Technology Transfer Models and Elements in the University-Industry Collaboration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The aim to present a systematic review on technology transferred generated in collaboration between the university and industry is an interesting piece of work with so much potential to address the gap. Reading the abstract, it seems that the focus is on reviewing the models based on the systematic LR but a bit unsure of its originality. I would list out below my concerns so that you can improve the paper further.

The use of  abbreviation: please ensure that the abbreviation is consistent. For  example, you have collaboration between University and industry (CUI)-page 1 line 12, pg 13 line 237

university industry collaboration (UIC) page 2 line 32

industry university collaboration (IUC)- page 7 line 127

technology transfer office (TTO or OTT etc?) page 13 line 241 and line 248

The first statement in the introduction shows assumption from the authors’ side that all countries are promoting the university –industry collaboration. Even if it is true, perhaps this is where you need to provide evidence, examples and reference to showcase that it is true.

Use of statement “in conclusion” earlier on in the text (not in conclusion) is a bit misleading. Page 2 line 36. This statement also a bit confusing as it is really hard to make sense the aim of the sentence, such as “process of migration of technology to the industry?” does it imply that the university is the only ‘provider’ of new technology to the industry? There are many other literature that showcase the importance of knowledge exchange, rather than transfer… and having that statement imply putting a big assumption on how new technology being introduced into the market. You also mentioned about the definition.. so what is it ? perhaps this is where you can be clear on the definition that you want to follow to help you scope your paper better. For example, why TT? And not KT? Once you be clear on your scope, it will be easier for you to identify the real gap you are exploring. The write up about the scoping need to be ‘crispier’/clearer.

Are you focusing on UIC? Or TT? These are the two different terminology used here.

As you mentioned in page 7 line 128- that reflect papers that use university-industry collaboration.. but what about technology transfer (if this is what you are doing) that do not mention the word UIC?

Reading the work further, it seems that you want to look at the models, elements, mechanism and factors of university industry collaboration. But somehow this is not really clear across the paper.

Statement page 3 line 62 is unclear and somehow contradicting with line 67

Research design/methods

In doing systematic literature review, you need to follow a clear guidline with clear information that reflect the process, incuding the inclusion and exclusion criterias.  This can help to increase rigour to your work. Perhaps the best way forward is for you to be clear on Figure 2 on the numbers: how many papers being include/exclude for each level of process.

Page 5 line 102- please check the statement as the language here is not clear

Reading the Literature review section, it is unclear if this is part of the findings, or part of your literature.

For example: page 9 para starting from line 166- if you are focusing about TT (as per what I understand in the paper) then I am unsure why there is a need to look into the role of a university. Is this part of your scope/aim? Hence why this para is a bit confusing,

Page 10 line 197- the examples of the case studies—so are they part of your samples of literature review? This is the problem when the methodology and the scope of discussion is not clear.

Also, I would suggest you to think of a better way to introduce all the new factors you found our from your systematic LR, rather than merely stating: Author ABC describes CDB (see example page 11 line 229)

I can see there’s some pattern there, and perhaps this is where you can spend a bit more time to dig this deeper to find the patterns.

Table 2- stage of use (ie: exploitation, validation etc)- this is a bit abrupt introduced in the paper in page 12. I am unsure where is this come from.. and if this is part of your findings from the literature, then you need to make it clearer. At the moment, you belittle your contribution and you need to make it more clearer on the gap that you are addressing. How did you manage to deduce the stage of use? What assumptions did you make? This need to be made clear.

Again page 14, line 268- you are contradicting yourself with the statement. Please make it clear.

Overal, this is an interesting topic. However, the literature you used is a bit out-dated and does not reflect the current state of TT or UIC literature. I can see interesting potential or findings, but there is a lot of work that need to be done to make it better.

Please do grammatical checking across the paper.

I would suggest you to have a look at the current and latest systematic literature review. All the best!

Cunningham, J. A., Menter, M., & Young, C. (2017). A review of qualitative case methods trends and themes used in technology transfer research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(4), 923-956.

Miller, K., McAdam, R., & McAdam, M. (2018). A systematic literature review of university technology transfer from a quadruple helix perspective: toward a research agenda. R&D Management, 48(1), 7-24.

Miller, K., McAdam, M., & McAdam, R. (2014). The changing university business model: a stakeholder perspective. R&D Management, 44(3), 265-287.

Sengupta, A., & Ray, A. S. (2017). Choice of Structure, Business Model and Portfolio: Organizational Models of Knowledge Transfer Offices in British Universities. British Journal of Management, 28(4), 687-710.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for the comments are very helpful to obtain a quality article. About the observations below I will place all the points observed and with the answer about it. It is worth mentioning that much of the recommended literature has been added to the article. Then I will answer each observation:

1. "The use of  abbreviation: please ensure that the abbreviation is consistent. For  example, you have collaboration between University and industry (CUI)-page 1 line 12, pg 13 line 237
 - We change all the abbreviation. It is worth mentioning that the abstract must be changed, but I must request it from the editor.
 
2. The first statement in the introduction shows assumption from the authors’ side that all countries are promoting the university –industry collaboration. Even if it is true, perhaps this is where you need to provide evidence, examples and reference to showcase that it is true.
 - References have been placed to articles that describe this statement.
 
3. Use of statement “in conclusion” earlier on in the text (not in conclusion) is a bit misleading.
 - The word conclusion was eliminated.

4. Page 2 line 36. This statement also a bit confusing as it is really hard to make sense the aim of the sentence, such as “process of migration of technology to the industry?” does it imply that the university is the only ‘provider’ of new technology to the industry? There are many other literature that showcase the importance of knowledge exchange, rather than transfer… and having that statement imply putting a big assumption on how new technology being introduced into the market. You also mentioned about the definition.. so what is it ? perhaps this is where you can be clear on the definition that you want to follow to help you scope your paper better. For example, why TT? And not KT? Once you be clear on your scope, it will be easier for you to identify the real gap you are exploring. The write up about the scoping need to be ‘crispier’/clearer.
 - I do not want to express that the university is the only technology provider. The only thing I describe is that the process of transferring technology to the industry is complex. This conclusion is shown by the number of TT models that exist in the literature. About KT there is a discussion about TT and KT in the literature. In the case of KT, the literature describes that it is the "intangible product" that is obtained based on the research carried out by an agent. While TT refers to the products presented by the agent. The objective of this article is to focus on the objects (technologies) that are developed in the university and not on the knowledge that can be developed during the creation process of the object. The wording of the objective has been improved and this development is presented in several sections.
 
5. Are you focusing on UIC? Or TT? These are the two different terminology used here.
 - The aim of the article is to carry out a literature review on technology transfer in the context of University-Industry collaboration. The wording in the article has been improved.
 
6. As you mentioned in page 7 line 128- that reflect papers that use university-industry collaboration.. but what about technology transfer (if this is what you are doing) that do not mention the word UIC?
 - As a search strategy it was not limited to placing UIC because some authors presented articles of collaboration but did not use the UIC words, however to focus the literature review it was considered that the paper should mention the two University or Industry agents and additionally when it was made The exclusion was considered those who spoke of a case study presented in technology transfer. The wording has been improved in some points to make this clarification clear.

7. Reading the work further, it seems that you want to look at the models, elements, mechanism and factors of university industry collaboration. But somehow this is not really clear across the paper.
 - an introduction has been placed in Section 5
Statement page 3 line 62 is unclear and somehow contradicting with line 67
 - The wording has been improved.
8. In doing systematic literature review, you need to follow a clear guidline with clear information that reflect the process, incuding the inclusion and exclusion criterias.  This can help to increase rigour to your work. Perhaps the best way forward is for you to be clear on Figure 2 on the numbers: how many papers being include/exclude for each level of process.
 - The requested has been added in figure 2.
 
9. Page 5 line 102- please check the statement as the language here is not clear
 - The wording has been improved.
10. Reading the Literature review section, it is unclear if this is part of the findings, or part of your literature.
For example: page 9 para starting from line 166- if you are focusing about TT (as per what I understand in the paper) then I am unsure why there is a need to look into the role of a university. Is this part of your scope/aim? Hence why this para is a bit confusing, "
 - The objective in the article has been modified to make it clearer.

11. Page 10 line 197- the examples of the case studies—so are they part of your samples of literature review? This is the problem when the methodology and the scope of discussion is not clear.
 - An introduction has been added in section 5

12. "Also, I would suggest you to think of a better way to introduce all the new factors you found our from your systematic LR, rather than merely stating: Author ABC describes CDB (see example page 11 line 229)
I can see there’s some pattern there, and perhaps this is where you can spend a bit more time to dig this deeper to find the patterns."
 - The wording has been improved.

13. Table 2- stage of use (ie: exploitation, validation etc)- this is a bit abrupt introduced in the paper in page 12. I am unsure where is this come from.. and if this is part of your findings from the literature, then you need to make it clearer. At the moment, you belittle your contribution and you need to make it more clearer on the gap that you are addressing. How did you manage to deduce the stage of use? What assumptions did you make? This need to be made clear.
 - The wording has been improved, placing the work that has been done and the result that was table 2 and figure 5.
 
14. Again page 14, line 268- you are contradicting yourself with the statement. Please make it clear.
 - The wording has been improved by stating that the article focuses on the process of technology transfer in the context of collaboration between the university and the industry.
 
15. Overal, this is an interesting topic. However, the literature you used is a bit out-dated and does not reflect the current state of TT or UIC literature. I can see interesting potential or findings, but there is a lot of work that need to be done to make it better.
 - The following literature has been added:

Cunningham, J. A., Menter, M., & Young, C. (2017). A review of qualitative case methods trends and themes used in technology transfer research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(4), 923-956.

Miller, K., McAdam, R., & McAdam, M. (2018). A systematic literature review of university technology transfer from a quadruple helix perspective: toward a research agenda. R&D Management, 48(1), 7-24.

Miller, K., McAdam, M., & McAdam, R. (2014). The changing university business model: a stakeholder perspective. R&D Management, 44(3), 265-287.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read this paper entitled “University-Industry collaboration models and elements: a systematic review”, submitted for publication to AS. As I see potential in this research, I think some major changes are required before this paper should be considered for publication. Below I offer my comments that I hope will be helpful to the authors to move this piece forward. Best of Luck!

- The authors should make a much more compelling case for why this assessment is needed. To what extent is this different from the one by Perkmann et al 2013? How does it complement that effort? Please take actions. 

- The exhibits included in the paper are rather ineffective. Such information can be easily included in the text. Please take actions. Furthermore, English is mixed with Spanish. Please make it consistent. 

- Literature on business models and how technology can be commercialized should be reviewed and included in the paper as well. 

- I find the search strategy rather ineffective. I would doubt that only 50 papers address this topic. Please consider refining it. See below some notable examples of review papers in this field. 

- Furthermore, it's not clear what is the object under scrutiny. Is it the impact of TT?, broadly or narrowly defined? or is it the outcome of interventions such as business incubators and TTOs? A definition of TT is very much needed. Please clarify. 

- The role of context becomes salient in this regard. See for instance some work which has been done on Academic Entrepreneurship across the globe. I would expect to see some similarities in this regard. 

- Consistent with the conceptual framework used in the paper (e.g. signalling approach), a notable reference to look at is Connelly et al. (2011), which may help the authors to develop a better theory-grounded framework for their literature review. 

- Table 2, which is core to the contribution of the paper, is not stand-alone and rather ineffective. Please consider restructuring it. 

- I would also include a conceptual model, laying out the antecedents, the outcomes as well as the boundary conditions of how TT unfolds. Please see Perkmann et al., 2013 as a notable example 

- As I believe that the focus on different TT modes it's interesting and worth studying, I find the current conceptualization and analytical framing fairly ineffective in shedding lights on the phenomenon. Hence, I would emphasize:

a) what are the main effects (i.e., what we already know about the determinants and outcomes of TT)

b) what are the boundary conditions emerging from the literature published so-far

c) what are we still missing in this specific regard

d) what are the implications for the conversation on TT at both conceptual- and policy-level 

Please take actions. 

Suggested references 

Review papers 

Djokovic, D., & Souitaris, V. (2008). Spinouts from academic institutions: a literature review with suggestions for further research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 225-247.

Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh-Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1045-1057.

Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D'Este, P., ... & Krabel, S. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423-442.

Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and corporate change, 16(4), 691-791.

Work on AE in the globe 

Fini R., Grimaldi R. (Ed.) 2017. Process approach to academic entrepreneurship: evidence from the globe, World Scientific Publishing, ISBN 978-981-4733-42-7 (v4);

Shane, S. A. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Wong, P. K. (Ed.). 2011. Academic entrepreneurship in Asia: The role and impact of universities in

national innovation systems. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Mustar, P., & Lockett, A. (Ed.) 2007. Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Signalling theory

Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of management, 37(1), 39-67.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for the comments, they have been very helpful. I would like to respond to each of your comments:

additionally we have attached the article with all the modifications.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper uses a systematic literature review (SLR) method, which is a robust technique for understanding the state-of-the-art in a particular area. The paper is generally well written, although the grammar needs improving in certain areas. Here with my specific comments:

Grammar should be checked as while generally acceptable it is poor in certain places.

Why is the title of the paper based on ‘university-industry research collaboration’ when the paper appears to be focused on technology transfer (TT), which is only a subset of such collaboration? I would suggest more clarity is given as to whether this is focused on TT or the wider collaboration interaction between companies and universities (involving joint research projects, contract research and other activities).

There are a range of robust SLR methods described in the literature, so it would be useful to understand how this method relates to published methods.

The SLR method is ideally suited to exploring a specific gap in the literature, so this gap should be clearly articulated at the beginning of the paper and again in the conclusions section in regard to how the knowledge gap has been addressed.

The SLR method usually includes detailing which methods have been used in the papers (e.g. quantitative surveys, mixed methods, qualitative, conceptual, etc.). This has a bearing on the empirical relevance of the SLR findings and the level of generalizability of the findings.

Some of the figures have non-English captions.

Numerical figures given in Figures should have commas, e.g. 107,584 in Figure 1.

TTO or OTT?

No future work is provided. Also if a reader was looking to take forward these findings, which areas need to be explored in more detail? Could these areas be summarized in a Table as a ‘research agenda’?

The study was focused on Information Technologies, so this is a limitation of the study (which is narrow in nature) and should be mentioned in the conclusions.

Why has biomedicine/biotech areas been excluded? This sector includes a major amount of TT involving biotechs and big pharma, so it is not logical to exclude.

Table 2 is not very insightful and could be refocused or an alternative depiction provided of the TT elements.

Can any organizing conceptual framework or diagram be synthesized from the SLR? As a way of schematically summarizing the findings – this would make the paper a more interesting read.

If these comments can be addressed, the paper will be much improved and suitable for publication in a journal of good standing.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for the comments, they have been very helpful. I would like to respond to each of your comments:

Additionally, I am attaching the paper with the corrected observations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The article makes an interesting review about technology transfer, addressing important aspects such as models of TT and the elements that encompasses TT.

However the objective, literature review and the research method should be considered improved to justify your findings and conclusions.

First of all, the objective of the article is not clear. You want to “identify different elements, mechanisms, and factors of different models”; to “identify and improve our understanding of the common elements that occur in different models of technological transfer in university-industry collaboration”; to “identify the mechanisms of transfer, as well as the different means where technological transfer can happen”; or to classify the technological transfer in modalities and describe which stage of the use of the technology the transfer could happen? At the research design chapter, the authors say that “the objective was what was known about the models, elements, and determining factors of the technological transfer”, and that “This paper focused on the information technologies that were the product of collaboration between the university and the industry”. You should define which one is your main objective, and focus on it.

About the literature review, the main recommendation is that you should incorporate chapters 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 to chapter 2, since this is the base of technology transfer – University, Industry and Technology. There is no reason to explain the roles of university, industry and technology as a result of you research, since these agents are well known and their roles well defined. Focus your results on the models and elements of TT, which is your main contribution.

Also about the literature review, the authors should add a debate about absorptive capacity and technology level (not only TRL, but also the technology level of the partners as described by Pavitt and Lall). These two topics are the main reason for differences in the type of technology used in UIR, and can be used here.

The definition of ‘Means’ used by the authors can also be found as ‘Channels of Technology Transfer’ in different papers . The authors should read these three articles that can complement their description of ‘means’.

·      Dutrénit, G., De Fuentes, C., & Torres, A. (2010). Channels of interaction between public research organisations and industry and their benefits: evidence from Mexico. Science and Public Policy, 37(7), 513-526.

·      Bekkers, R., & Freitas, I. M. B. (2008). Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter?. Research policy, 37(10), 1837-1853.

·      Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management science, 48(1), 1-23.

The research method is another section that needs to be considerably improved. The authors said that have used EBSCO, Emerald, ProQuest, IEEE, Science Direct and the digital library of ALTEC, but do not give specific details about each one of the databases. You need to explain, for example, how many articles were identified in each one of the databases, according to each one of the filters added. You may use the article bellow to check how can you improve your method section:

·      Oliveira, M. L., Santos, J. L. S., Becker, G. V., & Hansen, P. B. (2016). A bibliometric analysis of international literature on collaboration in supply chain. BASE-Revista de Administração e Contabilidade da Unisinos, 13(1), 32-52.

The article also needs a full English review, as translation mistakes such as Medium (instead of the expression ‘mean’, which is used on the document), or Mechanized (instead of mechanism) were found. In addition, phrases such as “…useful to market in a market without…”, “…content of the package, the package to be...”, or “…have presented the model by presenting elements...” should be reviewed.

In addition to these two issues, there are other sections that should be reviewed, as described bellow:

The authors should review the structure of the article. I have already suggested to move chapters 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 to chapter 2, but there are other issues on the document. For example, how can you have two separate discussion chapters (chaprters 5 and 8), and present future research (chapter 8) before your conclusions (chapter 9). Future research should be proposed to fill the gaps your conclusions were not able to address. In my opinion my opinion you can have a general results chapter (as #4), which should include tables one and two. Then one discussion section which analyses the models, means and mechanism, followed by a chapter with your conclusions (which encompasses chapters 8 and 9).

The abstract should be reviewed, since it gives too much importance to the context and justification of the research, but little importance to the results.

In the introduction, technology transfer is a broad concept, which goes from patent licensing, reading scientific articles or even employing students. For this reason, Figure 1 doesn’t add much, since this concept more or less follow the natural growth of scientific publication. It would be like searching for terms like ‘Innovation’, or ‘entrepreneurship’. The authors should, in the introduction, define which aspect of technology transfer from university to industry are they addressing. In addition, the introduction has too much focus on the legal aspects of TT and policies to foster UIC, but lacks the to discuss aspects related to competitiveness and innovation. These two topics should be addressed here.

Chapter 2 is also too broad, and it seems like a random organization of topics related to TT. This chapter should guide the reader towards the objective of the research (which should be defined according to previous comment). It seems here that the authors want to establish a debate between external and organizational factors, but the lack of a guiding line makes it difficult to follow such discussion.

At the results, the authors must define a standard to present figures. Figure 3 and 4 should have the same design. 

You said that “In general, there has been a continuity of publications since 2000; the word University-Industry Collaboration being the most used”, but the word ‘University-Industry Collaboration’ was not among your filters. Why mentioning it here, since there is no further analysis or discussion about this expression?

In chapter 6, after table 2, you say “Within the TT process, two elements must be taken into consideration: the mechanism and the medium”, but the expression ‘medium’ is not on table 2. It is ‘Mean’ the correct word here?

Chapter 7.2 mixes governmental policies with university policies. You should organize that to reinforce the role of each one of the partners.

First paragraph of Chapter 8 says “Medium and Mechanized”. Is it “Mean and Mechanism”?

One of your filters was “information technologies”, but there is nothing about it on your discussion. You should either remove this filter from your method, or explore it in your discussion.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your help. The comments received were very important to correct our article. The  only problem I've had is to extend the article some recommendations due  to the short time I have to correct the observations. I hope these omissions are not serious and may be ready for publication. Below I am answering each of the points:

First of all, the objective of the article is not clear. You want to “identify different elements, mechanisms, and factors of different models”; to “identify and improve our understanding of the common elements that occur in different models of technological transfer in university-industry collaboration”; to “identify the mechanisms of transfer, as well as the different means where technological transfer can happen”; or to classify the technological transfer in modalities and describe which stage of the use of the technology the transfer could happen? At the research design chapter, the authors say that “the objective was what was known about the models, elements, and determining factors of the technological transfer”, and that “This paper focused on the information technologies that were the product of collaboration between the university and the industry”. You should define which one is your main objective, and focus on it.
 - The text has been modified. Added activities that will be carried out to fulfill the objective.
 
2. About the literature review, the main recommendation is that you should incorporate chapters 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 to chapter 2, since this is the base of technology transfer – University, Industry and Technology. There is no reason to explain the roles of university, industry and technology as a result of you research, since these agents are well known and their roles well defined. Focus your results on the models and elements of TT, which is your main contribution.
 - The objective of placing the elements within the results is to understand the different presentations of the agents and understand a common definition. An introduction has been added in chapter 5.
 
3. Also about the literature review, the authors should add a debate about absorptive capacity and technology level (not only TRL, but also the technology level of the partners as described by Pavitt and Lall). These two topics are the main reason for differences in the type of technology used in UIR, and can be used here.
 - This issue is very important however for coverage in the aricle it has not been possible to touch.

4. "The definition of ‘Means’ used by the authors can also be found as ‘Channels of Technology Transfer’ in different papers . The authors should read these three articles that can complement their description of ‘means’.
 - The recommended literature was added.

5. "The research method is another section that needs to be considerably improved. The authors said that have used EBSCO, Emerald, ProQuest, IEEE, Science Direct and the digital library of ALTEC, but do not give specific details about each one of the databases. You need to explain, for example, how many articles were identified in each one of the databases, according to each one of the filters added. You may use the article bellow to check how can you improve your method section:
 - It was not possible to add at the level of the database but the values for results in general have been added. I hope that it can serve to correct this inconvenience.

6. The article also needs a full English review, as translation mistakes such as Medium (instead of the expression ‘mean’, which is used on the document), or Mechanized (instead of mechanism) were found. In addition, phrases such as “…useful to market in a market without…”, “…content of the package, the package to be...”, or “…have presented the model by presenting elements...” should be reviewed.
 - The writing problems were fixed.
 
7. The authors should review the structure of the article. I have already suggested to move chapters 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 to chapter 2, but there are other issues on the document. For example, how can you have two separate discussion chapters (chaprters 5 and 8), and present future research (chapter 8) before your conclusions (chapter 9). Future research should be proposed to fill the gaps your conclusions were not able to address. In my opinion my opinion you can have a general results chapter (as #4), which should include tables one and two. Then one discussion section which analyses the models, means and mechanism, followed by a chapter with your conclusions (which encompasses chapters 8 and 9).
 - Although this change can not be considered in its entirety, the chapters have been summarized in 7 and an introduction has been placed in chapter 5 to help understand the distribution.
 
8. The abstract should be reviewed, since it gives too much importance to the context and justification of the research, but little importance to the results.
 - The text has been modified.
 
9. In the introduction, technology transfer is a broad concept, which goes from patent licensing, reading scientific articles or even employing students. For this reason, Figure 1 doesn’t add much, since this concept more or less follow the natural growth of scientific publication. It would be like searching for terms like ‘Innovation’, or ‘entrepreneurship’. The authors should, in the introduction, define which aspect of technology transfer from university to industry are they addressing. In addition, the introduction has too much focus on the legal aspects of TT and policies to foster UIC, but lacks the to discuss aspects related to competitiveness and innovation. These two topics should be addressed here.
 - This observation has been considered and a paragraph was added in the introduction on the new topics.
 
10. Chapter 2 is also too broad, and it seems like a random organization of topics related to TT. This chapter should guide the reader towards the objective of the research (which should be defined according to previous comment). It seems here that the authors want to establish a debate between external and organizational factors, but the lack of a guiding line makes it difficult to follow such discussion.
 - A paragraph was added to explain the importance of this chapter.
 
11. At the results, the authors must define a standard to present figures. Figure 3 and 4 should have the same design.
 - The graphics were modified
 
12. You said that “In general, there has been a continuity of publications since 2000; the word University-Industry Collaboration being the most used”, but the word ‘University-Industry Collaboration’ was not among your filters. Why mentioning it here, since there is no further analysis or discussion about this expression?
 - The word UIC was not considered but in the search chain it was considered that articles containing the university and the industry in the text. In the last SRL process, a total revision of the article, it was checked that the article is linked to the UIC. The text has been modified to clarify this clarification.
 
13. In chapter 6, after table 2, you say “Within the TT process, two elements must be taken into consideration: the mechanism and the medium”, but the expression ‘medium’ is not on table 2. It is ‘Mean’ the correct word here?
 - The text has been modified.
 
14. Chapter 7.2 mixes governmental policies with university policies. You should organize that to reinforce the role of each one of the partners.
 - the paragraphs have been reorganized
 
15. First paragraph of Chapter 8 says “Medium and Mechanized”. Is it “Mean and Mechanism”?
 - The text has been modified.
 
16. One of your filters was “information technologies”, but there is nothing about it on your discussion. You should either remove this filter from your method, or explore it in your discussion.
 - In the first instance, it was going to be for you but then the article was developed for the general TT process. That word has been removed. The abstract can not be changed but the editor will be asked to change it.

Dear reviewer,

Finally I attach the article with the comments raised

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

this paper is fruituf

This topic is very interesting.
Abstract should be written containing concept of Mechanism and Medium because author's important findings of this paper.
Also, author should also elaborate the role of "Mechanism and Medium" in the technology transfer routine.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your help. I attached the article with some improvements made.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the revised version of the paper entitled “Technology Transfer Models and Elements in the University-Industry Collaboration” submitted for publication to AS. As i see some improvements, i do think the authors have carefully addressed the comments offered in the first round. Specifically:

1) It’s not clear the research void this article seeks to address. Furthermore, i do not understand what “university-industry collaboration for transfer of information technologies” is.

2) If the primary object is , as stated is “to identify and improve our understanding of the common elements that occur in different models of technological transfer in university-industry collaboration.”  at least other 300 articles should be included in the review. 

3) The exhibits are not adding any information to the text, as previously mentioned should be dropped

4) The vast majority of the suggested papers haven’t been neither reviewed nor included in the text

5) The TT conceptual model in UIC presented at page does not advance the understanding of the state-of-the-art of research on UIC. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you very much, again, for the observations are very helpful. On the comments I would like to apologize for not adding the literature recommended in the previous version. If it was read and considered for the new version. Below I will detail the observations:

1) It’s not clear the research void this article seeks to address. Furthermore, i do not understand what “university-industry collaboration for transfer of information technologies” is.
- In the first instance, it was going to be for you but then the article was developed for the general TT process. That word has been removed. The abstract can not be changed but the editor will be asked to change it.

2) If the primary object is , as stated is “to identify and improve our understanding of the common elements that occur in different models of technological transfer in university-industry collaboration.”  at least other 300 articles should be included in the review.
- The statement you say is correct. However, we wanted to exclude articles on TT in the field of medicine, agriculture, biotechnology. A justification has been placed in the article and in figure 2 the exclusion process is shown.

3) The exhibits are not adding any information to the text, as previously mentioned should be dropped
- This observation is not clear

4) The vast majority of the suggested papers haven’t been neither reviewed nor included in the text
- This error has been corrected and the following literature has been added:

Djokovic, D., & Souitaris, V. (2008). Spinouts from academic institutions: a literature review with suggestions for further research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 225-247.

Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh-Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1045-1057.

Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D'Este, P., ... & Krabel, S. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423-442.

Shane, S. A. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Edward Elgar Publishing.

5) The TT conceptual model in UIC presented at page does not advance the understanding of the state-of-the-art of research on UIC.
- Improve the wording of the presented model.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

Thanks for your effort to correct the main suggestions made.

There are still some minor mistakes, which I address bellow.

- At the method, you wrote: “En this step, the number of papers found was 312”, instead of “In this step...”

- Although there was no time to add this debate to the article, you may add as limitation (and suggestion for future research) the lack of analysis regarding agent’s absorptive capacity and technology level.

- Figures 3 and 4 are still not standardized. By that I mean that both should have, for example, years on the X axis and number of papers on the Y axis (or the other way round).

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time in reviewing the article, your contributions were valuable to improve the quality of the research. Next, I will detail each change:

- At the method, you wrote: “En this step, the number of papers found was 312”, instead of “In this step...”

The problem was solved

- Although there was no time to add this debate to the article, you may add as limitation (and suggestion for future research) 

the lack of analysis regarding agent’s absorptive capacity and technology level.

A paragraph was added in the research methodology (as a limitation) and a paragraph was placed in future work.

- Figures 3 and 4 are still not standardized. By that I mean that both should have, for example, years on the X axis and number of papers on the Y axis 

(or the other way round).

The problem was solved

Author Response File: Author Response.docx