A Review of Service Design Pedagogy to Identify Potential Added Value to Product Innovation in Higher Education

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

We would like to thank you for the time and attention you have given to our manuscript. Based on your comments, we have refine the abstract, provide more details on research methods and proceduresm, strengthened the bibliometric analysis and highlighted the research questions. We expect these revisions to address all of the reviewers' concerns. In order to response to your comments clearly, we first quote each concern and then provide our response.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: [This article conducts a bibliometric analysis and review of the impact of service design pedigree on product innovation in higher education, which has some significance for related research. However, the authors could consider improving the following aspects.The abstract appears redundant, and the authors need to refine it.]

Response 1: [We would like to thank you for this suggestion. We realize that there are some synonymity expression. We have refined the abstract carefully, for instance, we have delete some sentences, such as ”Our study aims to review current literature on service design pedagogies to identify how it might contribute to enhancing product innovation teaching.” Besides, we move the sentence “There is a gap in the service design literature on how it’s way of teaching can enable better product innovation if introduced within product innovation degrees.” line 17,18.] 

Comments 2: [The research question needs clarification. The authors simply chose a research field as the object but did not delve into the development of cutting-edge research.]

Response 2: [Thanks for this comment. We realized that research questions in the paper did not focus on the development of cutting-edge research, so we have revised the research questions. Please find it in line 69-72.]

Comments 3: [For some core terms, this study should provide a clear definition in one sentence, such as service design pedigree and product innovation, including the derivative terms. It is necessary to point out the definition differences between this study and the prior research.]

Response 3: [Thank you for your suggestion. We have added three tables (Table 1-3) to give clear definitions of Service Design, Product Design, and Product Innovation. We have also redefined the concepts in our study and more clearly differentiated between our study and prior work. Please see 2.1,2.2, line 100-106, 137-143 for example.

In addition, we also concerntrate on some derivative terms, such as “service design education for sustainability ” (Please see 2.1, line 104-106). We also explain the terms such as “product design for sustainability”(Please see line 139-141).]

Comments 4: [Furthermore, it is best to raise research questions in the introduction rather than in section 3.]

Response 4: [Thanks for this comment. We have now moved the research questions at the close of the introduction rather than in section 3.]

Comments 5: [The structure of the paper is very chaotic. The authors seem to misunderstand the bibliometric analysis with the literature review analysis.]

Response 5: [We would like to thank you for this comment. We have now separated the literature review from the bibliometric analysis. Please see the changes in sections 4.3.1 to 4.3.4. We have set out the main changes in the table below:]

Table 1

[We have now deleted “The analysis of the papers revealed that service design and innovation are key elements of service design pedagogy, which aims at adding value to product innovation in higher education.”in part 4. Further, we also moved some sentences in part 4 to the part 5, we have set out the main changes in the table below:]

Table 2

Comments 6: [The results of the bibliometric analysis are presented too little, with only one figure, and there is insufficient interpretation of the bibliometric results. The authors should discuss the specific implications of bibliometric figures or tables in conjunction with future research.]

Response 6: [We thank you for this suggestion. We realize that it is necessary to provide more detailed results from the bibliometric analysis, thus, we have added 4.1, 4.2, and Figure 2, Figure 3. We have also added further analysis in the results section, which illustrates the origins of the discussion themes. It’s easy to know the research current situation and trends from the map, which are profitable for the future research.]  

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

 [We would like to thank you for the time and attention you have given to our manuscript. Based on your comments, we have provide more details on research methods and proceduresm, improve the language issues. We expect these revisions to address all of the reviewers’ concerns. In order to response to your comments clearly, we first quote each concern and then provide our response. ]

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the work a significant contribution to the field?

Is the work well organized and comprehensively described?

Is the work scientifically sound and not misleading?

Are there appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work?

Is the English used correct and readable?

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: [The paper is well-structured and effectively conveys the study's purpose, methodology, and initial findings. The article is generally clear and coherent, presenting a logical flow of ideas. However, some areas could be improved. 

Comments 1: Research Gap

The research successfully identifies a gap in the literature related to service design pedagogy and its potential impact on product innovation in higher education. This gap highlights the significance of the study, as it seeks to address this underexplored area.]

Response 1: [We would like to thank you for your comments as well as suggestions for improving this manuscript. After revision, we do feel that this manuscript has been largely strengthened.] 

Comments 2: [Research Design and Methodology

The paper should provide more detail about the research design and methodology employed in the study. While it mentions an analysis method was adopted, it does not elaborate on the specifics of the entire study research method. A brief overview of the research design would give readers a better understanding of the study's approach. Overall, the paper effectively outlines the research objectives, highlights the research gap, and briefly mentions the methodology. Additionally, some minor language improvements could enhance clarity and precision.]

Response 2: [We would like to thank you for this suggestion. We realized the previous research design and methodology employed in the study lack of details. Based on this comments, we have carefully rephrased the design method in order to help readers to understanding the study’s approach. We attempt to clarify how and why bibliometric analysis was chosen. Please find it in 3, line 192-196. Besides, we added Figure 1 to presents paper selection process.] 

Comments 3: [Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is written in clear and understandable English. However, there are some minor language issues that could be improved for enhanced readability and precision. For instance, even in the abstract, the phrase "product design through wider value considerations" could be more explicit, and the sentence "This study begins to illustrate..." might benefit from greater specificity.]

Response 3: [Based on this comments, we realized that the there are some minor language issues need to improved. We have improved the written English throughout.]