Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article provides a critical perspective on the development of the 2030 Agenda. It emphasizes the importance of academic intellectuals analyzing the Agenda. Finally, the defense of a grassroots perspective, involving real human beings, is remarkable and innovative. The author's focus on the interests of the Agenda's promoters is also noteworthy. Overall, this work presents a unique perspective on the subject. This approach avoids the indoctrination and propaganda that often accompany the promotion of the Agenda.  

The article is well-founded and has a rigorous research design, which is developed proficiently. The data obtained is treated fully and rigorously, and the discussion is exhaustive. The conclusions and proposals are pertinent.

Two important notes: (1) Avoid using 3D graphics; (2) Improve the visibility of Fig. 8.

I hope that the innovative approach presented in this article yields positive results. Congratulations to the author, and best of luck with the work!  

 

Author Response

Please see the attachement

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.     The “key question” needs more clarity:

 

“From academic intellectual capital, 37

can the 2030 Agenda be related to critical development and human rights?”

 

2.     Lines 42-45, need further clarification. Rewrite in shorter sentences. Too long, too scriptic as it is!

 

“The results obtained will facilitate a determination of whether the 2030 42

Agenda is a formal and reformist view of human development itself or, if it is made visible 43

from the approach of the critical paradigm of academic intellectual capital, can be an op- 44

portunity to establish nonhegemonic development and support human rights.”

 

3.     Lines 94-96 Unclear: 

 

“On the other hand, 94

within the objectives, it is intended to generate reflections on the concept of development 95

itself so that they connect with critical theories in local and territorial spaces from human 96

rights with the different diversity of the territories themselves.”

 

 

104 reference 8, but not only, can include Amartya Sen (capabilities approach)

Overall, an excelent paper! Congrats!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor editing

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Article very well written. It is clear and logical. The author clearly indicated the research hypotheses.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is an elaborated chronicle of the First International Conference on Critical Theories of Human Rights and Development. It is structured as a research study and justifies its scientific scope by considering the 25 speakers, mainly from Spain and Latin America, as an epistemic community, distributed in discussion groups.

Methodology: Using qualitative research (Atlas.ti) combined with the ethical diamond theory, the author puts together what was said in tags distributed all along a geometric figure, a diamond. This distribution and the related results constitute the research contribution of the paper.

What seems a chronicle of a conference, is providing valuable insights and summaries of discussions. It wouldn't be considered a research paper, because is expected to present original research findings, analyze data, propose new theories, or contribute to the existing body of knowledge in a particular field. However, this specific chronicle includes analysis and synthesis of ideas.

It does not provide, instead, with critical evaluation of presentations, or new perspectives to the topics discussed at the conference. If the author manages to add or modify the content in the sense that these missing aspects are included, then it could be considered a research paper.

Other singularized suggestions

Avoid redundance with a new redaction in line 34: “Herrera Flores said, "the concept of development itself carries implicit within itself a conception of economic…”, maybe with “the very same concept of development carries implicit within itself…”.

In the paper is clearly stated from the beginning that the academic authority who represents the intellectual source of the research is Joaquín Herrera Flores. As not everyone knows his specific methodology called “the ethical diamond”, it is necessary to cite at least one source when it appears for the first time (line 35), and then line 83. Otherwise, it sems that Herrera stated it for the first time in the Conference and that it was not written until now. As we know that it is something published back in 2008, it should be referenced as the source of the statements and mentioned methodology, maybe with another numbered note “[1]”. Contents in lines 133-142 should be therefore settled just after content in line 35. And something should be done with redaction of line 133, because the mentioned as a comprehensive methodology of the research Is there degraded to the level of an example.

Mistakes: 4.1. Transverse layers , line582, instead of transversal.

Review reference redaction:

-          Unify point or no point, according to edition norms, after letter of the name.

-          Unify including or not ISBN.

-          In n. 48, dubious author or title beginning: Caribe CE para AL y el.

-          n. 49: two years? Number of pages necessary?

-          N. 39: Valdés Cs?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Well corrected and justified. Only some redaction mistakes remain in the Reference list, such as an entry with the title in cap letters or page number style and puncuation (;_11-11 or not space). But I suppose that it can be revised by the editon team, if necessary.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf