Prospects for Research, Development, Innovation and Technology Transfer in Romanian Horticulture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A very interesting case study. It indicates possible trends and changes, it sets trends for other universities that have been technologically neglected in recent years. Analysis of the condition carried out factually and accurately. Correct methodology, appropriate conclusions, conclusions consistent with the results. recommends for publication without corrections.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your kind review. Anyway, we improved the article according to all the reviewers’ recommendations.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper should not be considered a proper research article. It can be considered as a presentation article not even a review one. In my opinion this paper should be rejected without any further publication

Author Response

Thank you very much for your kind review. Anyway, we improved the article according to all the reviewers’ recommendations.

Reviewer 3 Report

The title „Prospects for Research, Development, Innovation and Technology Transfer in Romanian Horticulture” is representative and appropriate for the content of this article, being a new and current topic in Romania. 

The summary is very well structured, the keywords and the purpose of the paper are clearly identified, which is very important in my opinion in such a paper. The introduction, methods and results are well organized, which shows a correct and detailed documentation of the authors on this topic. There are small recommendations, such as a short language check or maybe a summary of the conclusions because in my opinion they are too extensive, but overall it is a good work.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your kind review. We checked and improved the language, the Conclusions section and generally all the article according to all the reviewers’ recommendations.

Reviewer 4 Report

In this research, the authors provided the prospects for research, development, innovation, and technology transfer in Romanian horticulture. There are some concerns related to the manuscript of this research. The authors should be addressed the following concerns to meet publication requirements:

1. I encourage you to add more detail about your core contributions in the abstract. Abstract has five-section and you should follow the best practices in your area! Please also mention the novelties in the abstract.

2. The Introduction is too long. The authors should add clear explanations about the innovation and main contributions and remove some additional details.

3. Please add a paragraph to describe the rest of the paper in the last of the Introduction section.

4. The literature review and references are too old! Now we are in 2023. The authors must study published papers since 2022. It is very important to know recent published papers' results.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your kind review. We improved the article according to all the reviewers’ recommendations. Particularly:

1. We improved the abstract with our core contribution, mentioning the novelties. Still, the journal recommendation for the abstract is to be about 200 words maximum... The point is that Romania became a member of EU starting January 1, 2007, 2007-2013 was the first programmatic period for using structural funds and aligning to the ERA (European Research Area) objectives, and the ICHAT was the most appreciated project (29 points out of 30 max) in the first round (the best among 82 projects presented in the competition, from Romania), becoming a poll of excellence in Romanian horticulture research.
2. We respected your recommendation and shortened the Introduction section by approx. 2 pages, still keeping the thread of the research.
3. We added a paragraph to describe the rest of the paper in the last of the Introduction section.

4. The objectives of the research could not exceed the period of application (2009) and implementation (2010-2016) of the project (respectively the research objectives of the project). However, we have updated the bibliographic references: there are 60 now, compared to 51 before, of which more than 20 are new references (partially replacing or updating the old ones), 60% are from the last 5 years, 84% from the last 10 years. This is an additional proof that our project and our research are extremely sustainable, its RDI&TT objectives are sustainable and, consequently, the impact of RDI&TT in horticulture in NW Region of Romania is extremely high due to the project.

Reviewer 5 Report

We are faced with an excellent and powerful article. The research is very relevant and addresses very significant issues on what concerns Romania and its development, as well as to the essential role played by universities on the country’s economic and political development. The agricultural sector – here faced from the horticulture point of view – is a decisive one concerning sustainable development as well as self-sufficiency of countries, therefore addressing this issue based on universities’ work is a very strong aspect of the article. Research, development, and innovation, combined with teaching and training of future professionals become essential factors the article deals with.

The article is well referenced and has good writing quality. It is also very well based in theoretical terms, has a competent methodological research design – very capable and proficient case study –, and a proficient use of research techniques and instruments, and its development is very competent. The collected data are exhaustive, and the discussion is remarkable, very capable, and sharp. The conclusions are very relevant and susceptible of giving insight for universities improvement and political decisions.

My congratulations to the authors and my desire of all the best for their article's future development.

Figure 1 subtitles could be improved editorially.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your kind review. Anyway, we improved the article according to all the reviewers’ recommendations.

Reviewer 6 Report

The theoretical framework presents an adequate structure and deals with all the necessary aspects for the adequate understanding of the document. However, it is recommended to include some more up-to-date citations under heading 1.1 innovation and technology transfer, since some of the citations are out of date and most of them are quite old in the field of innovation.

In the methodological section, the characteristics of the project on which the work is based are described in detail, as well as the infrastructures used. The methodological framework of the work is defined, based on the case study. On the other hand, the five indicators to be analyzed to achieve the objectives of the project are also shown.

Regarding the results, it is mentioned that the new institute contributed to the development of research, development, innovation and technology transfer capacity in the northwestern region of Romania through the lens of 5 performance indicators recorded during a period of sustainability. of

5 years from entry into use (2017-2022). However, it would be advisable to include figures that ensure compliance with these indicators, not only the description of the projects, without establishing a relationship of which projects have improved each of the indicators and at what level:

• New jobs created in the field of R&D thanks to the project (researchers and doctoral students). The total number of contracts subdivided by type of contract should be specified. • Jobs maintained in the R&D field due to the project (researchers and doctoral students). It should be mentioned what type of contracts and figures have been created with these projects and how many people are linked to each of them.

• The private contribution (eligible and non-eligible) of the university to the project. The actions that the university has taken within the project should be indicated in detail.

• International projects in which the new infrastructure was involved. This point is well developed.

• International events in the field of R+D+i+TT hosted or facilitated by the new infrastructure (conferences, symposiums, congresses, networking, matchmaking, etc.). Milestones and achievements linked to these actions should be described.

There is no heading linked to the discussion, and it is advisable to discuss the development of the processes carried out in Romania with previous works or with those carried out in similar environments.

Finally, the conclusions indicate the most outstanding milestones with the project, corresponding to the previously mentioned indicators. Without a statistical contribution, whether simply descriptive, it is very difficult to validate the aforementioned findings. However, the large number of projects mentioned show the development and involvement that the action has had in Romania.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your kind review. We improved the article according to all the reviewers’ recommendations. Particularly:

1. The objectives of the research could not exceed the period of application (2009) and implementation (2010-2016) of the project (respectively the research objectives of the project). However, we have updated the bibliographic references: there are 60 now, compared to 51 before, of which more than 20 are new references (partially replacing or updating the old ones), 60% are from the last 5 years, 84% from the last 10 years. This is an additional proof that our project and our research are extremely sustainable, its RDI&TT objectives are sustainable and, consequently, the impact of RDI&TT in horticulture in NW Region of Romania is extremely high due to the project.
2. We detailed the figures that ensure compliance with the result indicators as much as was possible. There are still a few limitations:

- today's research projects are, generally, inter- and trans-disciplinary projects, so that it is very difficult to establish a direct traceability at the level of horticultural specialty or type of employee. If you carefully study the more than 50 significant research projects centralized in Tables 4-13, you will notice that almost all of them include complex research topics and, consequently, mixed research collectives;

- the areas of horticultural specialization (vegetable growing, floriculture and landscaping, ornamental arboriculture, fruit growing and pomology, viticulture – including ampelography and oenology, horticultural products technology, genetics and plant breeding, microbiology, horticultural biotechnologies, land and cadaster measurement) are different from the areas of accreditation at the doctoral level, according to the legislation in force (Agronomy, Horticulture, Biotechnology, Engineering and Management in Agriculture and Rural Development);

- international events in the field of RDI&TT hosted or facilitated by the new infrastructure (conferences, symposiums, congresses, networking, matchmaking etc.) are inter- and trans-disciplinary, the topics are inter- and trans-disciplinary and there is almost impossible to share and assess milestones or achievements directly linked to these actions.

Anyway, all the result indicators of the project have been far exceeded.

3. The point is that Romania became a member of EU starting January 1, 2007, 2007-2013 was the first programmatic period for using structural funds and aligning to the ERA (European Research Area) objectives, and the ICHAT was the most appreciated project (29 points out of 30 max) in the first round (the best among 82 projects presented in the competition, from Romania), becoming a poll of excellence in Romanian horticulture research. So, there is no previous similar work...

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

All my concerns have been addressed well by the authors.  I recommend accepting this version for publishing in this journal.