Talk:WikiJournal of Science/Perspectives on the social license of the forest products industry from rural Michigan, United States

Plagiarism check
✅: Assessment with TurnItIn detected 0% potential plagiarism (with the exception of some trivial matches to some reference titles). Article was submitted as docx file, so check performed with the desktop program, but will be repeated with the WMF copyvios tool to confirm when text uploaded on-wiki. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 22:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Peer review 3
{{response| We disagree that "for present purposes" indicates that the strawman argument. However, we have added their previous wording like suggested, but also kept their definition like was originally written. "Gunningham et al. (2004) point out that corporations talk about the need to comply with their social license by operating within societal expectations and avoid activities (or influential elements within them) that would be considered unacceptable, defining it in present terms as “the demands on and expectations for a business enterprise that emerge from neighborhoods, environmental groups, community members, and other elements of the surrounding civil society” (p. 308)."

Rewrote P1, added Moffat et al reference.

Rephrased P2 and added references. T literature more supports that adequate communication is necessary for social license."

Rephrased and added sentence and sources. "Social license is often regarded as being synonymous with community approval, in part due to its deep historical roots in mining and forestry (Syn, 2014; Boutilier & Thomson, 2011; Parsons et al., 2014). The term is often credited to a Canadian mining executive in 1997, although a forestry executive in the United States is thought to have referred to the concept in a speech in mid-1996 (Thomson & Boutilier, 2011; Edwards et al., 2016).)

Rephrased sentence to cite our earlier definition.

Added, tenses fixed.

Requested reference is already provided in previous example. Combined sentences so that reference relevance is hopefully more clear.

Added reference to location at end of introduction.

New reference for forestland data, removed sentence about where exports go and manufacturing prevalence due to irrelevance.

Census Reference was in reference list.

It is unecessary to explicitly refer to the county by name or implication. Small sample size may allow identification of participants if location identified. Explicit references to location removed. This includes rephrasing sentences that refer to county characteristics but that don't relate to the paper topic.

Updated p.8 lines 1-3.

Used 42.4% percentage, added to sentence that fourteen interviews represented 42.4% of identified corporate profiles. Addressed p.9 lines 1-3.

Removed total population due to irrelevance to findings. Added additional line about requiring additional research to characterize similarities between industry members and stakeholders.

Removed Tables 1-4 from narratiive, added full data tables to appendix.

"We consider SLO a common and intuitive enough phrase that, while it may not be explicitly used, industry actors are likely familiar with it and allude to its concepts.

Rewrote paragraph to reference those observations more directly, and explicitely stated that SLO terminology was not used by participants."

Replaced many with multiple.

Added references [to p.22, paragraph 1, line 3, after industry]

Added [Kagan & Thorton to Gunningham to p.23, paragraph 1, line 3, 7]

"Expanded on local v nonlocal. "" This shared experience shapes the process of acquiring social license, and our data analysis highlights the importance of local histories and relationships in shaping social license. Nonlocal actors are likely to experience a much lesser degree of social license than local actors based on our findings. This can be at least partially explained by considering the importance of shared values, local history, and long standing relationships within the community. Local actors are more likely to have similar values to stakeholders, have established some history in the area, and have had the time to establish meaningful relationships within the community. A nonlocal outsider will likely always be considered an outsider in a rural, close knit community.""

Added paragraph about Baines paper "Baines and Edwards (2018) shared similar findings in New Zealand’s aquaculture sector regarding the importance of relationships and communication between industry and local stakeholders. They find that social license depends on relationships and building trust. Smaller, local companies tend towards relationships that are relational as opposed to transactional, possibly due to their on-going community presences and communication abilities, which are better for fostering these relationships and trust building. This is consistent with our findings regarding the importance of long-standing relationships, as well as the need for better communication between the local industry and stakeholders cited by interviewees."

Replaced sentence with "industry in this community has experienced a long history shaped by their natural resource use and the public's opinion of it."

Added, "This gives direct benefit to local actors, who are more likely to hold these shared values and to have developed these personal relationships than an actor external to the community."

Rewrote findings to imply potential insights and future opportunities for research as opposed to strong, concrete findings.

{{review
 * reviewer = Ian Thomson
 * date = 24 June 2022
 * text =

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to review the revised manuscript.

My comments for you and the authors are as follows.

This is a much-improved manuscript and, in my opinion, almost ready for publication.

The following need attention:

There are a few annoying typos that should be corrected based on a close, critical reading of the text;

Page 4, lines 7 and 8: Reference to very early use of the term Social License in the forest products sector should quote More, H., 1996, The Social License to Operate. PIMA Magazine, October, p22-23. A copy of the publication is attached as apparently, you have been unable to locate it yourselves. A minor rewrite here should make things usefully clear.

Page 6, lines 7 and 8: The citation, Boutilier, 2011, should read Boutilier & Thomson, 2011 – Please make this change.

Page 29, lines 11 to 19: A single sentence! Much too long with multiple interconnected themes. This requires a re-write to either break up into simple linked sentences or use bullet points to assemble the themes between concise opening and closing statements.

I attach a PDF of the short article by Henson Moore, which should be forwarded to the authors alongside my comments.

I trust this is helpful.

Best wishes }}

Editor's note
The attached PDF article was written by W. Henson Moore, titled "The social license to operate" and published in October 1996 in Paper Industry Manufacturing Association (PIMA) Magazine volume 78 issue 10, pp. 22-23.  OhanaUnited  Talk page  16:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

}}

Appendix B?
Hi, the text mentions that "Interview questions for community participants can be found in Appendix B" but I'm not seeing an Appendix B in the article anywhere. Does this need to be updated? Pinging as well. Thanks! —Collin (Bobamnertiopsis)t c 18:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Bobamnertiopsis and User:Kaexer Good catch. It should be table 2. I've fixed it.  OhanaUnited  Talk page  18:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Incomplete metadata
Hi there, I just wanted to flag that the Crossref metadata for this article is missing the authors, page number(s), abstract, and references. Thanks! —Collin (Bobamnertiopsis)t c 15:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Bobamnertiopsis This is strange. I recalled doing this in October but it seemed bugged. I have resubmitted the references today so hopefully it'll be updated soon.  OhanaUnited  Talk page  19:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Looks like the references successfully deposited but the author/page #/abstract are still missing from the metadata. Kindly —Collin (Bobamnertiopsis)t c 21:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I just tried again (the full deposit with author, abstract, DOI and such). Let's see if that gets processed. And I am having issue with depositing 10.15347/WJS/2022.002 today. It's been a few hours, yet the DOI still isn't resolving.  OhanaUnited  Talk page  22:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bobamnertiopsis It's been a day and both issues are still there. Do you have an idea why? Is the system backlogged?  OhanaUnited  Talk page  19:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * hmm, if it's been this long and the DOI still isn't live, there was almost certainly some error in the submission. Did whatever email address you included in the web deposit form receive any messages saying the submission failed (or succeeded)? These emails will offer error messages that should bring some clarity about why a submission failed. Alternatively, if you have access to the Wikijournal User Group depositor credentials, this page details how to view past submissions including submissions with errors. Let me know if any of this works for you! —Collin (Bobamnertiopsis)t c 20:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I realize it's in a different journal but since we're talking metadata, the WJM article "Rabeprazole" is also missing references. —Collin (Bobamnertiopsis)t c 21:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bobamnertiopsis Thank you, yes there were errors in those submissions. I discovered my mistake for assigning new DOI to WJS. I have also added references to that new article. Can you verify if 10.15347/WJS/2022.002 submission is complete? I have resubmitted the author/page #/abstract for 10.15347/WJS/2022.001. Let's hope API page will update to reflect that. And can you double check on Rabeprazole's missing references? I can see them on the API page.  OhanaUnited  Talk page  23:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * everything that should appears to have abtracts, authors, page #s, and refs! Thanks for your help on this! —Collin (Bobamnertiopsis)t c 00:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)