Reviewer comments:
However, some claims require stronger evidence. For example, the paper states that central RSE units can improve grant success, institutional reputation, employee satisfaction, and research quality, but these claims are largely supported by examples, logical arguments, or small-scale observations rather than systematic empirical evidence. The survey of 12 RSE units is useful, but its size is limited and should not be used to support broad generalizations without stronger qualifications. The authors have noted that further study is needed, but this limitation should be more explicitly explained in the discussion and conclusion.
To make this article more scholarly, the authors should clearly distinguish between evidence-based findings, expert opinion, and recommendations. They should also add more empirical support, where available, especially for claims about improved software quality, reduced brain drain, better funding acquisition, and institutional competitiveness. If such evidence is not available, these claims should be softened and framed as plausible benefits rather than proven outcomes.
Reviewer comments: