This is a well written and designed paper that speaks to an important area for reflection. Our roles as both scientists, concerned advocates for climate action and our roles as government's trusted friends. These are extremely challenges paths to tread, especially if you have to tread them all. I would have liked to have seen more of a discussion bringing these findings back to a wider academic literature on science for evidence informed policy making and how this research sits in the wider context of mid and disinformation, the dismantling of science in some countries, and the concerns over the future of climate and environmental policy making. 

I suggest that a final reflection brings in wider literature and embeds these findings from  Danish perspective into the wider discourse on the role of science for policy making and the current trends in geopolitics and perhaps provides an indication to whether this is a Danish perspective or one that has lessons for other countries? Perhaps drawing on current discourse about scientists motivations and emotions in the climate space - would also elevate a final discussion section. 

I am glad that authors flag that they were unable to really pull out trends relating to the various roles across boundary work, but this would have provided some useful insights contrasting those who worked in government funded institutes versus perhaps Universities where you might consider there is space for advocacy. 

It would have also been good to see a discussion relating to how scientists do advocate but in the translation and knowledge exchange of research across policy lines. I would argue we do this by providing an evidence base for government to make informed decisions.

Ultimately I really enjoyed reading this paper, and would have no issue it being published as is. If there is time and scope to address (even in a small way) my suggestions above that would be great. An interesting paper, on an important topic that is less discussed than it should be. 

This is a well-written and interesting paper addressing an important and underexplored issue: how researchers in government-funded knowledge organizations navigate their roles as scientists, civil servants and citizens in relation to climate advocacy. I particularly appreciated that the findings do not reduce participants to being either for or against advocacy, but instead show how independence, objectivity, credibility and responsibility can provide arguments both for and against engagement. Finding an appropriate balance in how climate-related science is communicated and how researchers engage with policymakers, political actors and the wider public is an important and timely challenge.

I would support publication, with a few suggestions that I think could strengthen the discussion and conceptual clarity:

• Develop the proposed “value-based approach”. The abstract suggests that researchers should delineate their roles and responsibilities more clearly, following a value-based approach, but I did not feel this was sufficiently developed in the Discussion. The findings provide a good basis to discuss what this might mean in practice, considering researchers' personal values, their roles as researchers/civil servants/private citizens, institutional expectations and scientific credibility. This could also include some reflection on the different ways researchers can contribute to society and policy, such as providing scientific evidence, policy advice, knowledge exchange, public communication or activism, and how these might be navigated within personal and institutional constraints.
• Clarify the terminology around advocacy and activism. The distinction between advocacy and activism is not always clearly maintained throughout the paper, with some activities appearing to be described under both terms. A brief definition of these terms and their relationship to the broader concept of engagement would strengthen the conceptual framing and ensure their consistent use throughout the manuscript.
• Minor typographical error. In line 190, under Section 3.1.3, the sentence reads, “They ought it impossible to engage in advocacy...”. I believe “ought” should be “thought”.

Overall, I found this to be a valuable and thought-provoking contribution on an important topic. These suggestions are primarily intended to help draw out the implications of the findings more fully and improve conceptual clarity. I do not see a need for fundamental changes to the study design.

The study also raises an interesting question for future research: whether similar tensions and considerations would be found across the broader landscape of research and knowledge organizations in the Netherlands, particularly in organizations with different relationships to government. This would provide an interesting opportunity to explore how different institutional contexts shape these considerations.