify? The impression delivered as it stands indicates the "people" were simply tapped for their knowledge and skills.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No new comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No new comments.