Navigating Global Environmental Challenges: Disciplinarity, Transdisciplinarity, and the Emergence of Mega-Expertise

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is designed to evaluate the  disciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, and the emergence of Mega-expertise. 

1. The overall methodology and procedures were invalid, and there were a few misspelling and/or improper expressions. 

Such as the first paragraph of INTRODUCTION: "More scien-29 tific knowledge about environmental problems is not enough; knowledge about how so-30 ciety can and should change is also needed, ......", and so on and so forth.

2. Furthermore, the ABSTRACT should be re-summarized as there are no summarized conclusions and proper significant implications.

3. Additionally, I have some questions to be resolved as follows.

(1) What is the main research intention and objective of this paper? Is it a review and prospect of the Mega-expertise? Why? How did you do the reserch? 

(2) What is the article type of this paper? This paper is not a review article or a research article? Why? How did you do the review article?  Or how you did you do the research article?

(3) We are aimed to do a review article or a research article with a clear research context in the academic publishing, but I am not sure whether the authors had clearly displayed the research context in this paper. If so, what is the research context in this paper?

(4) What is the main research result and the resulted data? Please show us all the raw data and the resulted data for reviewers.

The othere minor issues.

Author Response

First of all, thank you for your constructive comments on my submission. I have made a major revision, shortening some sections, lengthening others, and also writing a new one. I have elaborated more on my argument and included more empirical material (documents and interviews with IPCC) in the analysis and improved the conclusion.  In total, this version is 9,500 words (compared to the original 6,600 words).

I am attaching a pdf where the changes are visible, making it possible to see all the revisions made.

OVERVIEW OF THE CHANGES

1. A shortened (500 words less) and a substantially revised introduction with a more elaborated formulation of the problem (Section 1).
2. A new section on Materials and Method (Section 2)
3. The former Section 3 (Analysis) is now divided into two different sections (Section 3 and Section 4).

3a. A substantially revised and shortened presentation of the current discussion on expertise (Section 3)

3b. A new separate section on GEAs, and what kind of epistemic practices they perform (section 4). This section also includes a new subsection of the experience of the IPCC experts from their practice of conducting GEAs (section 4.2). A more elaborated discussion on mega-expertise and what kind of expertise it is (section 4.3)

1. A substantially revised conclusion (Section 5).

REVIEW 1

1. New revised and more focused introduction. A new section where I present the method. Also the outline (section 1) presents the line of argument.
2. Abstract: revised

3.1. With the new introduction and the new section on Method and Materials, I hope this comment is met.

3.2 This is a conceptual paper, developing the conceptual meaning of the kind of expertise that performs GEAs. I have made this explicit in the Introduction and the Material and method section (Section 1-2).

3.3 This type of paper is common in my field (Science and Technology Studies) where papers are published that are conceptual elaborations based on other contributions. These contributions are often made through books and book chapters which makes it unsuitable to base the discussion on a systematic research review (because databases have poor coverage of books and book chapters). The research context is mainly expert studies, and the study takes this field as the starting point.

3.4 The main findings are the four epistemic characteristics and also the proposal of the notion “mega-expertise” to cover the kind of expertise studied here. The study is conceptual and does not include “raw data” (in the sense of empirical data), or rather, the findings are based on other studies of expertise and GEAs, on IPCC documents, and I have also included an empirical study of IPCC-experts to illustrate the findings.

REVIEW 2

I do not find it meaningful to respond to all 52 bullets points (some of which are comments/criticisms, and some of which are just statements without evaluation). Besides these 52 points, the reviewer also submit two general comments:

1. The reviewer asks for a detailed table summarizing the results. I think this recommendation is based on that the previous version was not clear enough in the argumentation, and the reviewer asks for a table that differentiates between environmental expertise – GEA – mega-expertise. However, this distinction is not in line with the argumentation of the paper. I use the general description of expertise here to develop what I mean specifically with GEA expertise, and use the notion mega-expertise to capture this particular type of expertise. None of the other reviewers have asked for a table, so I have decided not to include one. However, I have included a table on three forms of expertise (Table 1).
2. The reviewer asks for what additional contribution or differentiation this paper provides. The reviewer’s suggestion for that different kinds of expertise have different target groups is not something that this paper discusses, but focuses only on how to characterize the kind of expertise that is studied here.

REVIEW 3

1. The sentences commented upon are revised or deleted (in the original submission, lines 32-33. 34-38, 73-77, 109-113, 321-323, 364-366).
2. The new introduction is shortened and now includes a clear objective and aim. The introduction also includes an outline that clarifies the line of argument and highlights the contribution of the study.
3. In the revision, I have tried to make my own argument more explicit
4. The order of the four characteristics of expertise. I agree with the reviewer that some of them are more fundamental than others. In my view, the two first characteristics have equal weight. Both concern complexity, the first in the sense of covering many different fields of knowledge, the second that social and ecological processes are dynamically interconnected. I think it is more logical to start with the fact that global environmental challenges cover many disciplinary fields, and to add that it is not sufficient to add knowledge from different fields, but also to do justice to the fact that they are dynamically related. So I agree with the general point, but think that the order between the first and second distinction should not be changed.
5. I have included much more concrete examples from the IPCC (both documents and interview material) to show how it performs both interactional and contributory expertise.
6. I have elaborated much more on the relationship and importance of interactional and contributory expertise in GEAs.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article discusses expertise related to environmental issues, succinctly listing the attributes and categories of experts, while strategically introducing the two concepts of Global Environmental Assessment (GEA) and Mega-Expertise. However, for publication, the following points need to be addressed:

1. The content appears to be explainable through a single table. What implications does the author intend to convey? Is it merely a classification and explanation? (Column: Environmental expertise, global environmental assessment, mega expertise / Row: Attributes, types, characteristics)

 

2. According to the classification proposed in the article, various mechanisms addressing environmental issues are already operational, as follows. What additional contribution or differentiation does this article provide?

 - Environmental Expertise: Specialists in related scientific fields

-  Global Environmental Assessment: National environmental policymakers, policymakers in international organizations, politicians addressing environmental issues

- Mega-Expertise: National environmental committees, international environmental organization committees, etc.

Without addressing these two key questions, the article risks being unconvincing to readers across the three spectrums of scientific, logical, and creative approaches.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

N/A

Author Response

First of all, thank you for your constructive comments on my submission. I have made a major revision, shortening some sections, lengthening others, and also writing a new one. I have elaborated more on my argument and included more empirical material (documents and interviews with IPCC) in the analysis and improved the conclusion.  In total, this version is 9,500 words (compared to the original 6,600 words).

I am attaching a pdf where the changes are visible, making it possible to see all the revisions made.

OVERVIEW OF THE CHANGES

1. A shortened (500 words less) and a substantially revised introduction with a more elaborated formulation of the problem (Section 1).
2. A new section on Materials and Method (Section 2)
3. The former Section 3 (Analysis) is now divided into two different sections (Section 3 and Section 4).

3a. A substantially revised and shortened presentation of the current discussion on expertise (Section 3)

3b. A new separate section on GEAs, and what kind of epistemic practices they perform (section 4). This section also includes a new subsection of the experience of the IPCC experts from their practice of conducting GEAs (section 4.2). A more elaborated discussion on mega-expertise and what kind of expertise it is (section 4.3)

1. A substantially revised conclusion (Section 5).

REVIEW 1

1. New revised and more focused introduction. A new section where I present the method. Also the outline (section 1) presents the line of argument.
2. Abstract: revised

3.1. With the new introduction and the new section on Method and Materials, I hope this comment is met.

3.2 This is a conceptual paper, developing the conceptual meaning of the kind of expertise that performs GEAs. I have made this explicit in the Introduction and the Material and method section (Section 1-2).

3.3 This type of paper is common in my field (Science and Technology Studies) where papers are published that are conceptual elaborations based on other contributions. These contributions are often made through books and book chapters which makes it unsuitable to base the discussion on a systematic research review (because databases have poor coverage of books and book chapters). The research context is mainly expert studies, and the study takes this field as the starting point.

3.4 The main findings are the four epistemic characteristics and also the proposal of the notion “mega-expertise” to cover the kind of expertise studied here. The study is conceptual and does not include “raw data” (in the sense of empirical data), or rather, the findings are based on other studies of expertise and GEAs, on IPCC documents, and I have also included an empirical study of IPCC-experts to illustrate the findings.

REVIEW 2

I do not find it meaningful to respond to all 52 bullets points (some of which are comments/criticisms, and some of which are just statements without evaluation). Besides these 52 points, the reviewer also submit two general comments:

1. The reviewer asks for a detailed table summarizing the results. I think this recommendation is based on that the previous version was not clear enough in the argumentation, and the reviewer asks for a table that differentiates between environmental expertise – GEA – mega-expertise. However, this distinction is not in line with the argumentation of the paper. I use the general description of expertise here to develop what I mean specifically with GEA expertise, and use the notion mega-expertise to capture this particular type of expertise. None of the other reviewers have asked for a table, so I have decided not to include one. However, I have included a table on three forms of expertise (Table 1).
2. The reviewer asks for what additional contribution or differentiation this paper provides. The reviewer’s suggestion for that different kinds of expertise have different target groups is not something that this paper discusses, but focuses only on how to characterize the kind of expertise that is studied here.

REVIEW 3

1. The sentences commented upon are revised or deleted (in the original submission, lines 32-33. 34-38, 73-77, 109-113, 321-323, 364-366).
2. The new introduction is shortened and now includes a clear objective and aim. The introduction also includes an outline that clarifies the line of argument and highlights the contribution of the study.
3. In the revision, I have tried to make my own argument more explicit
4. The order of the four characteristics of expertise. I agree with the reviewer that some of them are more fundamental than others. In my view, the two first characteristics have equal weight. Both concern complexity, the first in the sense of covering many different fields of knowledge, the second that social and ecological processes are dynamically interconnected. I think it is more logical to start with the fact that global environmental challenges cover many disciplinary fields, and to add that it is not sufficient to add knowledge from different fields, but also to do justice to the fact that they are dynamically related. So I agree with the general point, but think that the order between the first and second distinction should not be changed.
5. I have included much more concrete examples from the IPCC (both documents and interview material) to show how it performs both interactional and contributory expertise.
6. I have elaborated much more on the relationship and importance of interactional and contributory expertise in GEAs.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The sentence on lines 32-33 is just reiterating the message of the previous sentence. Delete or rephrase it. You also make a similar point on lines 41-44. I therefore suggest that you streamline this part of the introduction.

The sentence on page 1, lines 34-38 is unclear and should be reformulated.

Post-normal science should be mentioned among the new modes of science on page 2, lines 73-77.

The paper would benefit from presenting its mission statement earlier than on lines 103-105. Further, the paper’s objective needs to be narrowed down. Characterizes global environmental expertise in terms of what? Its epistemological, social and normative nature?

The sentence on lines 109-113 is hard to read and should be amended. 

I think the author should do more to prepare the reader for what is coming. It would be nice to know upfront which type of paper this is. The contribution also needs to be highlighted early on.

The author has to adjust the tone of the parts of the paper, which contribute new insights. He must take ownership of his arguments. In section 3.2, for example, I would like the author to more clearly state that it is his contention that global environmental expertise embodies the four features in question. As an illustration, this could be done be opening the section with something like: “I argue/This paper argues that expertise on a global environmental issue has four distinct characteristics …” If the author assumed responsibility for the points made, the contribution of the paper would be much more evident.

My main point of critique concerns the designation of the four characteristics. As I understand the author’s reasoning, the four traits are perceived to be situated on the same explanatory level. However, I am not convinced that this is the case. In my view, the second factor, the complexity of the problems, seems to reside on a higher tier of abstraction. The fact that no one can master all aspects of environmental problems comes down to their complexity. This leads to a situation where collaboration is necessary. The need to be trained to be a part of an expert organization also appears to be fostered by the complexity and the ensuing unfeasibility of having a complete overview of the intricacies of the problem. I envision a causal chain along these lines:

Complexity à impossibility of omnicompetence à need for collaboration

                                                                             à need for training to be                                                                                          part of expert                                                                                                        organizations 

I would like the author to include a concrete example of how the endeavors of the IPCC or similar institutions have produced knowledge that transcends the distinction between interactional and contributory expertise (lines 324-332).

The author should elaborate more on the implications of conceptualizing global environmental expertise as mega-expertise. Why is this new concept warranted?

Improve the flow of the sentence on lines 321-323.

364-366 à What is the point of having interactional experts do syntheses of knowledge claims if they are not able to determine their validity?

Author Response

First of all, thank you for your constructive comments on my submission. I have made a major revision, shortening some sections, lengthening others, and also writing a new one. I have elaborated more on my argument and included more empirical material (documents and interviews with IPCC) in the analysis and improved the conclusion.  In total, this version is 9,500 words (compared to the original 6,600 words).

I am attaching a pdf where the changes are visible, making it possible to see all the revisions made.

OVERVIEW OF THE CHANGES

1. A shortened (500 words less) and a substantially revised introduction with a more elaborated formulation of the problem (Section 1).
2. A new section on Materials and Method (Section 2)
3. The former Section 3 (Analysis) is now divided into two different sections (Section 3 and Section 4).

3a. A substantially revised and shortened presentation of the current discussion on expertise (Section 3)

3b. A new separate section on GEAs, and what kind of epistemic practices they perform (section 4). This section also includes a new subsection of the experience of the IPCC experts from their practice of conducting GEAs (section 4.2). A more elaborated discussion on mega-expertise and what kind of expertise it is (section 4.3)

1. A substantially revised conclusion (Section 5).

REVIEW 1

1. New revised and more focused introduction. A new section where I present the method. Also the outline (section 1) presents the line of argument.
2. Abstract: revised

3.1. With the new introduction and the new section on Method and Materials, I hope this comment is met.

3.2 This is a conceptual paper, developing the conceptual meaning of the kind of expertise that performs GEAs. I have made this explicit in the Introduction and the Material and method section (Section 1-2).

3.3 This type of paper is common in my field (Science and Technology Studies) where papers are published that are conceptual elaborations based on other contributions. These contributions are often made through books and book chapters which makes it unsuitable to base the discussion on a systematic research review (because databases have poor coverage of books and book chapters). The research context is mainly expert studies, and the study takes this field as the starting point.

3.4 The main findings are the four epistemic characteristics and also the proposal of the notion “mega-expertise” to cover the kind of expertise studied here. The study is conceptual and does not include “raw data” (in the sense of empirical data), or rather, the findings are based on other studies of expertise and GEAs, on IPCC documents, and I have also included an empirical study of IPCC-experts to illustrate the findings.

REVIEW 2

I do not find it meaningful to respond to all 52 bullets points (some of which are comments/criticisms, and some of which are just statements without evaluation). Besides these 52 points, the reviewer also submit two general comments:

1. The reviewer asks for a detailed table summarizing the results. I think this recommendation is based on that the previous version was not clear enough in the argumentation, and the reviewer asks for a table that differentiates between environmental expertise – GEA – mega-expertise. However, this distinction is not in line with the argumentation of the paper. I use the general description of expertise here to develop what I mean specifically with GEA expertise, and use the notion mega-expertise to capture this particular type of expertise. None of the other reviewers have asked for a table, so I have decided not to include one. However, I have included a table on three forms of expertise (Table 1).
2. The reviewer asks for what additional contribution or differentiation this paper provides. The reviewer’s suggestion for that different kinds of expertise have different target groups is not something that this paper discusses, but focuses only on how to characterize the kind of expertise that is studied here.

REVIEW 3

1. The sentences commented upon are revised or deleted (in the original submission, lines 32-33. 34-38, 73-77, 109-113, 321-323, 364-366).
2. The new introduction is shortened and now includes a clear objective and aim. The introduction also includes an outline that clarifies the line of argument and highlights the contribution of the study.
3. In the revision, I have tried to make my own argument more explicit
4. The order of the four characteristics of expertise. I agree with the reviewer that some of them are more fundamental than others. In my view, the two first characteristics have equal weight. Both concern complexity, the first in the sense of covering many different fields of knowledge, the second that social and ecological processes are dynamically interconnected. I think it is more logical to start with the fact that global environmental challenges cover many disciplinary fields, and to add that it is not sufficient to add knowledge from different fields, but also to do justice to the fact that they are dynamically related. So I agree with the general point, but think that the order between the first and second distinction should not be changed.
5. I have included much more concrete examples from the IPCC (both documents and interview material) to show how it performs both interactional and contributory expertise.
6. I have elaborated much more on the relationship and importance of interactional and contributory expertise in GEAs.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I suggest adding a conceptual diagram of the research procedure or research flow to improve reader's understanding and readability. 

Author Response

Thank you for this comments.

To my opinion, I have been very explicit in the line of argument and research design, both in the outline (end of section 1) and in the method section (section 2).

I'll ask the editor for advice on this (what it thinks, to what extent this is necessary and how to design a diagram that add anything to the short text that already discuss the outline and research design).

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate that the author has made a great effort to improve the manuscript. However, I still find it odd that the work of Funtowicz and Ravetz is not mentioned at any point, given its obvious relevance for the topic under consideration. Moreover, the text would benefit from a thorough proofreading as it contains several minor errors.

Author Response

Thank you for these comments.

1) I agree, and have included two references to the postnormal science approach

• Funtowicz, S.; Ravetz, J.R. 1993 Science for the post-normal Age. Futures;
• Kovacic, Z. ; Funtowicz, S. 2024 Post-normal science. In Elgar Encyclopedia of Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity,

2) About the language: I hired the MDPI editing service to proofread this version, so it is strange that the paper still has linguistic shortcomings. I will contact the editor about this (MDPI should have good quality in the services they professionally offer us authors whose native language is not English).