Role of the Project Management Office in University Research Centres

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject of the paper is an interesting one. 
Some further improvements are needed as follows:
1. Please emphasize the scientific added value of your paper in your abstract. Your abstract should clearly state the essence of the issue you are addressing, what you have done, and what you have found and recommended.
2. In the introduction, you need to connect the state of the art to your paper objectives. Please follow the literature review through a clear and concise analysis of the state of the art. This should clearly show the identified gaps and link them to your paper goals. Please argue both the novelty and the relevance of your paper objectives. Discuss clearly what the previous studies you are referring to refer to. The current regulations in the field of PMO will be mentioned.
3. The questionnaire was applied only to researchers. Authors can introduce all stakeholders to their study. In the discussion section, please link the empirical results with a broader and deeper review of the literature.
4. Please make sure that your conclusions section emphasizes the scientific added value of your paper and / or the applicability of your findings / results. Highlight the novelty of your study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper entitled” Role of the Project Management Office in University Research Centres” deals with actual and very interesting topic.  

However, I have the following comments that hopefully help the authors improve their paper:

• I suggest that the authors add a research method diagram. This will provide a snapshot of the research steps followed and will help the reader in a clearer understanding of the paper.
• The literature review must be better contextualized and be more convincing. It would be better if authors can have a table comparing the closely related works on various dimensions and clearly showing the contribution of the paper.
• The authors should convince the readers of this journal, that their contribution is so important. These issues deserve a deeper discussion: What are the managerial implications from this work? How decision or policy makers could benefit from this study. How does this understanding help (URCs) to make better decisions?
• What are the implications for theory and practice?
• What are the limitations of the study in terms of the proposed method, data used, approaches, and/or analysis? How can these limitations be addressed in future research?
• As usual a final thorough proof-reading is recommended.

I encourage the author to think along those questions and to develop this work further along those lines.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors took into account the recommendations of the reviewers, so the paper should be accepted for publication after minor revision.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has significantly improved as compared to the previous version. Indeed, the authors have made a great effort to improve it and the main weaknesses are solved.

I am also quite happy with the responses and explanations given by the authors.