Frugal Innovation and Patent Analysis in Sericulture: Lessons for Sustainable Rural Bioeconomy Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall Assessment

The manuscript has merit, the methodology is robust and well-documented, the data are compelling, and the discussion effectively contextualizes the results within broader socioeconomic and policy frameworks.

The main areas for improvement are refining the language for clarity and academic impact, enhancing the hypotheses, and ensuring that conclusions are formulated objectively.
Suggested alternative title: “Frugal Innovation through Patent Analysis in Sericulture: Lessons for Sustainable Rural Bioeconomy Systems.”

1. Quality, English Language, and Style
1.1. The manuscript is grammatically correct, but could be improved for better flow, conciseness, and academic tone. For example:
a) Replace “risk of exclusion of traditional communities” with “tendency to marginalize traditional producers.”
b) "This study connects both perspectives, examining whether silk production patents address the dual challenges of resource inclusion and circularity..." could be improved by "This study connects these perspectives, analyzing silk production patents to determine their alignment with the dual goals of resource inclusion and circularity."
c) "The contrast becomes more stark when compared with regions where silk production remains a traditional small-scale subsistence activity..." -> "This contrast is most pronounced in regions where sericulture remains a traditional small-scale subsistence activity, such as Southeast Asia, Latin America, and Africa, which are largely absent from the patent landscape."
d) In terms of word choice and formality, use "assesses" instead of "observes."
Use "predominantly" or "overwhelmingly" instead of "widely."
e) Replace "very" with "numerous."
f) "This logic extends directly to the next cluster..." -> "This technological paradigm extends directly to the next cluster..."
g) Break up long, complex sentences to improve readability.

2. Clarity of Hypothesis
2.1 The central argument of the manuscript is clear, but it is presented more as a research question or objective than as a testable hypothesis. Strengthening it will sharpen the focus of the article.
a) Implicit Hypothesis: Technological innovation in silk production, reflected in patents, is predominantly oriented toward industrial-scale production and does not meet the needs of small-scale rural producers, thus excluding them from the benefits of the circular bioeconomy. Suggested refinement: explicitly state this in the Introduction. For example: "We hypothesize that the global patent landscape for silk reeling technologies between 2000 and 2024 exhibits a strong industrial bias, with minimal consideration for the frugal and circular principles necessary for their adoption by rural smallholder communities. This study tests this hypothesis by evaluating 212 patents against a six-criteria framework: resource efficiency, knowledge accessibility..."

3. Relevance and Contribution to Current Knowledge
The contribution is significant and well-articulated. Using patent analysis to critique technological trajectories in a traditional agricultural sector is innovative. It effectively connects the often siloed concepts of frugal innovation (social inclusion) and circular bioeconomy (resource efficiency). It provides a critical, evidence-based counter-narrative to the assumption that technological advancement automatically benefits all actors in a value chain.

3.1. Suggestion: in the Introduction and Discussion, contrast your work more forcefully with existing literature. For example: "While previous studies have focused on the biological aspects of silkworm rearing or the socioeconomic role of silk [add citations], few have critically examined the direction of technological innovation itself. This article fills this gap by using IP data to reveal systemic biases."

4. Data and Methods Consistency
The methodology is transparent, reproducible, and appropriate to the research question. Minor clarifications could further improve it.

4.1 Improvements:

Include a concise flowchart summarizing the database search -> screening -> inclusion (such as a PRISMA-style overview).

You mentioned that 15% of the sample was re-screened with identical results. It would be more effective to frame this as a measure of coding consistency rather than simply "identical results."

Consider mentioning whether this was done by the same researcher or a different researcher to demonstrate robustness.

In Table 1, clarify that this was a binary assessment (present/absent) based on the abstract, not a scaled measurement.

Figure 2: The quantitative summary could be more explicit: add the total number of patents per cluster and their percentage distribution.

Figure 4: The description of how the links were established is good, but in the figure caption or in the methods, briefly describe the methodology (e.g., "Links were drawn if a patent within a cluster contained at least one explicit mention related to a specific criterion").

5. Discussion
The discussion is comprehensive and well-structured. It interprets the results and connects them to policies, institutional roles, and broader economic theories.

5.1 Suggested Improvement: You could briefly discuss the commercial incentives (or lack thereof) for large companies to develop cost-effective technologies. Why would a company investing in automation patent a low-cost, repairable device? This reinforces your point about the need for public policy and university intervention to correct this market failure.

6. Objectivity of Conclusions
The conclusions are supported by the data. The key is to ensure that the language is thoughtful and avoids overstatement.

6.1 Refinements:

Instead of "This trend has important implications," you could say "This trend suggests significant implications...".
Structure Conclusions as Derived from Evidence. Ensure that each conclusive claim is directly supported by your results. For example, the claim about the erosion of cultural practice is a logical extension of your findings but is not directly measured by your patent data. It is acceptable to include, but frame it as an implication: "The marginalization of these producers in formal innovation trajectories threatens not only economic opportunities, but also, we argue, cultural heritage and social resilience."

Add a theoretical conclusion: that patent landscapes can serve as diagnostic tools to assess inclusion in technological transitions.

7. Additional Suggestions:

7.1 Summary and key contributions: The manuscript is a review that aims to extract information from patent databases about the bioeconomy of the silk industry. The main contribution is that the patent database reveals clear efficiency increases in the production and processing stages due to technological advances. However, these advances are not accompanied by socio-environmental and cultural concerns.  

7.2 Methodology, analyses, and conclusions:
The method is reasonably well described, but could be greatly improved by indicating in more detail the clustering/association procedures shown in Figures 2, 3, and 4.
The analysis can be more comprehensive if the figures are presented numerically in tabular form.
The conclusion can be improved by considering alternatives to address market failures.  

7.3 Feedback for improvements:
Excessive number of keywords. Choose up to five, not the same ones already presented in the manuscript title.
Citation scheme: Check the journal's guidelines. For example, [2] [3] -> [2,3].
Figure 1 can be omitted or combined into a table relating category vs. country in absolute numbers of patents.
Figure 2: Include cluster numbers in the legend, for example, Cluster 1: Drying/Vaporization. Explain and clarify in the methods section how the clusters were derived.
Figure 3: Explain in the methods section the procedure used to create the association represented in Figure 3. The pie chart can be omitted with the numbers presented and discussed in the text. The figure can also be converted into a table relating suitability vs. "frugal bioeconomy criteria" in absolute numbers of patents.
Figure 4: May also be more useful as a table with the number of patents relating technology vs. bioeconomy criteria. Patents are filed by industrial interests to protect commercial exploitation of an invention. Argue for not also exploiting scientific publication databases such as SCOPUS, Web of Science, etc.
Lines 640-41: "...the exclusion of small communities from technological design raises critical concerns." This is a valid concern, but there are alternatives not addressed by the authors, such as ESG, Geographical Indication, or Designation of Origin, to cope with the asymmetries generated by efficient large-scale industrial production. The manuscript could benefit from also exploring these aspects as alternatives.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Improve academic language. Revise for conciseness, formality, and fluidity, focusing on the abstract, introduction, and conclusion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript highlights that sericulture, while supporting the livelihoods of rural communities in Asia, Africa and Latin America, faces a significant technological gap. The study analyzes recent technological patents in the field and highlights that most innovations are focused on energy-intensive and mechanized technologies, thus excluding traditional communities and their specific needs. The scientific methods are rigorous, starting from empirical analysis, statistical and comparative methods, time series analysis, modeling and economic forecasting, but there are a few recommendations that the authors would find useful to take into account:

1. Include comparative studies between traditional and industrial sericulture and an analysis of how these models coexist, collaborate or compete.
2. Technology transfer is mentioned as an issue, but it would be necessary to introduce studies that analyze barriers to technology transfer, such as lack of infrastructure, low technological literacy, or lack of institutional support.
3. What is the overall ecological impact of sericulture in previous studies?
4. How can patents perpetuate inequalities in access to technology?
5. How can sericulture be valued and protected through cultural initiatives, living museums, or certifications of traditional regional products?
6. The research method is well structured, logical and transparent, integrates technical, social and sustainability dimensions, aligned with the theme of the paper and uses modern and valid tools for analysis (patents, manual coding, digital visualizations). I suggest a clearer formulation of the research question in the Material and Methods section to anchor the methodology in the study's intent.
7. The titles of the cluster sections should not only be informative, but more explicit, suggesting the content of the subsection. It would be of interest to analyze the causes for which frugal innovation is so little represented.
8. Introduction of subtitles within the Discussion section, to separate the major themes and a more emphasized concretization through examples.
9. The text of the conclusions can be adjusted, including a short summary with the main recommendations and key conclusions. The role of universities and public policies is important and can be more detailed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper adopts a novel research perspective by integrating patent analysis, frugal innovation, and the circular bioeconomy framework to assess the alignment between sericulture technology development and the realities of small-scale rural production, holding significant theoretical and practical implications. However, I believe the following revisions are essential for publication:
First, the classification criteria for patent “applicability” (Categories A/B/C) require more detailed explanation regarding their reliability and validity. For instance, it should clarify whether multiple reviewers independently coded the patents and calculated inter-rater reliability to minimize subjective bias in classification.
Second, Figures 3 and 4 present evaluation results, but the core finding—that the vast majority of patents (83%) are unsuitable for rural contexts and all six criteria received extremely low mention rates—is crucial. The discussion section should engage more deeply with existing literature on the “innovation gap.” In other words, the discussion lacks necessary comparative analysis, obscuring the differences between this study and prior research.
Third, the article's references are disorganized and citations are inconsistent. Some include DOIs while others do not, and certain references cannot be located or are non-academic papers. Comprehensive revisions are required.
Fourth, the policy recommendations section mentions the roles of actors such as governments and universities. It is suggested to supplement with specific, actionable intervention examples—such as public R&D funding programs for frugal innovation or open innovation platforms—to enhance the practical guidance value of the recommendations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors followed most of the recommendations correctly, thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe this manuscript is publishable after revision.