After the Initial Start of Co-Production: A Narrative Review of the Development of Co-Production and Changes in Orientation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I have carefully read your revised manuscript. I note that you have only taken into account some of my minor comments.

However, I regret that you have not accepted the most important comment that I made to you in the original manuscript, which is the methodological section.

The main problem I see is that the mandatory third chapter "Materials and Methods" is completely missing, and that is the Achilles heel of this manuscript. As the guidelines for authors suggest, they should be described in sufficient detail to allow others to replicate and build on the published results. New methods and protocols should be described in detail, while established methods can be briefly described and cited appropriately. Due to the nature of the journal, the scientific research methods used both quantitatively and qualitatively must be described and characterized. It is also necessary to justify the meaning of their use for individual parts of the manuscript. However, do not forget the inherent need for such methods as analysis, synthesis, deduction, comparison, induction. Their meaning and use for individual parts of the manuscript should be indicated. It is impossible to write a scientific work without them.

The current work addresses this question very well:

Kaššaj M, Peráček T. 2024. Sustainable Connectivity—Integration of Mobile Roaming, WiFi4EU and Smart City Concept in the European Union. Sustainability, 16 (2):788. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020788

and

Čajková, A., Čajka, P., Elfimova, O. Personality and Charisma as Prerequisites for a Leading Position in Public Administration. Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics, 2018, pp. 199–211, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-74216-8_21

 

I think that the above works will help you to appropriately supplement your manuscript with current works indexed in the WoS and Scopus databases.

 

Good Luck     Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The subject of the article is interesting and worth describing. Compared to the previous version of the article, a lot of changes have been introduced, and the reviewer's earlier comments have been taken into account. Nevertheless, there are still elements that need to be improved.

The abstract is inappropriate. It lacks specifics, such as what methods were used, what article databases were used, what specific conclusions were reached.

The authors presented an introduction to the subject in the Introduction. The Introduction section has shortcomings. The Introduction section should provide a summary of the article's content (individual sections) at the end.

The layout of the work requires correction. The content of individual sections is not entirely correct.

In the Introduction section, you can enter subsection titles, then the content will be clearer.

In general, the layout of the article and the names of the chapters do not comply with the guidelines. The title of section 3 is inappropriate. The section 3 should be Materials and methods. This section should contain sources of materials and data. This information is presented, but it is too general. When was the review conducted, how many articles were analyzed? Additionally, the methods used should be described. This information should be presented in this order. In this section, you should present the scheme and structure of the research. There is no figure with the research scheme. The purpose of the individual research stages should also be described.

Section 4 should start on a new line (line 200).

I do not understand the separation of a separate section 5 Dynamics within the Orientation of Co-Production. This should be a subsection within section 4 Results.

The Discussion section has been prepared correctly.

The Conclusions section has been prepared correctly.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Based on a thorough review of the revised manuscript, I agree to its publication.

Reviewer

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer who evaluated our manuscript, especially in the short time available and the quick response to the revised versions. We are pleased to note that the reviewer found the manuscript to be publishable. 

 

Kind regards,

 

The authors of the manuscript

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

Dear authors,

First of all, I recommend that you carefully read the "Instructions for Authors" available on the journal's website.

In the abstract, add the goal of your scientific study, the material and methods used. It is also necessary to specify the results of the manuscript in the abstract, because only the last sentence of the abstract is relevant, the rest is a kind of (pre)introduction.

I recommend sorting the keywords alphabetically.

Unify the concepts regarding the title of the manuscript. what is it about Contribution, paper, scientific study, scientific article, review article?

In the introduction, which in my opinion is very short, it is necessary to establish/determine the reasons and needs of the scientific study. I also do not find a clearly defined main goal and secondary goals. As part of such extensive research, I expect to establish not only hypotheses, but also research questions. You will answer or reject/confirm them in a connected discussion with a conclusion.

The second chapter marked as "2. Co-production: a conceptual review" is optional, I take note, I have no reservations about it.

The main problem I see is that the mandatory third chapter "Materials and Methods" is completely missing, and that is the Achilles heel of this manuscript. As the guidelines for authors suggest, they should be described in sufficient detail to allow others to replicate and build on the published results. New methods and protocols should be described in detail, while established methods can be briefly described and cited appropriately. Due to the nature of the journal, the scientific research methods used both quantitatively and qualitatively must be described and characterized. It is also necessary to justify the meaning of their use for individual parts of the manuscript. However, do not forget the inherent need for such methods as analysis, synthesis, deduction, comparison, induction. Their meaning and use for individual parts of the manuscript should be indicated. It is impossible to write a scientific work without them. The current work addresses this question very well:

Srebalová M. & Peráček T. (2022). Effective Public Administration as a Tool for Building Smart Cities: The Experience of the Slovak Republic. Laws. 11 (5):67. doi: 10.3390/laws11050067

and 

Čajková, A., Čajka, P., Elfimova, O. Personality and Charisma as Prerequisites for a Leading Position in Public Administration. Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics, 2018, pp. 199–211, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-74216-8_21

 

The mentioned works also deal with the legal side of the matter, the addition of which will increase the scientific value of the study.

Lines 161 and 200 list "Figure 1" "Table 1", but are missing from the text. The same goes for line 470 and 520. This makes almost all of chapter 6 meaningless. In addition, the word order is incorrect. It should be correctly stated 6. Discussion and Conclusion.

In conclusion, I draw attention to the fact that, despite the fact that it is a highly specialized scientific study primarily intended for scientists and academics, it must also be comprehensible to laymen.

This is also why it is necessary to distinguish between the basic concepts of resident and citizen. Citizenship is a state-political union of a natural person with the state. For this reason, municipalities, cities, regions or self-government cannot have citizens, but they have their own residents. According to this, it is also necessary to edit the text of the manuscript itself, which requires a lot of work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper discusses the theoretical underpinnings of co-production. The paper starts with a conceptual review, followed with an overview of orientations (state, community, market domains). Afterwards, the authors discuss the pre-conditions for co-production including the motives of participants, the role of social capital and culture in shaping the phenomenon of co-production.

In my opinion, the paper lacks novelty. The notion of co-production is well-established and does not require a theoretical model. The authors discuss factors, which are well-established in the extant literature and present ideas regarding co-production, which are in line with conventional wisdom.

The paper is theoretical. It does not answer any specific research questions or test any hypotheses. It does not discuss any ideas around co-production, which would be controversial or not in line with conventional wisdom and existing literature.

Overall, lack of a hands-on research component is the major weakness of the paper.

The paper may serve as a useful introduction to the topic of co-production. The literature review is sufficient and the communication of the authors is clear.

Directions to expand / improve the paper include:

1.      Overview of application of co-production across selected countries / sectors

2.      Overview of the legal framework around co-production in selected countries

3.      Discussion of the key barriers / hurdles to the development of co-production

The role of co-production is not limited to energy transition and adjacent sectors. The authors discuss co-production in general. So I suggest keeping the discussion generic without singling out any specific sector as the focus of the paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The subject of the article is interesting and worth describing. However, the way it was done requires major corrections.

The abstract is incorrect. It lacks specifics, such as what methods were used, what article databases were used, what specific conclusions were reached.

The authors presented an introduction to the subject in the Introduction. The Introduction section has shortcomings. The Introduction section should contain research hypotheses or research questions.

There is no clearly defined scientific goal of the work.

A research gap is indicated.

The layout of the work requires correction. The content of individual sections is not entirely appropriate.

In the Introduction section, you can enter subsection titles, then the content will be clearer.

A summary of the content of individual sections must be provided at the end of the Introduction section.

In general, the layout of the article and the names of the chapters do not comply with the guidelines. Important parts are missing. Section 3 should be the Materials and methods section. This section should contain sources of materials and data. Additionally, the methods used must be described. This information should be presented in this order. In this section, the scheme and structure of the research must be presented. The purpose of the individual stages of the research must also be described.

Section 4 should be called Results. Later, you can create subsections.

Subsection titles 4.1. is non-substantive (4.1. Motives to Co-Produce). Substantive dependencies should be indicated. A similar note applies to other sections, i.e.:

4.1. Motives to Co-Produce

4.1.1. Legitimacies of Local Government

4.1.2. Motivation Co-producing Citizens

4.2. Use of Supportive Material and Financial Resources

4.3. Social Capital and the Focus on Strong and Weak Ties

The title of section 6 cannot be in this form (6. Conclusion and Discussion). This is a misunderstanding. This information cannot be combined. There should be a separate section for discussion. The Discussion section is key, the most important in the article. I understand discussion as referring to other studies after presenting your research results. In my opinion, conducting research without a clear comparison and reference to other studies means that the obtained results cannot be properly assessed. There are few references to studies. The literature review in the discussion section should be supplemented.

In the Conclusions section, you should definitely refer to the hypotheses or research questions. Can the hypotheses be verified positively or negatively? The conclusions can be listed in bullet points. Conclusions should be a synthesis. You should move on to specific conclusions. You should not repeat detailed research results again.

There are also technical notes.

The article contains only table and Figure titles. However, there are no such objects. There were also no additional attachments. It is not known what is in the tables and figures.

The authors noted that the study is a scientific article. However, it does not meet the requirements in terms of structure and individual parts. In such a situation, a better solution is to create an article that is a review.

The authors suggest that the article is theoretical. In such a case, the number of literature items to which the authors refer in the article is insufficient. A theoretical article should be based more on a good literature review.