Radical Concept Generation Inspired by Cross-Domain Knowledge

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is both visually appealing and well-written. However,  some suggestions are included below to help improve it.

1. Please improve the selection of keywords. Keywords should be chosen different from the words in the title
2. The author is encouraged to provide a greater depth of discussion about each Figure and Table
3. The symbol explanation and definition should follow the equation.
4. The text contains several typographical and grammatical errors that must be corrected before the paper can be accepted.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The analyzed topic is very interesting and up to date in many contexts, e.g.: radical concept generation, cross-domain knowledge, technological system evolution, minimum complementary distance, etc.

The correct terminology was used. The language of the article is correct and adequate. The text is written in an understandable language, also for laymen, which indicates its potential as the dissemination of knowledge.

The title is adequate for the research problem being undertaken.  

The literature used on the subject is current and to the point. A sufficient number of references were used to achieve the purpose of the paper.

The paper has a theoretical character, and is associated with a concrete case study. This makes the outcomes and results robust and it concretely supports the future implications. 

Footnotes and bibliography are in my opinion correctly formulated. The technical part of the article does not raise any objections. The work is aesthetic. 

Author Response

Thank you for acknowledging our research work. We have further improved the research and hope to make the research even better.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The paper concentrates on the important issue from the perspective of enterprises and management in regard to the process management of the cross-domain knowledge development to reduce uncertainty and risk in RCG and improves success of the radical innovation and knowledge-based innovation.

However, before publication the paper needs following improvements:

1. Motivation is weak. Authors could better define the research question and the aim of the paper. Moreover, they could better point out the existing gap in the literature.
2. Introduction should be extended, i.e. brief information on used methods, why this method was chosen instead of etc.
3. Introduction section: In this part please:

• Define the main aim of paper.
• Formulate scientific hypotheses or research questions. These must be supported by an appropriate review of theoretical sources in the first part and by results in the next part!

4. Literature review and improvements in regard to literature background should be made. Examples of articles that may be useful for the authors identifying similar contributions and better show what is the specific contribution.

• Pichlak, M.; Szromek, A.R. Eco-Innovation, Sustainability and Business Model Innovation by Open Innovation Dynamics. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 149. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7020149
• Lewandowska, A. (2021) Interactions between investments in innovation and SME competitiveness in peripheral regions. Polish case study. Journal of International Studies, 14(1), 285-307. doi: 10.14254/2071-8330.2021/14-1/20
• Albors-Garrigos, J.; Hervas-Oliver, J.L. Disruptive Innovation in Traditional Clusters: The Case of the Kerajet Ceramic Tile Cluster in Spain. Sci. 2019, 9, 5513. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9245513
• Coccia, M. (2017) Sources of technological innovation: Radical and incremental innovation problem-driven to support competitive advantage of firms. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 29(9). doi: 10.1080/09537325.2016.1268682

In my opinion these four references cannot be omitted.

5. Discussion should be better. The findings are not compared and contrasted with relevant literature. Linking theoretical considerations with empirical findings and providing some planning insights is critical in a journal with the scope of Applied Sciences.

I hope that my comments are helpful to you as you continue your work on this project. Good luck!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

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.