Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review aims to provide hints for the main  directions for a sustainable Blue Economy. The work is interesting. I only have  one question. 

All results are qualitative. Can the authors get some quantitative results through literature review ?

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Quality of English Language

(x) The quality of English does not limit my understanding of the research.
( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. This review aims to provide hints for the main  directions for a sustainable Blue Economy. The work is interesting. I only have  one question. All results are qualitative. Can the authors get some quantitative results through literature review ?

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the qualitative nature of the results. While the majority of the articles analyzed do not contain quantitative results, and the data that does exist is not directly comparable, we have incorporated quantitative insights into the paper. Specifically:

1. A regional trend analysis (section 4.2)  and distribution of focus areas (e.g., stakeholder engagement, maritime clusters) across the reviewed literature were included in Section 4.3.11.
2. Visualizations in the form of a radar chart highlight the proportion of studies addressing key elements. This diagram aims to provide a quantitative overview, enhancing the depth of the analysis.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I find the work very interesting and easy to read. Each of the key elements and barriers identified could be the core of a separate paper. Some suggestions and comments for improvement can be found below.

·       Line 51-53: the sentence ‘and governments in various countries’ does not seem to fit. Perhaps a rephrasing is needed.

·       The authors use a lot the word ‘like’ instead of ‘such as’ which is more appropriate

·       Chapter 2: How were the keywords selected?

·       Chapter 3.1: L.196-198 there is something wrong with the sentence

·       In 3.1 we would expect a commentary on the variety of the existing definitions. What are the differences in literature, which are the factors that differentiate them?

·       The connection of blue economy with the SDGs in chapter 3.1 fits more in chapter 3.2

·       Chapter 3.2: L.270. As the authors mention, there are a lot of definitions for Blue economy that can be found in literature. Here the authors could perhaps emphasize on what sustainability means for blue economy instead of providing a general definition

·       I am not sure that figure 5 brings an added value to the paper. The text describing the figure is straightforward and, to my opinion, does not require and graphic presentation.

·       Although in 3.3 there is an extensive emphasis on the importance and role of innovation we can find it also in 3.1 and 3.2. Perhaps innovation should not be a part of the discussion in 3.1 and 3.2

·       Chapter 4: It would be interesting to include a short analysis on how many of the 98 papers are addressing/tackling these key elements or in general the issue of innovation and the barriers that prevent its adoption. This could be done in the form of diagrams. This way the reader will understand how the authors came up with this list of key elements.

·       Given that the paper is based on systematic literature review I would expect an analysis of gaps in literature in terms of addressing the challenges described in chapter 4.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Quality of English Language

(x) The quality of English does not limit my understanding of the research.
( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

1. I find the work very interesting and easy to read. Each of the key elements and barriers identified could be the core of a separate paper. Some suggestions and comments for improvement can be found below.

Response: Thank you for the positive feedback. Each of the comments provided has been carefully considered, and revisions were incorporated into the manuscript accordingly. Below is a detailed response to each specific point.

2. Line 51-53: the sentence ‘and governments in various countries’ does not seem to fit. Perhaps a rephrasing is needed.

Response: This sentence was revised for clarity:

“This approach counters the consequences of resource-wasting production practices that contribute to risks, crises, and developmental instability. Governments in various countries have adopted policies and strategies to mitigate these challenges by fostering sustainable practices and promoting innovation in sectors like marine biotechnology and renewable energy.”

3. Chapter 2: How were the keywords selected?

Response: A paragraph was added to clarify this. Keywords were selected through a preliminary exploratory review to capture intersections between sustainability, innovation, and the Blue Economy. Figure 2 provides a visual summary.

4. Chapter 3.1: L.196-198 there is something wrong with the sentence

Response: The sentence was corrected

5. In 3.1 we would expect a commentary on the variety of the existing definitions. What are the differences in literature, which are the factors that differentiate them?

Response: A new paragraph was added to Chapter 3.1, emphasizing the differences in the definitions of Blue Economy found in the literature.

6. The connection of blue economy with the SDGs in chapter 3.1 fits more in chapter 3.2

Response: This content was moved to Chapter 3.2 to improve thematic coherence.

7. Chapter 3.2: L.270. As the authors mention, there are a lot of definitions for Blue economy that can be found in literature. Here the authors could perhaps emphasize on what sustainability means for blue economy instead of providing a general definition

Response: An additional paragraph was added to clarify the concept of sustainability in the context of the Blue Economy.

8. I am not sure that figure 5 brings an added value to the paper. The text describing the figure is straightforward and, to my opinion, does not require and graphic presentation.

Response: We acknowledge your concern but believe that Figure 5 visually represents the dynamic relationship between innovation, market creation, and sustainability. Its inclusion enhances understanding for visual learners and illustrates the interconnectivity of the elements discussed.

9. Although in 3.3 there is an extensive emphasis on the importance and role of innovation, we can find it also in 3.1 and 3.2. Perhaps innovation should not be a part of the discussion in 3.1 and 3.2

Response: References to innovation were minimized and retained only where essential for thematic cohesion.

10. Chapter 4: It would be interesting to include a short analysis on how many of the 98 papers are addressing/tackling these key elements or in general the issue of innovation and the barriers that prevent its adoption. This could be done in the form of diagrams. This way the reader will understand how the authors came up with this list of key elements.

Response: A radar chart and analysis were added in Section 4.3.11 to quantify the focus areas of the reviewed papers. This addition clarifies how the key elements were identified.

11. Given that the paper is based on systematic literature review I would expect an analysis of gaps in literature in terms of addressing the challenges described in chapter 4.

Response: A new subsection titled "Identified Gaps in the Literature" was added to Chapter 4, highlighting thematic, methodological, and regional gaps and offering recommendations for future research.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research direction of this article is very good, and the blue economy is currently thriving.However, the research methods used in this article are relatively limited. It is recommended to increase research methods, enrich research content, and deepen research resultsAt the same time, marine engineering equipment and marine technology play an irreplaceable and important role in the development of the blue economy. However, this article does not reflect this point, and it is suggested to discuss it around this pointThe image quality of this article is poor and the resolution is low. It is recommended to redraw it.What impact will the development of artificial intelligence and machine learning have on the future trend of the blue economy?What are the differences between Asia, Europe, and North America in the development of the blue economy?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English expression in this article is not professional and academic enough .Suggest the author to use engineering English expressions to polish the content of the article throughout.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Quality of English Language

( ) The quality of English does not limit my understanding of the research.
(x) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

1. The research direction of this article is very good, and the blue economy is currently thriving. However, the research methods used in this article are relatively limited. It is recommended to increase research methods, enrich research content, and deepen research results

Response: Thank you for your kind feedback on the research direction and the importance of the Blue Economy as a thriving area of study. We appreciate your suggestion to enhance the research methods and deepen the analysis.

In this article, we employed a systematic literature review (SLR) as the primary research method to synthesize existing knowledge and identify trends related to the role of innovation in the Blue Economy. The SLR approach allowed us to systematically analyze a broad range of literature, highlight key themes, and address gaps in the current understanding of how innovation drives sustainability and economic growth within marine-based industries. While this paper primarily employs a systematic literature review, the manuscript was revised to include quantitative insights (e.g., literature distribution analysis).

We acknowledge that incorporating additional methods, such as quantitative analysis or stakeholder interviews, could further enrich the findings. In fact, as a follow-up to this SLR, we are currently conducting surveys with key actors in the Blue Economy sector. These surveys aim to gather empirical data and stakeholder perspectives, which will be analyzed and presented in a subsequent article to deepen and complement the findings from this study.

2. At the same time, marine engineering equipment and marine technology play an irreplaceable and important role in the development of the blue economy. However, this article does not reflect this point, and it is suggested to discuss it around this point.

Response: A discussion was added to Section 3.3, highlighting the irreplaceable role of marine engineering and technology in advancing sustainable practices.

3. The image quality of this article is poor and the resolution is low. It is recommended to redraw it.

Response: All images were created within the Word document using SmartArt and shapes, ensuring original quality.

4. What impact will the development of artificial intelligence and machine learning have on the future trend of the blue economy?

Response: Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the potential impact of artificial intelligence and machine learning on the Blue Economy. We agree that these technologies hold significant potential for shaping future trends, particularly in areas such as fisheries management, maritime transport, and renewable energy. However, as our study focuses on established innovations and is grounded in the available literature, we have not included an in-depth analysis of AI and ML in this article as we do not have this information from the articles in study. We consider this a promising avenue for future research and appreciate your suggestion, for this reason a paragraph was added to the conclusion on this topic.

5. What are the differences between Asia, Europe, and North America in the development of the blue economy?

Response: A full subsection was added to Chapter 4, comparing the approaches of Asia, Europe, and North America to the Blue Economy, focusing on their unique strengths and challenges.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English expression in this article is not professional and academic enough. Suggest the author to use engineering English expressions to polish the content of the article throughout.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback on the quality of English. The manuscript has undergone significant revisions to improve clarity, flow, and academic rigor. Additionally, the main author, who is a native English speaker, has thoroughly polished the content to ensure its consistency with professional and academic standards.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It can be accepted now

Author Response

Thank you!