Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The Abstract could be redrafted to be clearer that this article is essentially a systematic literature review on the topic of Patent Box regimes since 2010.   There are acronyms that need to spelled out even in the Abstract in my view. 

In the Introduction, suggest the authors provide an example of a company using a Patent Box regime to illustrate the concept.  

The definition of Patent Box in the first in  in Section 2 would be better placed in Section1 Introduction.   

The reader needs to get a sense if the focus of your paper is EU, UK or worldwide literature earlier on. 

Good historical analysis of the development of the Patent Box tax incentive as a tool. 

Discussion in section 5 is rather cursory /weak.  Suggest the authors, having identified the literature actually provide more conclusions as to the positive (or negative) effects of the PB regimes eg which countries demonstrate the most positive effects (UK?).  

Conclusion section in section 6 is also unsatisfying in that the statement "This work can guide the future research agenda on a tax incentive for R&D and update the Patent Box Case'  doesn't really provide any concrete suggestions. 

My point is that, having systematically reviewed and studied the literature, the authors could consider more granular and detailed conclusions eg to assist companies as to whether to bother with PB  and/ or from the policy maker or tax regulator perspective.   Perhaps a few extra paragraphs.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

First of all, I appreciate the opportunity to review your paper What’s happening with the Patent Box regimes? A systematic review.   Suggestions for paper improvement are below:

·      * The abstract is not well written. The most important findings must be listed.

·      * Keywords should include: review, literature review, or SLR.

·      * The review paper should not just be a list of what everyone has done but should identify trends and gaps in the literature and offer suggestions for furthering the field relative to the specific phenomenon, with a VERY STRONG CRITICAL VIEW AND VERY STRONG METHODOLOGY.

·       *This kind of paper must have a very clear methodology (journals, keywords, databases). There are numerous papers for methodology (see Suggested References).

·       *Research question should be better formulated (line 60)

·       *It is necessary to understand the purpose and aim of the paper as well as its "position" in relation to previous research (also gap analysis).

·       *The separate section Practical and theoretical implications (or Discussion) is missing. The existing section Discussion is very modest. This confirms the lack of scientific and practical contribution.

·       *The paper should be more critical and exploratory.

·      * The paper lacks scientific research rigor, the research steps are not systematic and objective.

·       Scientific contribution of this paper is  questionable.

• The Conclusion section is not on a satisfactory level. Clearly state your unique research contributions in the conclusion section. Future research should be extended.
• Research limitations should be presented in the Conclusions.
• Technical problems:
• The paper should be prepared in accordance with the template
• Table 2 is not organized well. In this form, it is better to show it at the end of the paper.
• The quality of figure 1 is very low

Suggested References

Denyer, D. & Tranfield, D., (2009). Producing a systematic review. In D. Buchanan & A. Bryman (eds.) The sage handbook of organizational research methods. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, 671-689.

Kilibarda, M., Andrejić, M., & Popović, V. (2020). Research in logistics service quality: a systematic literature review. Transport, 35 (2), 224-235.

 

Morashti, J.A.; An, Y.; Jang, H. A (2022) Systematic Literature Review of Sustainable Packaging in Supply Chain Management. Sustainability, 14, 4921. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper should be accepted for publication.