Igniting Pathways for Land-Based Healing: Possibilities for Institutional Accountability
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review this important and very well-written manuscript. While the manuscript is lengthy, I believe it is well organized and includes necessary content. My comments are exclusively positive as I see this manuscript as ready for publication. Additionally, my assessment is that this manuscript will make a large and significant contribution to the existing literature. I very much appreciate the authors’ approach to using excerpts from Sandra Cisneros and the poetry by Franny Choi. This added creativity and authenticity that is consistent with the manuscript’s messages and premise. I also found the social cartography framework and application to be thought-provoking and helpful as a tool to apply several key concepts. Lastly, I want to thank the authors for developing and disseminating this manuscript. Not only do I believe that it is incredibly necessary for social work, I believe that they have provided a thorough, compelling, clear, and articulate paper. This work needs to be widely disseminated to all social work educators and scholars. Thank you for this beautiful work and for your critical ideas and advocacy.
Author Response
August 15, 2023
Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely appreciate your time and energy in offering your reviews for this paper. Our team has taken all your feedback into consideration in working towards refining our work.
We hope our responses adequately respond to your critiques, questions, and/or concerns. We have highlighted major revisions in the paper by changing the font color. We are deeply grateful for your words of affirmation regarding our paper’s potential contribution to the field.
With deep gratitude,
The Igniting Pathways Research Team
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has the potential to contribute significantly to the literature on social justice, particularly as it relates to reparations and rematriation. The historical overview of land grant institutions and the implications for decolonization and land based-healing is particularly interesting and insighful.
The following comments are offered to the authors in an effort to enhance the scholarship and readibility of paper:
1. Operationalize/provide a definition of "racial settler colonialism." This should be done early in the paper, perhaps in the introduction or literature review.
2. Remove/omit the poem by Franny Choi. It adds no merit or scholarly benefit to the paper and could be considered offensive. Deleting the poem does not distract from the overall content of the paper.
3. Reconcile the reference list with material cited in the paper. There are numerous citations in the text that do not appear on the refernce list (e.g., UN Declaration of Human Rights, 1948; Southern Poverty Law Center, Council on Social Work Education, 2022, etc.). Additionally, some sources are cited inconsistently in the document and on the reference list (e.g. UN General Assembly v. General Assembly; TRUTH Project, 2023 v. The Truth Project, 2023; deOleveira et al., 2015 v. DeOliveira Andreott et al., 2015; Ta'Nehisi Coates, 2014 v. Coates, 2014; etc.).
4. Review guidelines for consistent use of et al.
1. Correct sentence fragment on p. 16 of 32, Section 4.1.1 in the last sentence of paragraph one.
2. Spell out acronyms the first time used in a sentence (e.g., NASW, ADEI, BIWOC, etc.)
3. Provide context for direct quotes ( see p. 4 of 32, Section 2.2, paragraph one). The quote is problematic and lacks clarity.
Author Response
August 15, 2022
Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely appreciate your time and energy in offering your reviews for this paper. Our team has taken all your feedback into consideration in working towards refining our work.
We hope our responses adequately respond to your critiques, questions, and/or concerns. We’ve responded to every critique and have highlighted major revisions in the paper by changing the font color. We are deeply grateful for your words of affirmation regarding our paper’s potential contribution to the field.
Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2 pointed to the need for improvement in the use and formatting of references. References have been reviewed and edited.
Editing responses to Reviewer 2:
- Need for improvement in: Succinctly described and contextualized content with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic.
We added theoretical and historical context to our introductory paragraph.
- Operationalize/provide a definition of "racial settler colonialism." This should be done early in the paper, perhaps in the introduction or literature review.
Thank you for this comment. We added an explanation to how we are using the term.
- Remove/omit the poem by Franny Choi. It adds no merit or scholarly benefit to the paper and could be considered offensive. Deleting the poem does not distract from the overall content of the paper.
Thank you for this comment. We chose to leave the poem as we agree with Reviewer 1 that it added authenticity that is consistent with the manuscript’s messages and premise. We have expanded on our articulation regarding the intention for the use of the poem in our introduction (p 2-3). We believe clarifying this point has strengthened our paper.
- Reconcile the reference list with material cited in the paper.
Thank you for this comment. We reviewed the manuscript for inconsistent citations and to ensure all in-text citations appear in the reference list.
- Review guidelines for consistent use of et al.
Thank you for this comment. Manuscript was reviewed for consistent use of et al. according to
APA 7th ed guidelines.
Comments on the Quality of English Language:
- 1. Correct sentence fragment on p. 16 of 32, Section 4.1.1 in the last sentence of paragraph one.
Revised sentence is now on p 17.
- Spell out acronyms the first time used in a sentence (e.g., NASW, ADEI, BIWOC, etc.)
Manuscript was reviewed for use of acronyms and corrections made.
- Provide context for direct quotes ( see p. 4 of 32, Section 2.2, paragraph one). The quote is problematic and lacks clarity.
Quote was moved below an introductory paragraph to Section 2.2 in order to better provide more clear context.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
