Cultivating Sustainability: Quebec’s Living Labs as Ecological Catalysts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work of Labo et al. discusses the concept of living labs in the specific contest of Quebec. The cut given to the paper seems more focused on policy and societal aspects, which are fields I am not an expert of but that are covered by this journal. However, in my opinion the chosen methodology is quite poor and does not justify such a long manuscript. Additionally, the manuscript was provided without line numbers so that it is quite difficult to provide specific feedback. Some general comments that may aid the authors to improve the manuscript are reported below.

 

Abstract. Specify what are the avenues for future research that stems from this work

Page 2. Please explain what a living lab is. It is mentioned that this is a novel concept but it is not explained what the concept is. There is a sort of definition too late in p.6., and I am not sure that “open innovation” is sufficiently clear.

Section 2 is quite long and needs some sort of graphic or Venn diagram like Figure 1

Section 3.1. Is 9 papers a sufficiently large number? If living labs are not a sufficiently developed concept it is not clear what would be the benefit of proposing a review on the concept. The methodology does not seem nearly strong enough to yield representative literature. If I understood properly the authors followed blindly the results of a Google search without critically assessing those results.  Web of science and Scifinder are not mentioned, the number of citations is often a skewed or biased metric, table 1 and table 2 are unappealing if not useless, etc. etc. Also, some details are not relevant, for example that articles had to be requested to the authors.

As mentioned, the interviews are qualitative. A qualitative data can be of support of a strong theoretical framework, but that is not the case for this paper that seems to lack of either a theoretical or experimental methodology. The number of interviews is not reported so that mentioning “theoretical saturation” is not necessarily relevant (if one had conducted only a couple of interviews could have not possibly reached saturation). There should be some sort of data repository for the interviews and they should be catalogued

 

The discussion is extremely long and needs a very patient reader to sift through what the actual finding of the investigations are. Same comment goes for the conclusion that is 2 and a half page long.

 

I don’t think SNM was defined the first time it appeared in the text

I did not evaluate the chosen references as I am not sufficiently proficient in this field

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper reads well overall

Author Response

In my opinion the chosen methodology is quite poor and does not justify such a long manuscript.

• The methodology has been revised, and the article has been condensed. The literature review conducted is not a systematic literature review but a narrative literature review. Therefore, it has been moved to the "literature review" section as it actually represents the state of the art on the subject. This forms the basis of the research. The aim was to gain a comprehensive understanding of the LLs topic, identify definitions, methodologies, and especially characteristics, as well as identify gaps in the existing literature in order to use this information for my ultimate goal, which is to understand sociotechnical experiments in the case of LLQ.

The manuscript was provided without line numbers so that it is quite difficult to provide specific feedback.

• Line numbers have been added.

Abstract. Specify what are the avenues for future research that stems from this work.

• Including a summary of future research avenues stemming from this work would significantly lengthen the abstract in terms of length. These avenues have been detailed in the discussion and conclusion sections

Page 2. Please explain what a living lab is.

• The definition of the Living Lab has been incorporated within the literature review. Please see line 115.

Section 2 is quite long and needs some sort of graphic or Venn diagram like Figure 1

• The second section has been condensed. The preliminary research on LLs has been integrated into Section 2, as it essentially constitutes a state-of-the-art analysis on LLs.

Section 3.1. Is 9 papers a sufficiently large number? If living labs are not a sufficiently developed concept it is not clear what would be the benefit of proposing a review on the concept. The methodology does not seem nearly strong enough to yield representative literature. If I understood properly the authors followed blindly the results of a Google search without critically assessing those results.  Web of science and Scifinder are not mentioned, the number of citations is often a skewed or biased metric, table 1 and table 2 are unappealing if not useless, etc. etc. Also, some details are not relevant, for example that articles had to be requested to the authors.

• The mentioned tables have been removed, and the methodology has been modified.

As mentioned, the interviews are qualitative. A qualitative data can be of support of a strong theoretical framework, but that is not the case for this paper that seems to lack of either a theoretical or experimental methodology. The number of interviews is not reported so that mentioning “theoretical saturation” is not necessarily relevant (if one had conducted only a couple of interviews could have not possibly reached saturation). There should be some sort of data repository for the interviews and they should be catalogued

• Changes have been made. See line 172.

The discussion is extremely long and needs a very patient reader to sift through what the actual finding of the investigations are. Same comment goes for the conclusion that is 2 and a half page long.

• The preliminary research has been separated from the results. The results have been refined and the length has been reduced. A brief conclusion has been established.

I don’t think SNM was defined the first time it appeared in the text

• The SNM definition has been included. Refer to line 85.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study includes a research on the use of LL in the agricultural field. The study examines research conducted after 2017.

Dividing the study into headings such as Literature section, Preliminary research, Empirical research and evaluation can strengthen the context.

In the study, first an in-depth literature review was conducted. In the first stage, 37,000 results were compiled from 5,730,000 data. In the experimental part, 4 interviews (from relevant people) were held. It is stated that SNM results are determined according to 3 components and 10 sub-items.

It is expected that the "research design" will be explained more clearly and the problem will be presented more clearly in the study. It can be explained which parameter the data classification and subsequent interviews question in this data classification. It can be explained in more detail how the correlation was established between 4 interviews and 37,0000 results. Statistical data can be added.

The research covers the years 2020-2023. It may be more appropriate to state the COVID-related impact as post-COVID pandemic.

In the bibliography section, 1 reference dated 2023, one reference dated 2022 and 5 references dated 2021 were used. The meeting was held in 2023. It may be more appropriate to submit studies dated 2020-2023 for the requested referenced evaluations of the article.

Author Response

Dividing the study into headings such as Literature section, Preliminary research, Empirical research and evaluation can strengthen the context.

• The study has been subdivided into the following sections: Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology (empirical research), Results, Discussion, and Conclusion.

It is expected that the "research design" will be explained more clearly and the problem will be presented more clearly in the study. It can be explained which parameter the data classification and subsequent interviews question in this data classification. It can be explained in more detail how the correlation was established between 4 interviews and 37,0000 results. Statistical data can be added.

• The methodology has been revised, and the article has been condensed. The literature review conducted is not a systematic literature review but a narrative literature review. Therefore, it has been moved to the "literature review" section as it actually represents the state of the art on the subject. This forms the basis of the research. The aim was to gain a comprehensive understanding of the LLs topic, identify definitions, methodologies, and especially characteristics, as well as identify gaps in the existing literature in order to use this information for my ultimate goal, which is to understand sociotechnical experiments in the case of LLQ.
• The methodology has been reformulated to be more understandable and transparent.

The research covers the years 2020-2023. It may be more appropriate to state the COVID-related impact as post-COVID pandemic.

• The lockdowns due to COVID-19 took place at the beginning of 2020, which corresponds to the period of the project launch.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a revised version of an earlier manuscript. The authors did not provide a text with highlighted changes so that the reviewer cannot follow which changes were effectively made.

While not being an expert in this specific field and therefore not being able to comment on the chosen references, this manuscript still feels like an extremely long and redundant policy thesis chapter, with very little quantitative information. From analyzing the conclusion section I could not identify any actual conclusion or advancement of the field. If the authors feel there is a contribution they can publish the manuscript, but in my opinion it is not clear what that contribution is. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The changes are satisfactory