Innovative Development of Russian Regions: Assessment and Dynamics in the Context of Sustainable Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much to the author for addressing and revising the previous questions. There is still a minor issue or a need for further modification. However, the insufficient aspects of the research should be explicitly listed.

Author Response

Dear expert, we have fixed everything as much as possible. The restrictions are taken into account and written in a separate paragraph. Taking into account the recommendations of other experts, the article has been further modified.

Dear expert, Thank you so much for your valuable recommendations

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Compared to the earlier version, the article has been significantly improved. The biggest problems are formal issues: an untranslated fragment (lines 332-340), single Cyrillic characters (beginning of line 478), etc. The text itself, as the title suggests, compares the sustainable development of individual regions of Russia. The proposed approach has some original features and shows how to effectively conduct this type of comparison in the case of such a large country. Therefore, the analysis can constitute comparative material for research on other countries. Considering that no similar study on Russia has been written so far, the article deserves publication. In the current version, the literature review, description of methodology and other elements in the text structure meet the minimum standards used in such a situation.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

An untranslated fragment (lines 332-340), single Cyrillic characters (beginning of line 478), etc.

Author Response

Dear expert, Thank you so much for your valuable recommendations 

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

What is the main question of the study?

The article has been significantly revised, but the research question (or questions) is still not presented. The goal presented is to assess the innovative development of Russian entities in 2010-2020.

Is it relevant and interesting?

The problems raised are interesting, and the authors emphasize that the innovative development of Russia's regions guarantees their sustainable development.

Is the text original?

The text is original, but there are some shortcomings described below.

Is the article well written?

The article is written quite correctly.

Is the article clear and easy to read?

The article is easy to read.

Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments?

The conclusions are rather a summary. They should be presented as short conclusions and, above all, add recommendations resulting from them.

Do they address the main question asked?

As noted in the previous observation. The conclusions relating to the USA, Germany, Japan... have nothing to do with the research being conducted.

I suggest including the following tips in the article:

1. The purpose and research questions (to be completed) should be included in the Materials and methods section.

2. The purpose and research question should also be included in the Abstract.

3. The authors refer to the study hypotheses (593-594), but precise hypotheses are not presented in the text of the article, so they should be presented in Materials and methods and then verified in the Results.

4. The article contains a paragraph in Russian (332-340), it must be translated into English. In line 478 there is a "B" at the beginning of the sentence, what does it refer to?

5. In the Conclusions section, the summary aspect should be limited and the focus should be on the conclusions resulting from the research conducted.

Author Response

Corrected

An untranslated fragment (lines 332-340), single Cyrillic characters (beginning of line 478), etc.

Dear expert, Thank you so much for your valuable recommendations

As noted in the previous observation. The conclusions relating to the USA, Germany, Japan...

• removed from the text of the work
• We agree with the respected expert. Since the scientific hypothesis was not presented, we have removed this aspect in the conclusions.
• the text has been translated into English
• the rest of the points have been fixed

Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper should be accepted.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

.

Author Response

Dear expert, Thank you so much for your valuable recommendations

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors of the article, the point the materials presented are relevant from a scientific and practical point of view, however, there are certain questions and recommendations for finalizing the article:

1. In the literature review section, I would like to see the position of the authors on the essence of the category of innovative development of the region and innovative activity. Questions in determining the category arise due to the results of testing that are not entirely clear; methods have been proposed for the regions. innovation or novelty is new to a region, or to a country, or to an entire community. Innovations must be developed in the region or innovations are acquired new technologies and, on the other hand, introduced in a specific region. It is not entirely clear what kind of innovation and innovative development we are talking about. Therefore, it is also important to describe the essence of innovation, and to write the nature of the origin of innovation, which is taken into account when assessing innovative development.

2. in the methods section, I would like to see such approaches for assessing the innovative development of regions. There is no scientific controversy about existing methods. The indicators that are taken into account in the proposed methodology are not entirely clear and are not sufficiently reasoned. I would like a substantiation of the author’s position on the use of these indicators and indicators. What indicators are used by other authors for innovative development. How does your method differ from other existing methods, what are the disadvantages of other methods and why did you propose your method. I would like to expand these aspects on the part of the authors.

3. In the results section It is not entirely clear the number of regions that were identified as a result of the analysis point What number of regions should be in each cluster point Why in 2010 there was one number in the first cluster, in 2020 This number increased two and a half times point What are the contributing factors there were factors that made it possible to increase the level of innovative development of the regions. I would like to see a factor analysis of the impact on the innovative development of regions. In addition, the position of the authors is important as the innovative development of the region contributed to the overall innovative development of the country. According to the results obtained by the authors, it turns out that the level of innovative development of the regions has increased over 10 years. At the same time, the innovative development of the country in the context of other countries increased slightly and was superior. there is an information gap and inconsistency point. In order to understand the data inconsistency, I would like to expand the analytics.

Author Response

Correct

 

Question about the number of clusters:

Dear expert, according to Table 3 and Figure 4, which show the dynamics of innovative development, it can be seen that

In 2010, cluster 1 included 11, cluster 2 – 21, cluster 3 – 24, cluster 4 – 24 entities. Whereas in 2020 there were changes – cluster 1 – there was an increase and became 15; cluster 2 - increased by 3; cluster 3 - became 22 (the number decreased) cluster 4 – also decreased by 5 subjects and became 19. This indicates a positive trend, an increase in the level of innovative development of the subjects of the Russian Federation. Of course, we can provide a table with figures (the level of innovative development) for 2010 and 2020, but this will also increase the volume of the article by 3 pages. There is a calculated index of innovative development.. Is it necessary? We have presented the maps and the legend for them. Everything is very well shown.

Table 3 illustrates Clusters of innovative development.

the question of expanding analytics.

They gave a description of each cluster

We believe that our calculated data and description of the subjects according to the level of innovative development, and this was the goal, are quite representative in the work.

There is no data discrepancy. The number of clusters cannot be the same. The calculations were carried out according to official statistics, so the number of clusters varies according to the calculations. As the data on innovative development changed, the calculated data also changed. There is an increase in indicators of innovative development in Russia. Accordingly, the number of clusters has changed in 2020.

Dear expert, the conclusions have been adjusted.

The question of factor analysis - this question has been placed in the limitations of the article due to the large volume. This aspect will be considered in the next article using static research methods, in particular corellia, nonparametric methods and imitation modeling.

However, we indicated in the conclusions which factors influence the level of innovative development of Russian regions.

In Russia, spatial unevenness arose primarily in the socio-economic sphere under the influence of objective and subjective factors. Objective factors include the unique territorial differentiation and the specifics of the settlement of the population, which were decisively influenced by the natural climatic conditions of residence. Subjective factors are associated with the socio-economic policy pursued by the state, which sets priority directions in sectoral and territorial development, as well as with the action of regional authorities to implement federal priorities, including innovative development.

At the same time, the innovative development of the country in the context of other countries increased slightly and was superior.

Since one of the experts recommended to exclude comparisons with other countries, we did it.

The conclusion is corrected

ed

The concept of innovation and innovative development is revealed.

Dear expert, we have changed the literature review, added material on innovation and innovative development. The concept of "innovative development" has been generalized from the author's point of view.

Reviewer 6 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript uses statistical tools to assess the level of innovative development of the regions of the Russian Federation. It is a topic of interest to the researchers in the related areas. which is within the scope of the journal, but there are some areas that need further modification. The paper has the potential to be accepted for publication. Before that, the authors are advised to consider the following comments and suggestions. 

 

Comments:

1. The first letter of each keyword in the keyword section should be capitalized for more standardized writing.

 

2. In the last paragraph of the introduction, it is suggested to integrate and summarize the seven viewpoints agreed upon by researchers 40 years later, and merge the relevant ones to list the main and key three to five points.

 

3. Is the font color red in the fourth part of the article for highlighting or for some reason. Suggest unifying the color to black. If it is to emphasize the display, you can start a new line and write it down in the form of comments.

 

4. The title of the diagram should be centered, for example, Figure 1:Federal district of Russia.

 

5. The text format of line 283 on page 7 of the article is right aligned. It is recommended to modify it to left aligned, so as to improve the overall alignment.

 

6. On page 7 of the article, formula (2), the n in 1/n after the first equal sign, as well as the upper and lower limits of the sum sign, should be written in standard format using a formula editor, which can be easily misunderstood.

 

7. The number 4 in formula (3) I4 on page 7 of the article should be the size of the subscript, not the same size as the letter (formula (4) also), and the size of the subscript in the annotations is not standardized. It is recommended to modify and standardize it.

 

8. The font on lines 332 to 340 on page 8 of the article is not in English. It is recommended to translate it into English format.

 

9. Figure 4 on page 14 of the article should be moved to the left appropriately. The current position covers the number 457 on the right side of the page, and the source author in the name of the figure appears twice, so one should be deleted.

 

10. The last paragraph of the summary on page 20 of the article should be indented on the first line, and the line spacing should be the same as before.

Author Response

Figure 1: Federal district of Russia

it was deleted on the recommendation of the editor, because it does not carry a significant semantic load (this is a representation of the map of Russia) load. Below are the cartographies of (2 and 3) clusters.

Dear expert, we have corrected all technical inaccuracies. Thank you for your valuable recommendations

Round 2

Reviewer 6 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

none

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper investigates innovation development in the Russian region. Overall, I consider it a relatively innovative paper, and the research methods are comparatively rigorous. However, there are areas where the author should make improvements before publication.

 

Firstly, the structure and length of the paper are not reasonable. This is mainly reflected in several aspects. The abstract is too long, with excessive background information. The author should reduce the introduction of background information in the abstract, focusing more on introducing the research methods, results, and derived conclusions. The introduction section of the paper is too short and does not clearly explain why this research is conducted and what makes it unique. The paper lacks a section on research limitations, failing to list the shortcomings of the study.

 

Secondly, while the author focuses on innovation development in the Russian region, a comparison with innovation development in other countries and issues related to regional imbalances should be made. These issues are not unique to the Russian region, and other countries face similar challenges. The discussion section should address what measures other countries have taken to address similar problems.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text in its current form raises too many objections. The study has only certain cognitive values. It is not clear what hypothesis was to be proven or what research question was to be answered. The presentation of research results is very superficial. It is difficult to say on its basis whether the conclusions actually result from the analysis of the data. In many places the reader has doubts about the assumptions made and the method of analysis (e.g. lines 233-234 "critical values ​​are determined expertly..."). Justification of the choice of date range and other parameters is not sufficient. Generally, the description of the details of the methodology used and the course of empirical research is not transparent. The text is written carelessly: there are some Cyrillic characters (e.g. line 135 and illustrations 2 and 3). Tables and illustrations do not have a source description. There are unnecessary footnotes (e.g. line 254). From line 138, practically no sources from the literature on the subject are cited. The structure of the text is defective: there is no discussion section of the results (with references to the works of other authors to show the extent to which new research results expand, negate or confirm previously available knowledge), no description of the study's limitations, etc.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required (e.g. there are some Cyrillic characters etc.)

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, I appreciate the opportunity to review the paper Innovative Development of Russian Regions: assessment and dynamics in the context of sustainable development.  The paper deals with a very interesting problem.

Suggestions are below:

·        The introduction section must be rewritten.

·        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).

·        Literature review should be “refreshed” with the latest papers.

·        Applied methods should be strongly argued and compared with similar approaches. The proposed approach is questionable and trivial.

·        The results are not based on equation (1).

·        The separate section Practical and theoretical implications is missing.

·        Scientific contributions are questionable.

·        The conclusion section is not on a satisfactory level. The conclusion in scientific papers is very important.

o   Limitations of your research must be emphasized

o   Future research directions are missing.

·        The paper should be improved and rewritten in a scientific manner.

Suggested references

Străchinaru, A. I. & Străchinaru, A. V. (2014). Sustainable Development and Environmental Protection in Romania**. J. Corp. Gov. Insur. Risk Manag., 1(1), 156-175. https://doi.org/10.56578/jcgirm010109

 

Yükçü, S. & Polat, E. (2023). The Long-Term Benefits of Quality Costs in Achieving Sustainable Development: A Benefit-Cost Analysis. J. Corp. Gov. Insur. Risk Manag., 10(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.56578/jcgirm100101

Comments on the Quality of English Language

.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

What is the main question of the study?

This article does not present a research question (or questions). The goal presented is to assess the innovative development of Russian entities in 2010-2020.

Is it relevant and interesting?

The problems raised are interesting, but unfortunately the article practically does not show the impact on sustainable development.

Is the text original?

The text is original, but there are some shortcomings described later.

Is the article well written?

The article is written quite correctly.

Is the article clear and easy to read?

The article is easy to read.

Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments?

The conclusions are rather a summary. They should be presented as short conclusions and, above all, add recommendations resulting from them.

Do they address the main question asked?

As noted in the previous observation. The conclusions relating to the USA, Germany, Japan... have nothing to do with the research being conducted.

I suggest including the following tips in the article:

1. There is no reference to the author's interpretation of sustainable development, the kory is specified in the title, I suggest considering changing the title.

2. The authors say that Russia should become the leader... (lines 75-78), what is the evidence for this?, because the literature provided is not convincing.

3. The authors describe cluster management, but there is no clear reference or justification for why they do it.

4. The call to the School... (lines 142-146), but its location remains in the reader's imagination.

5. The authors say that "innovative development is therefore a condition for sustainable development" (line 167), on what basis do they think so?

6. Lack of a separate and clearly emphasized discussion, the elements of which are practically presented in the conclusions and the text of the article.

7. The main shortcoming of the article is the fact that the results are based on secondary research by other authors, and Table 3 presents certain groups (clusters) that are unknown where they come from..., on what statistical basis were they selected? Lack of formulas, calculations and appropriate inferences.

8. Bibliography numbers are not visible (black rectangles).