Geography of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and Regional Innovation: Empirical Evidence and Policy Design
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe proposal presents interesting results from a very extensive and well-documented study. Methodologically, it appears to be sound. However, it requires some corrections and improvements:
1. The title does not mention the region covered by the study, while the abstract refers to Europe. In fact, however, it concerns the countries of the European Union. This should be indicated in the title. Furthermore, Europe cannot be equated with the European Union, as this is misleading. It would be good to make the title more specific. It suggests that the study concerns the geographical distribution of higher education institutions, but in fact, it has a much broader scope. In addition, the error in the title should be corrected: ‘Higher Education Systems (HEIs)’: either ‘Higher Education Institutions (HEIs)' (which seems most appropriate) or ’Higher Education Systems‘ without the abbreviation. In that case, however, it should be clarified what the authors mean by ’higher education systems'.
2. Line 26: should be ‘Acs et al. ’
3. Lines 59-60: There is no need to write at the end of the introduction what the introduction is about.
4. Figures 2, 7, 8 and the figure on page 27 are illegible and need to be corrected graphically.
5. Lines 430-431: The description ‘Table 7 represents the geography of higher education in European regions, i.e., the way in which HEIs contribute to the innovation performance of their own regions’ is misleading. In fact, the table contains categorisation proposals according to the Boston Consulting Group (line 434). This categorisation is very arbitrary and adds nothing to the study. It is not entirely clear on what hard criteria it is based. It does not seem scientific. It would be good to remove this section (lines 430-443) along with Table 7, as it adds nothing to the study.
6. Figure 12: What is the criterion for selecting regions?
7. Since the authors use diacritical marks in the names of regions in the tables (pages 28ff), this should be done for all names. Why are Polish regions not written in their original spelling?
Author Response
Corrections and improvements requested Ref 1
- Q1 The title does not mention the region covered by the study, while the abstract refers to Europe. In fact, however, it concerns the countries of the European Union. This should be indicated in the title. Furthermore, Europe cannot be equated with the European Union, as this is misleading. It would be good to make the title more specific. It suggests that the study concerns the geographical distribution of higher education institutions, but in fact, it has a much broader scope. In addition, the error in the title should be corrected: ‘Higher Education Systems (HEIs)’: either ‘Higher Education Institutions (HEIs)' (which seems most appropriate) or ’Higher Education Systems‘ without the abbreviation. In that case, however, it should be clarified what the authors mean by ’higher education systems'.
R1 It was specified that these are European regions and the term Higher Education Institution was used
Q2. Line 26: should be ‘Acs et al. ’
R2 has been corrected
Q3. Lines 59-60: There is no need to write at the end of the introduction what the introduction is about.
R3 has been corrected
Q4. Figures 2, 7, 8 and the figure on page 27 are illegible and need to be corrected graphically.
R4 Figures 2 and 8 have been enlarged and made more legible; for figure 7, during final editing, we will work with the editors to determine how to make the figure more readable
Q5. Lines 430-431: The description ‘Table 7 represents the geography of higher education in European regions, i.e., the way in which HEIs contribute to the innovation performance of their own regions’ is misleading. In fact, the table contains categorisation proposals according to the Boston Consulting Group (line 434). This categorisation is very arbitrary and adds nothing to the study. It is not entirely clear on what hard criteria it is based. It does not seem scientific. It would be good to remove this section (lines 430-443) along with Table 7, as it adds nothing to the study.
R5 We would have opted to keep Table 7, explaining in the text that it is a descriptive and intuitive interpretation of the results in Figure 8.
- Figure 12: What is the criterion for selecting regions?
R6 There was no selection. They are all regions, but since there are 168, there is a problem with visibility within the figure. During final editing, we will work with the editors to determine how to make the figure more readable.
Since the authors use diacritical marks in the names of regions in the tables (pages 28ff), this should be done for all names. Why are Polish regions not written in their original spelling?
R7 has been corrected
Finally, we would like to take this opportunity to thank the referee for his useful advice, which has led to a significant improvement in our work.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Congratulations on your thorough study!
The article is well-structured, starting with an overview of the study. The analysis of the specialty literature is comprehensive, highlighting previous conclusions that offer a solid background for the present study. The research methodology is clear, with carefully chosen specific aims and methods. The detailed presentation of the data processing underscores the conclusions driven regarding the model depicted and the description of possible types of regions and the possibilities of influencing the outcomes through specific policies.
However, there are some aspects regarding the language (see line 150, 275) or references (see line 146, 163) to be checked. Also, the footnotes on page 6 could be removed as there is no need in this study for a theoretical explanation of the procedures used.
The Appendix should be uploaded as supplementary material, not integrated in the body of the article and the data absolutely necessary for a primary understanding of the research should be presented in the study not in the Appendix.
Author Response
Q1 However, there are some aspects regarding the language (see line 150, 275) or references (see line 146, 163) to be checked. Also, the footnotes on page 6 could be removed as there is no need in this study for a theoretical explanation of the procedures used.
R1 The corrections have been made as indicated.
Q2 The Appendix should be uploaded as supplementary material, not integrated in the body of the article and the data absolutely necessary for a primary understanding of the research should be presented in the study not in the Appendix.
R2 During proofreading, the best way to use the appendix will be discussed with the editors. I find the advice given very pertinent.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank the referee for his useful advice, which has led to a significant improvement in our work.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
First of all, I would like to commend the authors for tackling an important and timely topic—the role of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in regional innovation systems. The paper is well-structured, methodologically sound, and contributes to the ongoing discourse on the intersection of education, innovation, and regional development. The empirical evidence presented is robust, and the policy implications are clearly articulated. That said, I have several suggestions to enhance the manuscript’s clarity, impact, and rigour.
1. Abstract and Keywords
The abstract is too brief and does not fully capture the richness of the study. A more detailed abstract—summarising the research questions, methods, key findings, and policy implications—would help readers quickly grasp the paper’s value.
Additionally, the keywords are too limited (only three). Including terms like “Higher Education Institutions,” et al. would improve discoverability in academic databases.
2. Tables and Presentation
The tables could be improved for readability and conciseness:
Some tables contain excessive detail that might be better suited for an appendix.
Formatting adjustments would enhance professionalism.
3. Literature Review and ReferencesThe literature review is comprehensive but could benefit from: More recent references (post-2020) to reflect the latest debates in regional innovation and HEIs.
A clearer theoretical gap—while the paper notes the lack of integration between spatial dynamics and policy frameworks, this could be sharpened.
4. Methodology & Data
The use of Partial Least Squares Regression (PLSR) is well-justified, but: The data sources for HEIs and regional innovation metrics could be described in more detail.
A brief discussion of why PLSR was chosen over alternatives would be helpful.
5. Policy Implications
The policy section is strong but could be more actionable. For example:
The call for a “holistic approach” is vague—could specific governance mechanisms be proposed?
The paper might briefly address counterarguments.
6. Minor Points
Clarity: Some sentences are overly dense (e.g., p.3: “The interactions among these agents are characterized by continuous, reflexive communications…”). Simplifying such phrasing would improve flow.
Typos: A few minor grammatical errors should be corrected.
Overall, major Revision (to address the above points). With these improvements, the paper has the potential to make a contribution to the field.
Author Response
Q1 Abstract and Keywords
The abstract is too brief and does not fully capture the richness of the study. A more detailed abstract—summarising the research questions, methods, key findings, and policy implications—would help readers quickly grasp the paper’s value. Additionally, the keywords are too limited (only three). Including terms like “Higher Education Institutions,” et al. would improve discoverability in academic databases.
R1 Abstract and Keywords are improved
- Tables and Presentation
The tables could be improved for readability and conciseness:
Some tables contain excessive detail that might be better suited for an appendix.
Formatting adjustments would enhance professionalism.
R2 The readability of the tables and figures has been improved by enlarging them. During proofreading, the best way to make Figures 7 and 12, which are difficult to read, more legible will be discussed with the editors.
Literature Review and ReferencesThe literature review is comprehensive but could benefit from: More recent references (post-2020) to reflect the latest debates in regional innovation and HEIs. A clearer theoretical gap—while the paper notes the lack of integration between spatial dynamics and policy frameworks, this could be sharpened
R3 Literature review is improved with recent references, A clearer theoretical gap has been added
- Methodology & Data
The use of Partial Least Squares Regression (PLSR) is well-justified, but: The data sources for HEIs and regional innovation metrics could be described in more detail.
A brief discussion of why PLSR was chosen over alternatives would be helpful.
R4 The indication of data sources and the reasons for choosing the PLSR have been added.
- Policy Implications
The policy section is strong but could be more actionable. For example:
The call for a “holistic approach” is vague—could specific governance mechanisms be proposed?
The paper might briefly address counterarguments.
R5 The section has been improved.
- Minor Points
Clarity: Some sentences are overly dense (e.g., p.3: “The interactions among these agents are characterized by continuous, reflexive communications…”). Simplifying such phrasing would improve flow.
R7 Done
We would like to take this opportunity to thank the referee for his useful advice, which has led to a significant improvement in our work.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has undergone substantial revisions and now largely meets the publication standards of Sustainability.
