Barriers to Innovation in Water Treatment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Important review research and provides useful information for water reuse I have no additional comments
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for their kind comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors, Thank you for your review regarding the potential barriers to water industry innovation. It is a pleasant read on an important topic.
I wish you success for future works!
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for their kind comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
1- This manuscript seems to be the review article but I could not find the importance of the title.
2- I could not find the logic for presenting the text and also the aims and the goals of the manuscript
3- The authors have used innovation in the water sector but the text is limited to the specific sector of the water branch (water treatment industry) 4- Why do the authors think the manuscript is interesting for the authors? I suggest reviewing the innovation in different parts of the world regarding the economical situation, especially in developed countries.
Author Response
1- This manuscript seems to be the review article but I could not find the importance of the title.
The title highlights the very critical issue of obstacles in translating technological advances into implementable solutions, most specifically the barriers to technological innovation in the water sector. The article title has been modified to better reflect this.
2- I could not find the logic for presenting the text and also the aims and the goals of the manuscript
The text emphasizes aspects beyond technological that are equally, if not more, important to the development of new technologies in the water sector. The aim of the text is to provide a holistic approach to realizing innovation in the water treatment sector, which is often limited to publications and patents that often fail to transition to full-scale use. Contributing factors include the lifetimes of existing water structure, risk aversion and limited financing.
3- The authors have used innovation in the water sector but the text is limited to the specific sector of the water branch (water treatment industry)
Yes, the authors feel that the growing contribution of desalination and water treatment to the water sector warrants a review article focused on this area.
4- Why do the authors think the manuscript is interesting for the authors? I suggest reviewing the innovation in different parts of the world regarding the economical situation, especially in developed countries.
Obstacles in water innovation are often overlooked by scientists and engineers, but must be considered in informing decisions and developing new technologies. For example, the long lifetimes of existing infrastructure may not allow for drastic changes in the near run; hence researchers should focus on energy-efficient solutions that can be implemented within the existing framework.
Reviewer 4 Report
“While phenomenal strides are being made on the technological front, the water industry lags behind other sectors in the adoption of innovative techniques.” It is wright. But on the other hand, innovation must be an idea that has been successfully applied in practice, rather than publishing articles or registering patents. Because those are just inventions, not practices.
I think (1) Innovation is based on market demand, and there are two internal driving forces: crisis drive and value drive. (2)Crisis drive is generally related to the implementation of new laws and regulations. The original innovation of the water industry is relatively slow, but the policy effect will be faster. (3) Management innovation is as important as technology innovation. (4) In the current background, talking about innovation in the water industry may be combined with SDGs, global change and low carbon. (5) Some ideas in book Water 4.0 by Prof. David Sedlak help to understand innovation.
So, as a review, the article is valuable, but I can hardly say whether it is good or not. The above comments are for reference only while revision.
Author Response
“While phenomenal strides are being made on the technological front, the water industry lags behind other sectors in the adoption of innovative techniques.” It is wright. But on the other hand, innovation must be an idea that has been successfully applied in practice, rather than publishing articles or registering patents. Because those are just inventions, not practices.
We agree, innovation requires implementation, which is the focus of the article – that much research is carried out in the water sector, but little of it makes it through to implementation in industry. As we also state, a patentable idea alone is not innovation, but requires it’s development into a solution which can be adopted and used practically within the sector.
I think (1) Innovation is based on market demand, and there are two internal driving forces: crisis drive and value drive. (2)Crisis drive is generally related to the implementation of new laws and regulations. The original innovation of the water industry is relatively slow, but the policy effect will be faster. (3) Management innovation is as important as technology innovation. (4) In the current background, talking about innovation in the water industry may be combined with SDGs, global change and low carbon. (5) Some ideas in book Water 4.0 by Prof. David Sedlak help to understand innovation.
We thank the reviewer for the interesting comments. This is certainly a different phrasing or view of the problem, but we do not think it is incompatible with what we say within our article. We talk about the additional factors affecting implementation in the water treatment sector beyond simple technological innovations – e.g. regulation, water pricing, climate change, long investment cycles etc. We look forward to reading the suggested book.
So, as a review, the article is valuable, but I can hardly say whether it is good or not. The above comments are for reference only while revision.
Reviewer 5 Report
The authors have prepared a well-reasoned and carefully argued examination of the lack of innovation in the water supply industry. That said, the referencing needs considerable attention. While the references are numbered in the reference list, the paper does not use the Journal's numeric referencing system. The authors have used a Harvard reference system but are inconsistent in their use of that system, sometimes spelling out all the authors, sometimes using the et al citation. In a few cases, the text citation is inconsistent with the citation in the reference list, as on line 23. The authors should review all of the references for consistency with the Journal style.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for pointing out the problem in the referencing. The word document as written was entirely in the numbered format as requested by the journal, but somehow the style has been reverted to Harvard style within the main body text. We will resubmit the manuscript with referencing as plain text (not endnote) tpo ensure this problem does not re occur.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
1- At the end of the abstract the authors should mention the barriers that have been discovered and the solution for the future
2- At the end of the introduction, The authors ask to mention the flow of the presenting the upcoming contents of the manuscript and also what are the aims of the content
1- I could not understand the meaning of this sentence: “Utilities have cited cultural inertia as one of the most significant inhibitors to innovation in water and wastewater treatment”. It requires some facts or maybe some modifications.
2- Although it is acceptable that there are some barriers to innovation in the water section, there are some advances and incentives in innovation that suggest to mention in the manuscript
3- It seems one of the barriers to the innovation is economical situation and also the financial crisis in some countries and suggest to review by the authors
4- Some explanations in section 3 are not related to the title of this section “Status of water innovation” i.e. the last paragraph of this section. The authors can strengthen this section with more related contents
5- I can not convince by the content in “The way forward” section. The authors can present more practical suggestions to increase the share of the innovation and its requirement according to the reviewed subjects.
6- Interviews with high-ranking officials, and public sector organizations and taking their opinions on the barriers to innovation can increase the quality of the manuscript
Author Response
We find the addition of new points not previously raised problematic, especially as these will be time consuming and alter the focus of manuscript.
