Thanks to a substantial revision our paper now provides a clear argumentation and logical structure, with the first part delving into literature to explain the key issues and concepts, and then moving to solutions.
First, my main problem is that the paper reads as a compilation of manifestos, rather than one argumentative thread. From begin to end, the paper presents a mix of literature review and substantive argumentation, plus some examples. My recommendation is to set out a clearer agenda, in which the first part delves into the literature to explain the key issue, key concepts and key dilemmas, and a second part presents solutions and directions meeting the key questions and dilemmas. In brief, the paper warrants more focus, edge and structure.