Establishment of Transboundary Partnerships in an International Climate Adaptation Project
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReviewer comments:
This study conducts a case of a transboundary action research project on climate adaptation, analyzing the partnership structure, stakeholder arrangements, coordination scenarios, and the role of the partnership within it. Besides, it clarifies the analytical framework and methodology, and conducts result analysis and discussion in combination with the five dimensions of adaptation partnership raised. However, there are some problems for this manuscript. The main problems are 1) the logical structure of the article needs to be improved, and 2) the paragraph and references formats need to be improved.
Detailed comments:
1) Line 35, 337, 360, 426: The first line of the paragraph is not indented. Please check the entire text.
2) Line 109-163: Should the analytical framework be included in the methods section, or should it be presented through a technical roadmap?
3) Line 166-236: It is suggested to integrate the content of 3.1 and reduce the number of paragraphs.
4) Line 237, 247, 259, 278: The numbering of subheadings is incorrect. “2.2. ...”followed“3.2. ...”? There are two “2.3 ...” ？
5) Line 165, 328: The numbering of headings is incorrect. There are two “3. ...” ？
6) Line 381: Is it the first line of the paragraph indented ?
7) Line 408, 524: The numbering of subheadings is incorrect. There are two “3.3 ...” ？
8) Line 568, 590: There is no“3.3.2 ...”.
9) Line 822-1002: The discussion is divided into too many paragraphs. It is suggested to discuss with different subheadings.
10) References: It is recommended to add references from the past 3 to 5 years. Please uniformly determine whether to add DOI and whether to underline for DOI in the references. Please note the requirements for references for the Climate journal.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript at stake aims at investigating transboundary partnerships and their effective functioning, with particolar renard to a case of a transboundary action research project on climate adaptation.
As stated by authors, the objective of the research pertains to analysing a series of related aspects, i.e. the partnership structure, stakeholder arrangements and the different coordination scenarios, as well as the role played by the partnership. As a matter of fact, transboundary partnerships play a crucial role in fostering collective goods capable of addressing societal issues, thus reflecting the importance of the same partnerships at global level. The aim, stated by authors, embeds the provision of a comprehensive analytical frame work alongside the investigation of the project “Himalayan Adaptation, Water, and Resilience Research on 99 Glacier and Snowpack-Dependent River Basins for Improving Livelihoods (HI-100 AWARE).”
Section 3 provides the research methodology, including participants and data and question checklists, as the study involves interviews with project personnel and focus group discussions at the project sites.
The coupling of the methodology with the conducted interviews and analysis of all aspects related to the above cited project renders the manuscript reaching the stated objectives.
The research is well structured, referenced and all sections are coherent and consequential.
The mentioned approach, being comprehensive and well structured, allows authors, as stated, to highlight the structural features of the project at stake and provide a detailed overview of the path followed.
Furthermore, conclusions (section 6) outline future research paths based on a series of key topics and methodologies identified throughout the manuscript and resulting from the project analysis.
In addition, authors suggest that future transboundary partnership projects might consider key elements highlighted by the same HI-AWARE project.
Starting from the introduction, issues at stake are well presented and outlined, with reference to the selected context, including results in section 4 and the related discussion (section 5), both representing valuable tools to offer a simplified yet comprehensive visualization of the complex processes within the selected project.
The manuscript is, overall, valuable.
Nevertheless, the manuscript needs to be adequately revised as to formatting according to the journal rules. Moreover, sections and paragraphs numbering is wrong and needs to be fixed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors
I find your manuscript very interesting and pertinent, the abstract succinctly summarizes the research objectives, methodology, and key findings, but you may consider refining the abstract to better highlight the novelty of the study and its contribution to adaptation governance literature, it could benefit from clearer articulation of the research gap and how the study addresses it.
The introduction provides a comprehensive background on transboundary partnerships and their relevance to climate adaptation, but needs to be more concise. Some historical details, while informative, may be condensed to maintain focus and you should clarify the specific research questions earlier in the section to guide the reader.
The use of a five-dimensional framework (partnership setup, stakeholder arrangement, coordination, mode of coordination, role of partnership) is well-structured and appropriated, grounded in relevant literature and adapted to the case study context. My suggestion is that you briefly justifying the selection of this framework over others in the literature.
In the methodology the qualitative case study approach is appropriate for the research objectives, the ethical considerations are well-documented, the use of interviews, FGDs, and secondary data provides triangulation. However it will be important that you provide more detail on how data saturation was achieved, clarify how the coding process ensured reliability and validity (e.g., intercoder agreement, audit trail) and to add a discussion of the snowball sampling limitations to strengthen the section.
In the analysis you have a rich, detailed description of the HI-AWARE project and its components, a clear articulation of the roles of different stakeholders and coordination mechanisms and the analysis of pilot programs and community engagement is particularly strong. I suggest that you consider integrating more comparative insights across the four countries involved, not just Bangladesh and a more critical reflection on challenges and tensions within the partnership.
The results overlap with discussion points, you should consider separating empirical findings from interpretive commentary and include more direct quotes from participants to enrich the narrative and support claims. Also you should strengthen the critical analysis of power asymmetries and institutional constraints and create subheadings to guide the reader through the arguments.
In the conclusions I believe that emphasizing the theoretical contributions of the study more explicitly, concise and focused on implications for policy and practice.
In the reference you must ensure consistency in formatting (e.g., DOI links, journal names).
I think the manuscript makes a significant contribution to understanding transboundary climate adaptation partnerships, particularly through its in-depth case study of the HI-AWARE project and it bridges theory and practice effectively and offers lessons for future adaptation governance.
Best wishes
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Generally well-written, though some sections could have editing for clarity and conciseness, because occasional grammatical issues and long sentences should be revised.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReviewer comments:
First, I would like to express my gratitude to the author for carefully considering the review comments and making revisions to the manuscript. Overall, the author has provided partial responses to the previously raised questions. The revised manuscript has seen significant improvements, but there are still some issues that need further clarification or refinement.
Detailed comments:
1) Line 127-150: Should the first lines of these paragraphs not be indented?
2) Line 152: “2.1 Analytical dimensions of adaptation partnership at multilevel”. There is only level 2.1 here. Should this level be deleted?
3) Line 307: “3.6. Qualitative data analysis”. Is it 3.6 or 3.5?
4) Line 550, 667: The numbering of subheadings is incorrect. There are two “4.3 ...” ？
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
