Open Source Seeds and the Revitalization of Local Knowledge

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author,

I think the topic is interesting and useful for the idea of sustainability. However, the logical approach and methodological exploration do not follow the scientific structure on the basis of which the studies and conclusions performed would be coherent. I suggest expanding the methodological part of the article, applying a methodology that clearly guides the reader through previous literature and facts, and credibly substantiates the results presented by the author in the results section. I would prefer to publish this paper in a scientific journal dealing with social science, political, or cultural topics.
In the case of the Sustainability Journal, an exact literature review and methodological description is the accepted standard to which the article does not conform in this form.

Best wishes, Reviewer1

Author Response

• The reviewer correctly points out that this article comes from a different disciplinary background and relies on a methodological approach that might not align with that applied by most contributions to Sustainability. While I cannot fundamentally change my methodological approach, I have revised the methodology section and partly also the analsysis, to make the methodology more structured and transparent. I particularly focus on how the overview of the open source seed movement in the newly introduced section 3.4 actually constitutes a kind of literature review, even though it is presented more as a narrative then as a quantitatively structured overview of existing research on the topic.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an outstanding piece of writing. Developing an open source system for seeds has a lot of potential benefits, and this paper shows how it might help revive traditional ecological knowledge, which is a great thing. Basically, I really like the way this paper is structured and it is well written in English. However, there are a few minor errors that can be corrected as follows:

30 – ‘though’ change to ‘through'

138 – ‘though’ to be changed to ‘through’

515 – ‘at fist glance’ to ‘at first glance’

602 – ‘sed’ to ‘seed’

631 – Do you mean ‘It is however more a systematic THAN a particular form of revitalisation movement since it aims to rewrite and revitalise the rules for owning and sharing nature’ ?

Consider capitalising “Indigenous” rather than “indigenous” throughout – it helps to associate Native peoples with native species.

It would be great if the author could offer some avenues for future research.

Author Response

Thank you for the appreciative assessment and for the edits.

• I have amended the typos accordingly.
• I have also added a paragraph on venues for future research at the end of the article

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciate the author's contribution to this essay. It is a well-written, necessary, and enlightening analysis of the current situation of the free seed movement's efforts to preserve traditional variations in the face of global intellectual property rights domination over seeds.

The author, however, needs to be bolder and more analytical. This is an opinion piece, yet I see little opinion. The organization of the paper and the references picked imply a particular point of view, although they could be more obvious.

Abstract

Please emphasize the conclusion of the article in the abstract.

Introduction

The author should place a greater emphasis on the features of the piece that indicate its originality. This is supported to some extent at the start of section 2 (Questions, Materials, and Methods), but it should be placed in the introduction to draw the reader in.

Questions, Materials and Methods

L 96-97 : « Methodologically the article relies on an analysis of policy documents and self-representation by American and European open source seed organisations related to existing research on seed activism and the information commons movement. »

Describe the documents that were utilised in further detail. A table summarizing the types of resources analyzed, as well as the information gathered and received in America and Europe, would be useful. This can provide further information to other researchers who want to reproduce or expand on the same research topic.

L98 : « While there is plenty of research on the social and cultural dimensions of open source software… » 

Cross-referencing the many research studies that have been undertaken might be beneficial.

L103 à 105 – « The study primarily takes a theoretical approach in the sense that while it draws most of its empirical knowledge from already existing studies of the open source movement and the open source seed movement, it contributes with new insight by synthesising these studies and analysing them from a revitalisation perspective. » - This part should be further detailed.

Has the author undertaken any interviews with OSSI members in America or Europe? If so, please elaborate in Materials & Methods.

Results & Discussion

Some interesting table representations will be welcomed. For example, a comparison of the OSSI in America and Europe in a table or graph.

L 490 – 492 : « Today it is not only active on different continents, but also applying different strategies – spanning from awareness raising, lobbying and community building to legal enforcement. »

Increase the level of information and provide particular examples of what is happening on other continents. 

Conclusion

In a separate section, emphasize the conclusion. It would be beneficial to have a conclusion opening in comparison to what is happening on other continents.

Author Response

Thank you for helpful suggestions.

• I have added a brief indication on the originality of the article as well as a brief indication of my point of view (emphasizing the value of promoting biodiversity and information rights) in the Introduction.
• The section on Materials and methods has been thoroughly revised to better describe the literature I use and my theoretical approach. I particularly focus on how the overview of the open source seed movement in the newly introduced section 3.4 actually constitutes a kind of literature review, even though it is presented more as a narrative then as a quantitatively structured overview of existing research on the topic.
• On page 11 I have very briefly addressed open source seed projects on other continents and made a very short concluding comparison between the American and European approaches. I fully agree with the reviewer that it would be fruitful with a more comprehensive and systematic comparison between initiatives in different countries and continents, but I find that the scope of this article (which is already getting a bit too long) is too limited for such an approach.
• I have emphasised the conclusion by make it a section of its own and adding a brief reflection on future research.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author, 

Modification of the methodological section significantly increased the value of the paper. We can get a clear picture that the author has worked on the topic based on literature sources. The topic processing is correct, but the approach to the topic, the overview of its narrower and broader aspects is still incomplete! I suggest the author significantly expand his literary sources, and suggest that he examine some similar papers in MDPI’s Sustainabily portfolio.

Author Response

I have added a few additional literary sources about the open source seed movement. Since this is a new and scarcely researched topic I believe that I now present a complete overview on the existing literature on the open source seed movement.  I have clarified this in the section on ‘Questions, Materials and Methods’.

The information commons movement is on the contrary far too well researched to cover in full, but I have expanded my material on the information commons movement and added a paragraph in ‘Questions, Materials and Methods’ where briefly map this research field.