Innovation in Peripheral Regions from a Multidimensional Perspective: Evidence from the Middle Pomerania Region in Poland
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of peripheral regin innovation is a fairly common topic in the literature.
The authors refer to the document from 2010 "Europe 2020", which is the old strategy of development until 2020. The year is 2022, there is no reference in the article to the reliazation of the objectives of the document and contemporary reflection.
The authors conducted a survey in 2020 on a sample of 300 companies. The year 2020 marks the beginning of a global pandemic and the collapse of the existing system of both innovation support and business operations. This topic is not mentioned at all in the research.
Four hypotheses posed in the article are verified by means of one question each. This is not a meaningful result.
Since 2020 there have been such dramatic changes in the functioning of the market that we can consider the research from 2020 as hitorical. However, they are a good starting point for comparative studies.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper is about innovation in peripheries with a particular emphasis on the experiences of entrepreneurs and their situation in regional innovation systems. The empirical material is based on a survey of entrepreneurs in the peripheral region of Middle Pomerania, Poland. The topic is relevant and the methodology sound, however, as the paper stands, I find major issues in all sections that warrant revision and careful consideration to the scope and framing of the paper overall, as well as engagement with current discourses and literature. I note a lack of current references to the RIS literature from the past 15 years and an outdated policy context (Europe 2020) used to frame the paper as well as a lack of academic insight from the survey results. Therefore, the submission needs major revisions throughout. The points below on the specific sections are meant to help the authors find their directions for developing the paper.
While there could be a case made on the connection between RIS and sustainability, the paper currently draws no connections to sustainability discourses, therefore is a poor choice for the journal.
Abstract
The writing style of the abstract is not compelling and makes a rather negative impression. Instead of reporting in a passive and repetitive way (the aim is…, the theoretical approach was…, answers were sought…, an attempt was made…), the sentences could be combined and made more complex: e.g., “This article assesses barriers and indicates policy orientations for innovation systems in peripheral regions, by operationalizing the concept of regional innovation systems in the peripheral region of Middle Pomerania, Poland. Based on a survey of 300 entrepreneurs in the region, … [lead to findings, etc.]”. The abstract should go further to present the main findings, theoretical contributions and direction for further research. “An attempt” suggests that the findings were insufficient, so please reconsider the wording. Please think of ordering the content roughly according to problem, theory, methodology, analysis, results, discussion and conclusions. The final sentence about survey methodology is out of place.
Introduction
The introduction is well written in comparison, but misses key authors and developments in the EU innovation discourse. It is hard to justify, for example, not acknowledging mission-oriented innovation policy (see Mazzucato) and related aspects like directionality of innovation in the contextualization of innovation systems and policy in the EU. The presentation of Europe 2020 (a strategy from 2010!) is correct, but it has since been replaced by the European Green Deal, which goes deeper into green growth and green innovation. As such, the reliance on Europe 2020 for framing the policy context is outdated. If smart specialization is truly a central concept to the paper, then more references are needed to its theoretical origins (Foray, etc.) and debates in EU policy discourses (could alternatively be addressed in section 2). Attention could also be paid to the particular framing of specialization for peripheral regions, since there is already a rich literature on this topic that can be used to set the relevance of this study. At present the references chosen are rather general and not the most relevant.
Research questions are articulated for the study. What is interesting, is that they center on the geographical characteristics of the region, while the study does not explicitly position itself in the field of economic geography, which seems to apply (especially discourses in evolutionary economic geography). By being more explicit about this and relating to current academic discourses in the introduction, the paper could be more effectively framed.
The hypotheses that follow the research questions and the verification method are rather weak. Given the type of article and empirical material, the article would stand better without attempting to rely on hypotheses – more theoretically motivated approach to the interpretation of survey data. Hypotheses should be better justified by the literature, and the literature used is out of date.
Line 41- “growth of concreteness” – what is meant by this?
Line 49- “has created” – the tense suggests that Europe 2020 is still the most valid strategic document. In fact, it has been replaced by the European Green Deal.
Line 51- reference [2] – here it would be relevant to cite the original EU document rather than (or in addition to) an analysis of it.
Lines 80-92- This paragraph is unnecessary. It could be replaced with 2 sentences laying out the order of the article, but it should avoid summarizing. It reads mainly as information that could appear in the abstract.
Concept of regional innovation systems
As stated for the introduction, there is a lot of literature that could be brought into the discussion of RIS, particularly for the EU policy context. If the authors intend to be selective, then the references chosen still aren't necessarily the best. Tödtling and Trippl, Lundvall etc. can be considered the ‘required reading’ but according to the current development of the literature, are only a starting point. See, for example, recent literature on green path development, actors, institutions and agency. The current discussion, I’m afraid, is too elementary, but it can definitely be updated in the scope of the research that was conducted. To be understandable to the wide readership of Sustainability, you could address it by condensing the foundations of RIS and comparing (“jump”) to the current discourses of RIS in the EU policy context – what are the main questions facing researchers now, and does your study address them?
What do we know about the peripheral system of innovation
This is a burgeoning area of research, but it wouldn't be shown in the selection of references. While the section is instructive, reliance on Lundvall 1992, Autio 1998, etc. as the basis for this section seems highly inauspicious. Preferably, the section could be condensed to cover foundations in a few sentences and then elaborate on what is interesting for your study. Use of Lundvall’s model does not necessarily mean it should be explained in detail – it would not be a “contribution” of this article to the literature, and it’s not clear for the reader yet why they should be reading about every aspect of it. The reader could be drawn in better if pointed to the parts of the model that need research and are addressed by the study. It is not immediately clear why the study should seek to unpack all aspects of the model at once and if the survey is a sufficient instrument for that.
Note that it is also becoming less accepted to reproduce a figure/model directly without showing a contribution to its further development. In theory, the section works without the figure. This reinforces the fact that what could rather be emphasized are specific aspects of the model that are addressed in the study. (see later on using it in the methodology instead)
References 21, 22, 23 – addressed in the literature as “research has begun…”. The statement and references do not capture recent research, as the references date from 1999-2006. Please look within the past 5 years to show understanding of the current literature. The section also refers to the “new approach to the study of innovation” but is in fact discussing the past 20 years and, as far as I can see, contains no current or recent sources. This is a major problem. The section should be rewritten and updated with current sources.
Materials and Methods
The premise is correct in stating that there is a research gap concerning the identification of conditions for peripheral innovation systems. This statement would fit very well in the abstract and introduction. However, for this paper, it should move beyond this to be more specific and acknowledge all the ongoing work in this field.
The introduction of peripheries as a relational concept is interesting and, I suggest, could be expanded into a nice subsection in the theory/background, perhaps relating to Lundvall’s model and enabling the identification of key aspects of interest for the study in a more indirect way. The definitions and classifications, on the other hand, are less interesting and could be minimized - these are not needed to justify Central Pomerania as a relevant case. The other references 36-49 presumably justify its peripherality in the Polish regional system, hence we don't need the statistical classifications.
The study refers to the assessment of “regional potential” without acknowledging the extensive work of the European Commission, JRC, ESPON, etc. towards this on the NUTS 2 & 3 levels, which would be relevant to understanding the potential of this region. This must be corrected.
The information in Table 1 could be enriched and made more informative by comparing with regional averages or some kind of benchmark.
Results
The results section is the most specific regarding the aim of the study: “to understand the conditions of a peripheral innovation system for enterprises to conduct innovation activities that are not related to the innovation process.” With this in mind, the front half of the paper could be more precise with the problematization at hand and state of the art, limiting the scope of literature to enterprises in peripheral regions rather than RIS in general. As pointed out earlier, there is a lot of recent literature published on this in the last 5 years that the article hasn’t located at all. The latter half of the aim (bold italics) is puzzling, however. On one hand, it would be great to focus the earlier sections of the paper on entrepreneurial aspect. On the other hand, I do not understand what is meant by innovation activities not related to innovation processes (indirect/informal learning and experience?). I note that the research questions could have been more specific to address this aim. With these points in mind, the introduction and theory sections should be re-written.
Fig. 3 informs mostly on the research design and not the results. It could be more interesting to find it in the methodology section, where explanation of the model would not be necessary, only justification of why you use it. E.g. “we adopt Lundvall’s model of regional innovation systems to identify the key areas of inquiry and structure the survey questions…” The explanations on page 10 are not particularly interesting or novel results, so I would like to see a more academic discussion around them. The literature referred to (50-53) could have been introduced in section 2 under a narrower framing of the paper.
Survey results are reported with a good sample. While Table 3 is sufficient, the authors could consider also showing the results graphically for a stronger impact. The explanation on page 12 is straight-forward, but the relation to theory is lacking. As mentioned earlier, the formulation based on hypothesis verification is rather weak. Ideally the survey should be followed up with in-depth qualitative research to enrich the results and enable a more academic discussion. I am conflicted whether the survey alone makes a scientific contribution warranting publication, so I challenge the authors to enrich the next version. At least, the results need to be better situated in the literature and make a theoretical contribution to the state of the art, which is missing.
Conclusions
The conclusions could be reframed as Discussion and Conclusions to enable a theoretical contribution here. The aim stated is again not particularly in line with the earlier sections. The statement that “scientific work on the assessment of…” is incorrect – the authors haven’t shown awareness of the literature or indices developed to measure RIS, regional competitiveness, entrepreneurship, etc. which all exist and are widely used.
The peripherality issue is interesting and can definitely be elaborated with respect to RIS and EU policies. This is an active area which the authors have missed by not citing any recent research.
The final conclusions restate what has been known for decades, that “preconditions for the development and implementation as well as transfer of innovation differ significantly between the centre and the periphery.” They indirectly point to the place-based approach which has been the orientation of EU regional policy since the mid-2000s. The authors need to reconsider the contribution of their study.
The limitations are discussed outside the scope of the study, therefore are not necessarily relevant. Rather, I would like to know what hindered the validity of the survey, and what would the authors like to do next? What research gaps have been opened by the study? The focus on SMEs has been identified as a limitation, but this could absolutely be justified by the literature and EU policy orientation in the early framing of the study - SMEs have been a key focus of policy at least since the financial crisis and is therefore not a shortcoming.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is well written and high-quality article that delivers valuable information. The layout of the model and the questionnaire are well designed. Hypotheses are explained and well-argued. The conclusion supports the idea and the findings.
In overall I found this manuscript with not many suggestions therefore I can prove it as it is. Good luck!
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
the authots implemented required changes. Aticle is ready to publish.
Author Response
We would like to thank for your time, valuable comments and efforts towards improving our manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have responded well in updating the literature and situating their research with the current RIS and EU policy landscape. In identifying with the European Green Deal, they have addressed the shift from innovation/growth to sustainable development which makes the study more relevant for the journal generally. The rewritten and restructured introduction, theory and methods sections have greatly improved the framing of the paper. Well done!
While I generally agree with the changes made in the manuscript, I have listed below specific points which the authors should address as minor revisions before it is ready for publication.
- Lines 42-46: This paragraph presents the scientific and policy consensus of innovation policy well and rightly alludes to the place-based approach. However, to strengthen these statements, it would be appropriate to add some references to show that it is not only the authors’ opinion (I believe these references are already included in the text but could be repeated here). If it is referring to reference [2] in the previous paragraph, then the paragraphs could be joined as one.
- Line 47: Wording, perhaps «Mission orientation is what currently binds…»
- Line 73: Wording, perhaps «…between urban and rural areas and between centres and peripheries.»
- Line 84-103: very good!
- Line 104: «concept of research proposed…is based on looking…» could this be phrased more concisely?
- Line 126-147: These paragraphs contain some eclectic points which in my opinion are not necessary for the introduction, and the function is mixed between summarizing the paper and laying out the order of the paper. In my opinion, the introduction should avoid summarizing the paper, so lines 128-141 could be removed. Note the questionnaire is also mentioned before the research questions, so there is some repetition.
- Line 152: Suggest to rephrase Cooke as «the regional level of innovation policy has long been considered the most appropriate…» and join with next paragraph.
- Line 165: clarify if «the authors» is referring to the authors of this article or those cited as [27, 19, 38, 47, 48]
- Line 172-174: This is very interesting to point out, and I look forward to more research in this area
- Line 210: again, «the authors» is referring to yourselves or those cited in the text?
- Line 215: same, regarding «the researchers»
- Line 226: You may consider a break with a new heading or subheading to signal a switch that seems to be occurring, toward the objects of study in RIS research that will inform the authors’ research approach (actors and institutions, human and social capital, knowledge resources, networks, etc.) (delete breaks at lines 247-248?)
- The first two sentences of Section 3 are repetitive and could be combined.
- The new presentation of materials, methods and scope (Section 3) is very effective
- Line 371: In my opinion, the sentence could be removed or repositioned before Figure 2.
- Line 431: wording of «most often» could be misleading in the sense that 42% is still less than a majority. Perhaps rather «most highly reported»
- Line 504: by «this document» are you referring to your study? If so, then it could be identified more strongly
- Lines 591-596: This paragraph is important but rather hidden in the middle of the section. I think it could be moved to the beginning of the section and rephrased more strongly as a contribution: «This paper supports the stance that there is no «ideal model» for innovation policy and shows empirically that the preconditions for the development, implementation and transfer of innovation differ significantly between central and peripheral regions…»
- I support the long format conclusions, but would prefer the heading to be «Discussion and Conclusions» since it does include the first interpretation of the results from the previous section. It would be possible to add a subheading at line 597 to the effect of «Limitations and future research directions» as an aid to the reader.
Minor grammar and punctuation details to check:
- Stray spaces in in-text citations, e.g. [4_] should be deleted
- Line 75: «development» is redundant
- I am not sure the paragraph break at line 107 is needed
- Line 188: «Second - …» comma rather than hyphen
- Line 192: e.g. not eg
- Line 209: check periods and brackets
- Line 219: missing period
- Line 257: delete stray bracket
- Line 411: «…knowledge generation, knowledge diffusion…» ?
- Lines 414-426: delete extra lines
- Line 487: [i]nner peripheral areas
- Reference numbering is duplicated in the final list and has been thrown off due to the duplication of ref [5]
- Tables: check numbering of tables and their references in the text
- Table 3 in the Results section should be labelled as Table 4 (?) and reference in text updated from Table 2 to Table 4 (?)
- There seems to be an issue with Table 4’s formatting and placement. Perhaps the line spacing could be reduced (it looks to be set at 1.5 or double spacing) to fit the table on one page
- It is generally useful to reset the language as a last step, run a final spell check and do a «search and replace» for common inconsistencies, e.g. «-ize» vs. «-ise» words
Author Response
We would like to thank for your time, thoughtful comments and efforts towards improving our manuscript. We have made changes in the text in accordance with the comments and hints.
