Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see comments in attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article could do with careful copy editting for typos, grammatical errors and consistent use of upper and lower case.

Author Response

Thank you so much for all of your useful comments and suggested changes. I apologise for my delay in providing an updated article.

I really appreciated your comment in relation to the abstract as it allowed me to reflect upon how this article is a reflection of my Churchill Fellowship journey and that the initial statement was perhaps aiming a bit to pie in the sky.

I have addressed the comments around th research question and have tried my best to reduce the amount of dot points in the manuscript as on review I felt that this was taking away from the main arguments I was aiming to put across.

Thank you for the suggestion to add the comment around best interest of the child.  I found an article by Fiona Arney that I think fits this best.

As stated above, I felt that your comments really allowed me the opportunity to review the article in greater depth and I feel it is stronger now.  

Thank you for taking the time to review and I look forward to anything further you may like to add.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is a much needed contribution in the CWS field, related to the right of First Nation people worldwide.

However some improvements are recuired.

First in explaining the method used in this study.

Second, in building the arguments by the use of relevant research literature.

Line 261: please add references to this statement.

Line 288: please explain, in a footnote, what the Churchill Fellowship is

Line 303: please add references

Line 332: please add references

Line 379: please add references

Line 424: please add more information on this case study. This is important to follow the author's argument here.

Line 521 1st section: please add references of the mentioned reports

Line 521 2nd section: is mechanisms the right word - should it be 'reports'?

Line 537: please explain what these mechanisms are and consists of, according to Balaban and King (2023)

Line 610: please add references to support this argument

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions to improve the article. I apologise for the delay in submitting the updated manuscript.

I have now added references to the areas you have suggested and I really appreciated your suggestions to add further to the case study and the accountability mechanism section.

Thank you for taking the time to review my article and I look forward to receiving any further suggestions or your comments for the updated manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The overall structure of the manuscript is more coherent but it would be helpful for someone to go through it carefully and check for grammatical and referencing. e.g. line 47 spell out 5 in words (numbers less than ten) and line 50 add date to Safe and supported ref. I dont have capacity to go through this line by line again but I think another careful edit is needed.

The methods needs more detail. e.g. Can lines 91-105 be incorporated into the methods?  and include (for example) what the churchill fellowship is, where you visited, what dates/years, how many people did you speak to, what were their positions, what initiatives were engaged with etc. And importantly, how was the framework developed.  Were there any guiding theories or principles that were used to frame the thinking/roadmap? Need to provide some context/transparency for how the roadmap and reflections have come about.

The headings in the text of the roadmap dont match the headings listed on p3 lines 96-105. For example in the first list First Nations led policy has been deleted but this is still in the text headings. The text also has other headings such As 'Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander programs and policies' which isnt in the list (and there is also the issue of using different terminology in the headings (ie First Nations vs Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander). This all needs to be checked carefully in a through edit for consistency and accuracy with the different subheadings. 

The self quote in the conclusion seems odd. Suggest removing this.

 

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review and for provided this in prompt manner. Comment 1: The overall structure of the manuscript is more coherent but it would be helpful for someone to go through it carefully and check for grammatical and referencing. e.g. line 47 spell out 5 in words (numbers less than ten) and line 50 add date to Safe and supported ref. I dont have capacity to go through this line by line again but I think another careful edit is needed. Response: I have had two colleagues review who have previously worked in acadmia and have included their track changes as well as suggested amendments in the attached document. Comment 2: The methods needs more detail. e.g. Can lines 91-105 be incorporated into the methods? and include (for example) what the churchill fellowship is, where you visited, what dates/years, how many people did you speak to, what were their positions, what initiatives were engaged with etc. And importantly, how was the framework developed. Were there any guiding theories or principles that were used to frame the thinking/roadmap? Need to provide some context/transparency for how the roadmap and reflections have come about. Response 2: This has now been amended to include the above. Comment 3: The headings in the text of the roadmap dont match the headings listed on p3 lines 96-105. For example in the first list First Nations led policy has been deleted but this is still in the text headings. The text also has other headings such As 'Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander programs and policies' which isn’t in the list (and there is also the issue of using different terminology in the headings (ie First Nations vs Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander). This all needs to be checked carefully in a through edit for consistency and accuracy with the different subheadings. Response 3: This has now been amended. Comment 4: The self quote in the conclusion seems odd. Suggest removing this. Response 4: I have removed this quote.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf