Many thanks for your very specific and detailed comments in response to the the referee reports. Clearly two of the referees were very positive about the manuscript and offered comparatively minor but valuable suggestions for revision and a third referee was far more critical in their views.

I note from your responses to the specific points raised by Referees 1 and 2 that, by and large, you are happy to take these into account with minor revisions to the text by inserting appropriate qualifying and clarifying statements. In a few instances, you note that addressing some issues raised by the referees would necessitate a significant re-scoping of the manuscript, and in those areas I would agree that it is not desired or essential. In summary, from your responses I am satisfied that the revisions will suitably deal with the specifics and the spirit of the comments raised by both reviewers.

In relation to referee 3, clearly there is a more fundamental philosophical and methodological disagreement about the approach taken and the value of the arguments put forward. The essence of the critique is that the methodology adopted - qualitative content analysis - results in a reductive, ahistoricaL and simplistic discussion of the poetry. I found referee 3's comments genuine and constructive, but fundamentally opposed to the approach you adopted. Having gone through the objections of Referee 3, alongside your detailed rebuttal, I judge that it will not be possible to reconcile these without an entire re-visioning of the work, Such a re-visioning does not seem desired given the very positive responses of the other reviewers and given that this contribution is firmly in the scope of the science communication arena rather than in the field of literary criticism,

In summary, therefore, my judgement is that you should revise your manuscript to take explicit account of the comments and suggestions of referee 1 and 2, much in the way that your responses have indicated. You may like to acknowledge and perhaps take on board literary critique from Referee 3 where you feel it is appropriate to do so, recognising that others may have a similar skepticism about the quantitative methods used. However, my sense is to retain the current focus of the paper rather than attempting to re-imagine it's scope.

I look forward to receiving a revised version of the manuscript.

Thank for the revised version of the manuscript and for amending it in response to the specific issues raised by the reviewers. I am satisfied that these meet the broad intentions of most of the critical comments and note your defence of other aspects which have remained unchanged. I hope you feel, as I do, that the review process has been constructive and had sharpened the manuscript. On that basis, I'm happy for it to go forward to publication.