Review Reports
- Ligia Isabel Beltrán-Urvina,
- Byron Fabricio Acosta-Andino* and
- Henry Marcelo Vallejos-Orbe
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Michael Blakeney
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe first part of this paper needs a great deal of re-writing for style and clarity. Parts of it do not make sense due to the run-on or incomplete sentences.
The back part of the paper with comparative analysis is clearer, but I'm not sure what it adds to scholarship of international IP protection. It points out few differences between the WIPO framework and Ecuador after explanation of the methodology of comparing the two legal frameworks. Some specific examples of legal provisions and examples of patent filings could be helpful to understanding the impact.
More specific recommendations follow:
In section I, I do not see that Cao et al support the proposition that "diffusion of techniques and control of assets" in an engine for innovation. The patent system is based on a concentration of techniques and control of assets, which Cao et al posit stifle innovation.
Line 91 - I disagree that there are only two categories of IP. WIPO, cited for this sentence, notes international protection for patents, trademarks, geographic indicators, etc. This is corrected in lines 99-102.
WIPO, 2017 - Line 60 and 151 - is not in reference list.
Line 141 begins a new section about patents. However, 152-193 appears to be more appropriate for the previous section about general IP protection. It is fairly redundant to the Importance of IP section.
Line 237- I do not see that Ortiz-villajos, M. (2024) supports the proposition stated.
Line 257 - I find no support in Blind, K., Cremers, K., & Mueller, E. (2009) for the sentence. No mention of the "strategic actors" that I can find.
Line 454 - what is INGENIOS?
Line 626 - should Decision 833 be under a new subheading?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The first part of this paper needs a great deal of re-writing for style and clarity. Parts of it do not make sense due to the run-on or incomplete sentences.
Lines 75-84 are structured as a single sentence (the entire paragraph), when it could and should be around 4 sentences. It doesn't make sense as written.
Errors in lines 277-8; 279-80; 282-3; 284-7; 290. Sentences do not make sense.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers, I appreciate the suggestions made to improve the quality of our article. We have considered each of the comments and have proceeded to make the required changes.
I am including a document that details these changes
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper contains an excellent description of the secondary literature on patents and innovation.
One major weakness is that the authors state that the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is responsible for the harmonization of IP legislation in member states. This is not the case. WIPO member states have no obligation to implement the various treaties administered by WIPO.
The task of harmonization is one undertaken by the WTO which requires its member states to implement the TRIPS Agreement. Ecuador will have notified the TRIPS Council on the ways in which its patents legislation complies with TRIPS. It would be useful to refer to this notification and to compare Ecuador's patent law with what is required by TRIPS.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers, I appreciate the suggestions made to improve the quality of our article. We have considered each of the comments and have proceeded to make the required changes.
I am including a document that details these changes
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis submission is much improved. Reformatting the three tables would be beneficial for readers. Table 3 is very difficult to read.
In section 3, you compare Ecuador regulations to international regulations. Consider organizing your discussion of regulations in a similar order: first Ecuador (national), then CAN (multi-national) (3.15 - 3.18), then international regulations and treaties.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMuch improved over the first submission. Paragraph beginning Line 313 needs to be rewritten.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
In the attached document I send the following corrections
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised article takes into account my observations.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
In the attached document I send the following corrections
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf