The aim of the paper to discuss how and why nodality can change in a digital world is interesting, as it is the need the authors stress to re-discover and actualize nodality as a tool of government. However, exactly because nodality is a tool of government, it is not clear at all how it could be referred to citizens unless it is made clear what citizen mean in the discussion. Who gets nodality in the digital world? Citizens as specific individuals? Citizens as groups? Citizens as non-governmental organizations? Citizens as private sector organizations? The paper does not provide a clear answer to these questions, and this raises some problems I list below.

In the digital, platform based, world citizens are nodes in a network. In that network nodal nodes can emerge that assume nodality IN THAT NETWORK. Platforms and networks are not complete peer-to-peer systems. Interactive platforms (networks) are implemented on technological platforms that are not citizens-owned. Where, then, is nodality? in the network? in the focal nodes of the network? in the platform owner? I think that much more critical thinking is needed when discussing problems of nodality.

In the paper it seems that citizens’ nodality refers to the capacity of citizens to “spread information themselves, make their voices and opinions heard on an ongoing basis (not just at election time), and undertake ‘tiny acts’ of democratic engagement, which can scale up and collectively force policy change”. While it is certainly true that citizens (even individual citizens) can spread information within a network of citizens, it is quite simplistic (even wishful thinking) to claim that this can collectively force policy change. Can the author give examples of this? Is there something we can learn from the so-called Arab-springs?

Nodality is obviously related to centrality in a multi-agent system (network). Of course, individuals can have nodality in a network of individuals; but how can this interact/interfere with the nodality of government?

What seems lacking in the authors’ discussion of nodality in the digital world is that centrality within information networks is only one aspect of nodality. Nodality also relates to power in the information age.

If, citizens develop greater nodality, thus challenging the government nodality, the resulting system will be polycentric. This raises the problem of how power can be re-distributed. In the paper this aspect of nodality is not discussed and this, in my view, represents a serious weakness.

The authors often exemplify citizens nodality with reference to participation exercises. Citizens’ nodality can really simply be reduced to online participation? the relation between nodality and participation could be interesting to investigate, but this would require a much more deep analysis

Some specific points

Page 3, line 3: this paper’s first sets out  this paper first sets out
Page 4, line 24: work nodality considered  work nodality is considered
Page 6: lines 36-48: It seems that the authors’ view of the use of ICT in government is quite outdated and simplistic. What about the extensive literature on e-government? The authors’ view of the government use of digital technologies was true maybe 10-15 years ago. Things have changed quite radically, at least in the developed countries. Much work has still to be done by governments to achieve a high maturity level in the use of technologies, but the authors description is oversimplified and almost caricatural.
Page 7, lines 2-7: This quite optimistic view of the impact of technologies on participation has not been confirmed after a decade (or more) of extensive use of interaction platforms, social media and crowdsourcing. Nodality is not just the availability of information; it is also the capacity (and power) to decide what information to use and how. This aspect of the government's nodality has not been impacted by the (supposed) rising role of citizens as information providers.
Page 7, line 14: Are the authors sure that the nodality concept has to be reinvented? Maybe is less ambitious saying that it needs to be updated, refined, reinterpreted in the digital world
Page 8, lines 16-20: if citizens are vulnerable to misinformation, then that there are other more nodal agents (information providers) in the system beside government and citizens
Page 8, line 56: How can the authors consider “recent work” a paper published in 2005. In general, many references in the paper are quite updated
Page 9, line 8-12: wishful thinking!
Page 17, line 33: What does it mean that citizens accumulate nodality? citizens collectively or individually?
This is a further example of a general weakness of the paper. It should be explained how individual 'nodality' (which has little or no effect at the system level, but at most at the local level) can become "citizens' nodality", which can have system level impacts.

Thank you for your answers to my comments and recommendations. I found them adequate and convincing. In my view, the paper has been sensibly improved in the revised version and it can now be accepted for publication.