Review Reports - History Matters: The Institutionalization and Innovation Paradox in the Judiciary

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author(s) discussed the topic of institutionalization and innovation in the public sector. Their approach is innovative which provides important impulses for the understanding of sustainable innovation processes with citizen participation in the public sector.

However, there are minor revisions which I recommend:

1.) The first sentence of the abstract starts directly with the information that there are several theories which explain innovation in the judiciary. However, the reader does not get the idea about the context. There is a need for an introductory sentence that introduces the reader to the topic.

2.) While the institutionalization and innovation paradox is explained slightly in the abstract, it is very difficult to get the idea of the paradox in the introduction. The paragraph on p.4, lines 186-192 helps a lot to understand the paradox. I suggest starting with this paragraph or a similar derivation of the paradox.

3.) Please rephrase the second question of (a) in the lines 145-147. The question “Would it be a genuinely more evolutionary process […] or evolutionary process […]?” is confusing. The passages in brackets should be included in the question.

4.) Table 1 is not well integrated into the text. What should the reader see? What is the concrete basis of the suggestions mentioned?

5.) It is very difficult to understand the three pillars of institutions from Table 2 if the table has four columns. Additionally, it might be helpful to start the paragraph in line 212 with a sentence that there are three pillars, the regulatory, normative and cultural-cognitive pillars before the explanation.

6.) Conclusion and Recommendation chapter: I recommend adding some stronger sentences about the new insights that the reader got from the paper.

7.) Finally, the in-text citations are not consistent. They should be revised carefully including the reference list.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would like to thank the reviewer and the editor for the prompt and thorough review of our article and for the possibility of publishing it in the Social Sciences journal.

In relation to the reviews of the article, we inform that all the comments/suggestions of the reviewer were considered and have been incorporated in the new version of the text, as can be seen in the new version. We would like to inform you that, in addition to the suggested revisions, we have carried out again a general revision of the text. The table below reports the responses to the review.

Comments/suggestions	Responses
The author(s) discussed the topic of institutionalization and innovation in the public sector. Their approach is innovative which provides important impulses for the understanding of sustainable innovation processes with citizen participation in the public sector.	We thank the reviewer and inform him/her that we strive to meet all the required reviews.
The first sentence of the abstract starts directly with the information that there are several theories which explain innovation in the judiciary. However, the reader does not get the idea about the context. There is a need for an introductory sentence that introduces the reader to the topic.	We include an excerpt that presents the context and relevance of the research before presenting that different theoretical perspectives can be followed.
While the institutionalization and innovation paradox is explained slightly in the abstract, it is very difficult to get the idea of the paradox in the introduction. The paragraph on p.4, lines 186-192 helps a lot to understand the paradox. I suggest starting with this paragraph or a similar derivation of the paradox.	We agreed with the suggestion to start the introduction with the excerpt from line 186-192 and made small adaptations for a better understanding.
Please rephrase the second question of (a) in the lines 145-147. The question “Would it be a genuinely more evolutionary process […] or evolutionary process […]?” is confusing. The passages in brackets should be included in the question.	We believe that an error in our version may have been decisive for the interpretation of the sentence. We included the letter "r" in the word evolutionary and the desired meaning was established.
Table 1 is not well integrated into the text. What should the reader see? What is the concrete basis of the suggestions mentioned?	We removed Table 1, as it was not well integrated into the text.
It is very difficult to understand the three pillars of institutions from Table 2 if the table has four columns. Additionally, it might be helpful to start the paragraph in line 212 with a sentence that there are three pillars, the regulatory, normative and cultural-cognitive pillars before the explanation.	The Table 2 was suppressed considering that the adapted text is sufficient to understand the article. Therefore, the suggested phrase introducing the three pillars was included.
Conclusion and Recommendation chapter: I recommend adding some stronger sentences about the new insights that the reader got from the paper.	Some excerpts were added to consolidate the article's conclusions.
Finally, the in-text citations are not consistent. They should be revised carefully including the reference list.	Citations and references were reviewed.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General information

This reviewed manuscript is an essay that is 837 lines long, including the bibliography. The outward appearance is that the manuscript is neatly prepared and the bibliography is also extremely extensive for an essay with 73 references.

The quality of Tables 1 and 2 is rather average. The rows and columns should be better differentiated. It is therefore recommended that the tables be graphically revised.

In the references, it is not clear why some authors were written in capital letters. See e.g. SANDEL 2010, PAULA 2005 vs. Sadek 2010

Minor errors in the text should be corrected. See lines 550 and 551

Content

It should be made clearer in the introduction that the Brazilian justice system is the subject of the analysis. The reader currently gets the impression that this essay should be seen as generalising for all judicial systems. This can hardly be the case, as judicial systems, as well as those of the general public administration, are organised and function in very different ways. It should also be made clear why Brazil in particular is used for the analysis. It is possible that the justice system in Brazil has peculiarities that could nevertheless encourage comparison with other systems.

The historical analysis of innovation and institutionalisation is conclusive and comprehensive, but the Brazilian example is not logically integrated. For example, what does "resolution 332" say and why is it important for this essay? Where exactly was the need for reform in the justice system and why is the use of AI applications so important?

It would generally be advisable to take better account of the international readership, as it is not entirely clear what other justice systems can learn from the experiences of Brazil.

The essay addresses the topic of innovation and institutionalisation well on a theoretical level, but it is not clear why practical use cases are not sufficiently discussed. Cases are always touched on, such as the use of AI, but not fully developed.

It seems as if the authors assume that the readers have a great deal of prior knowledge of the Brazilian administrative and judicial system, which will not necessarily be the case for the international readership. In some places, therefore, further clarification is needed.

Conclusion

This topic is certainly interesting. However, the article has minor weaknesses that can be remedied with clarifications and explanations. In general, for readers who have no connection to the Brazilian judicial or administrative system, it seems as if the author could not decide what depth the essay should have. It is therefore recommended that the examples given be described in more detail.

After the contribution has been submitted as an essay, the recommendation, taking into account the above assessment, is as follows

Minor revision

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would like to thank the reviewer and the editor for the prompt and thorough review of our article and for the possibility of publishing it in the Social Sciences journal.

Comments/suggestions	Responses
This reviewed manuscript is an essay that is 837 lines long, including the bibliography. The outward appearance is that the manuscript is neatly prepared and the bibliography is also extremely extensive for an essay with 73 references.	We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her comments, which were very important for improving the article. We review and evaluate the references and potential for permanence in the text.
The quality of Tables 1 and 2 is rather average. The rows and columns should be better differentiated. It is therefore recommended that the tables be graphically revised.	The tables were removed as they were not essential for the article.
In the references, it is not clear why some authors were written in capital letters. See e.g. SANDEL 2010, PAULA 2005 vs. Sadek 2010	Citations and references were reviewed.
Minor errors in the text should be corrected. See lines 550 and 551	The phrase was removed without compromising the understanding of the text.
It should be made clearer in the introduction that the Brazilian justice system is the subject of the analysis. The reader currently gets the impression that this essay should be seen as generalising for all judicial systems. This can hardly be the case, as judicial systems, as well as those of the general public administration, are organised and function in very different ways. It should also be made clear why Brazil in particular is used for the analysis. It is possible that the justice system in Brazil has peculiarities that could nevertheless encourage comparison with other systems.	The context of the Brazilian justice system and its peculiarities was presented as the context of the study, signaling that there are possible generalizations based on the nature of the judiciary, which is also visited.
The historical analysis of innovation and institutionalisation is conclusive and comprehensive, but the Brazilian example is not logically integrated. For example, what does "resolution 332" say and why is it important for this essay? Where exactly was the need for reform in the justice system and why is the use of AI applications so important?	Excerpts that contextualize the Brazilian judicial system were included in the introduction, explaining the relevance of its reform as well as recent advances in the application and regulation of AI as an innovation, adding resolution nº 332.
It would generally be advisable to take better account of the international readership, as it is not entirely clear what other justice systems can learn from the experiences of Brazil.	The text does not address the case of the Brazilian justice system, but presents opportunities for deeper analysis, including for the Brazilian case, based on innovation as a phenomenon, highlighting some examples. We include in the conclusion an excerpt that presents these research opportunities focusing on the international reader.
The essay addresses the topic of innovation and institutionalisation well on a theoretical level, but it is not clear why practical use cases are not sufficiently discussed. Cases are always touched on, such as the use of AI, but not fully developed.	The text does not address the case of the Brazilian justice system, but presents opportunities for deeper analysis, including for the Brazilian case, based on innovation as a phenomenon, highlighting some examples. We include in the conclusion an excerpt that presents these research opportunities focusing on the international readership.
It seems as if the authors assume that the readers have a great deal of prior knowledge of the Brazilian administrative and judicial system, which will not necessarily be the case for the international readership. In some places, therefore, further clarification is needed.	Excerpts referring to the Brazilian justice system were included to contribute to the understanding of the international readership.
Conclusion This topic is certainly interesting. However, the article has minor weaknesses that can be remedied with clarifications and explanations. In general, for readers who have no connection to the Brazilian judicial or administrative system, it seems as if the author could not decide what depth the essay should have. It is therefore recommended that the examples given be described in more detail.	The text does not address the case of the Brazilian justice system, but presents opportunities for deeper analysis, including for the Brazilian case, based on innovation as a phenomenon, highlighting some examples. We include in the conclusion an excerpt that presents these research opportunities focusing on the international readership.