Purpose-Driven Smart Specialization (S3+P): A Multilevel Model for Sustainable Regional Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for inviting me to review the manuscript entitled “Smart Specialization with Purpose (S3+P)—A Multilevel Model for Sustainable Regional Development." The study proposes "Smart Specialization with Purpose" (S3+P), and it argues that S3 implementations suffer from limited inclusivity and an over-reliance on output metrics. To address these gaps, this study introduces a model linking individual, organizational, and territorial purposes through five mechanisms and operationalizes it through a study of the Alentejo region in Portugal. While the topic is relevant to debates on mission-oriented innovation policy and regional development, it suffers from plenty of serious problems and more detailed revisions are needed. Hence, a rejection decision is recommended and hope the following comments are helpful for their future submissions.

The title concludes the main context of this study, but it is not uninsightful. Maybe it can bechanged to “Purpose-Driven Smart Specialization: A Multilevel Model for Sustainable Regional Development in the EU”. Besides, the abstract basiclly follow the right structure, but it is better to be presented in a neutral tone, such as by “This study/this paper” instead of “we”. Moreover, some keywords are meaningless and can be deleted, such as the “Purpose”.

In the introduction, more attentions are put to the research questions and the contributions, while less contexts are about the background, especially “what is smart specialization strategy”, “what is sustainable regional development” and “why we need smart specialization with sustainable regional development”. The authors need to extend the introduction about the smart specialization strategy and sustainable regional development. One suggestion is to incorporate section 2 into introduction. Moreover, as the authors propose the contributions and research gaps in this section, more recent high-quality references are needed.

The second section makes a introduction of smart specialization inEU and conduct a comprehensive literature review. As suggested, some of the section should be incorporated into the introduction and some of this section should be extended as literature review. Therefore, more references should be included and the references should be grouped by their topic to show the marginal contribution of this study.

According to my understanding, the Section 3 Methodlogy, Section 4 Conceptual foundations for a S3+P andSection 5. Propsed model: S3 +P can be incorported into one new section as 3. Research Design. The section 4 can be section 3.1 about the thoeretical analysis,  the section 3 can be section 3.2 about the research method, and the section 5 can be the main part of the research design for this study. Then the structure will be more clear for the readers. By the way, the title of figure 1 should be below the figure (same for other figures).

Thesection 6 introduce the emprical analysis and its main findins. But the analyis is far from enough and more robust and sensity analysis are need, as well the more detailed discussion of the findings are needed. Section 6.2 proposes a set of 12 indicators, but the feasibility of measuring these indicators is questionable. Metrics like "Identity Cohesion" or "Regional Plasticity Index" are conceptually sound but methodologically complex. It does not address the cost, frequency, or technical capacity required to collect this data, especially for "lagging regions" which it aims to help. Furthermore, the authors mention the need for counterfactual methods in the research agenda but do not integrate this challenge into the monitoring framework itself. In the revison, the authors should include a critical discussion of the limitations, potential proxies, and a realistic assessment.

Section 7 presents the main findings of this study, but its structure is unclear and it should be structured by more subsections, like 7.1 Conclusions, 7.2 Implications (practial implication, and theoretical implications), 7.3 Research limitation and future directions. The authors need to add a critical implication of this study, which show the significance and research contribution of this study. Moreover, the research limitation and future direction should be more detailed and with examples, otherwise it is meaningless.

As a conclusion, the manuscript is somewhat hard to understand, not only because of its english writting, but also due to its poor structure. The authors need to think about how to correct structure the manuscript and extend their emprical analysis with interesting and insighful discussion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

the manuscript is hard to understand and the quality of English language should be improved.

Author Response

We would like to thank the Editor and the Reviewers for the time, care, and thoughtful engagement devoted to the evaluation of our manuscript. We are grateful for the constructive nature of the comments received, which have helped us improve the paper substantially in both structure and argument.

In response to the review process, we undertook a thorough revision of the manuscript. The revised version now provides a stronger contextual framing of Smart Specialization Strategy (S3), a clearer and more explicit research-design section, a more precise delimitation of the Alentejo application as illustrative rather than confirmatory, a dedicated discussion section covering practical and theoretical implications, limitations, and future research, and a shorter conclusion more directly aligned with the research question and the article’s contribution.

More specifically, the revision focused on five main improvements. First, we strengthened the introductory and literature-framing sections to clarify the contemporary evolution of S3, the role of the Entrepreneurial Discovery Process, and the recurrent implementation bottlenecks that motivate the proposed renewal. Second, we redesigned the methodological presentation of the article so that its conceptual, theory-building character is explicit throughout. Third, we clarified the scope of the proposed model and the status of the Alentejo section, which is intended as an illustrative regional application rather than as a formal empirical validation exercise. Fourth, we added a dedicated discussion section to engage more directly with implications, limitations, and future lines of inquiry. Fifth, we revised the manuscript stylistically and structurally to improve readability, coherence, and argumentative flow.

We have addressed the Reviewers’ comments with particular care. Where suggestions could be incorporated directly, we revised the manuscript accordingly. Where we retained a different option, we explain the rationale respectfully and with a view to preserving the manuscript’s analytical coherence and contribution. In all cases, we aimed to make the revised version more rigorous, more transparent in scope, and more useful to readers interested in the renewal of S3 in the context of sustainable and coordinated regional development.

For ease of review, below provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment and indicate, where relevant, the sections of the revised manuscript in which the corresponding changes have been introduced.

We hope that the revised manuscript now meets the expectations of the Editor and Reviewers more fully, and we remain sincerely grateful for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our work.

 

1.

Comment: Thanks for inviting me to review the manuscript entitled “Smart Specialization with Purpose (S3+P)—A Multilevel Model for Sustainable Regional Development." The study proposes "Smart Specialization with Purpose" (S3+P), and it argues that S3 implementations suffer from limited inclusivity and an over-reliance on output metrics. To address these gaps, this study introduces a model linking individual, organizational, and territorial purposes through five mechanisms and operationalizes it through a study of the Alentejo region in Portugal. While the topic is relevant to debates on mission-oriented innovation policy and regional development, it suffers from plenty of serious problems and more detailed revisions are needed. Hence, a rejection decision is recommended and hope the following comments are helpful for their future submissions.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the thorough and critical assessment of our manuscript. In response to this overall concern, we substantially revised and restructured the paper. The revised version strengthens the background framing on the evolution and implementation limitations of smart specialization, clarifies the paper’s research design and conceptual scope, makes explicit that the Alentejo case is presented as an illustrative application rather than as formal empirical validation, and adds a dedicated discussion of implications, limitations, and future research. We also position S3+P more carefully as a theory-building and policy-oriented conceptual contribution that responds to persistent challenges identified in the smart specialization literature, including the need to deepen the role of purpose in regional innovation policy (e.g., Foray, 2015). The revised manuscript is now more explicit about what the paper does, and does not, claim.

Action in revised manuscript: The manuscript was substantially reorganized to improve scope clarity, argumentative progression, and structural coherence. Section 2 was expanded and subdivided into thematic subsections, Section 3 was recast as “Research design and method,” the status of the Alentejo section was clarified as illustrative rather than confirmatory, a dedicated Section 7 “Discussion” was introduced with four explicit subsections, and the Conclusion was shortened and more tightly aligned with the research question and the article’s actual contribution.

Where it appears: Section 1, final paragraph beginning: “The remainder of the article is structured as follows...”; Section 2 heading: “Smart Specialization in the European Union: evolution, EDP, limitations”; Section 3 heading: “Research design and method”; Section 3.3, opening sentence: “The article also includes an illustrative application to Alentejo.”; Section 7 heading: “Discussion”; Section 8 heading: “Conclusion”.

References:

Foray, D. (2015). Smart specialisation: Opportunities and challenges for regional innovation policy. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315773063

2.

Comment: The title concludes the main context of this study, but it is not uninsightful. Maybe it can be changed to “Purpose-Driven Smart Specialization: A Multilevel Model for Sustainable Regional Development in the EU”. Besides, the abstract basically follows the right structure, but it is better to be presented in a neutral tone, such as by “This study/this paper” instead of “we”. Moreover, some keywords are meaningless and can be deleted, such as the “Purpose”.

Response: We addressed this comment by revising the title, abstract, and keywords. The title was revised to foreground the purpose-driven dimension more clearly, the abstract was rewritten in a neutral academic tone using impersonal formulations, and the keyword “Purpose” was removed. We did not add “in the EU” to the title because, although the paper is primarily framed within the EU smart specialization literature and uses that context as its main policy reference, the proposed model is intended as a broader analytical framework for multilevel regional development. To make this point clearer, the revised manuscript now explicitly acknowledges that, while its empirical and policy grounding is European, the framework may also offer analytical relevance for other multilevel governance settings beyond the EU.

Action in revised manuscript: The title was changed from “Smart Specialization with Purpose (S3+P) – A Multilevel Model for Sustainable Regional Development” to “Purpose-Driven Smart Specialization (S3+P): A Multilevel Model for Sustainable Regional Development.” The abstract was fully recast in impersonal form and now states the conceptual design, model-building procedure, illustrative application, principal results, and main conclusion. The keyword list was revised and no longer includes the standalone term “Purpose.”

Where it appears: Title: "Purpose-Driven Smart Specialization (S3+P): A Multilevel Model for Sustainable Regional Development"; Abstract, opening sentence: "Smart Specialization Strategy (S3) has become a central instrument of European Union Cohesion Policy..."; Keywords line: "Keywords: Smart Specialization Strategy (S3); Sustainable Regional Development; Entrepreneurial Discovery Process (EDP)...".

References:

Barca, F. (2009). An agenda for a reformed cohesion policy: A place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations. European Commission.

https://img9.custompublish.com/getfile.php/930314.1169.qfspvupwqe/Barca_final_version_21_04.pdf?return=www.innovationcircle.no

 

3.

Comment: In the introduction, more attentions are put to the research questions and the contributions, while less contexts are about the background, especially “what is smart specialization strategy”, “what is sustainable regional development” and “why we need smart specialization with sustainable regional development”. The authors need to extend the introduction about the smart specialization strategy and sustainable regional development. One suggestion is to incorporate section 2 into introduction. Moreover, as the authors propose contributions and research gaps in this section, more recent high-quality references are needed.

Response: We addressed this comment by substantially expanding the Introduction. The revised opening now explains what S3 is, why it matters for cohesion and sustainable regional development, why current implementation weaknesses matter, and why a purpose-based lens is proposed as a response to a specific problem of directionality, legitimacy, and multilevel coordination. The research gap and contribution are now introduced only after that broader framing. We did not fully merge Section 2 into the Introduction because retaining a separate section on the evolution of S3, EDP, and implementation bottlenecks preserves analytical clarity and avoids overloading the opening section. However, the Introduction now incorporates far more of the background logic that the reviewer requested, and it also foregrounds recent references more visibly than in the original version.

Action in revised manuscript: The Introduction was rewritten to include a fuller contextual framing of S3, sustainable-development ambitions, recurring implementation problems, the rationale for a purpose-based renewal, the research gap, and the article’s contribution. The citation density and recency of the framing discussion were also increased within the existing reference base.

Where it appears: Section 1. Introduction, opening sentence: "Smart Specialization Strategy (S3) became a core instrument of EU cohesion policy..."; Section 1. Introduction, paragraph beginning: "The unresolved gap is how purposes align or conflict across individuals, organizations, territories...".

 

References:

Barca, F. (2009). An agenda for a reformed cohesion policy: A place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations. European Commission.

https://img9.custompublish.com/getfile.php/930314.1169.qfspvupwqe/Barca_final_version_21_04.pdf?return=www.innovationcircle.no

 

4.

Comment: The second section makes a introduction of smart specialization inEU and conduct a comprehensive literature review. As suggested, some of the section should be incorporated into the introduction and some of this section should be extended as literature review. Therefore, more references should be included and the references should be grouped by their topic to show the marginal contribution of this study.

Response: We addressed this comment by reorganizing Section 2 into a more explicit thematic review rather than a single continuous narrative. The revised section now distinguishes the evolution of S3, the rationale and evolution of EDP, recurring implementation bottlenecks, and monitoring and evaluation issues. This structure makes the state of knowledge and the article’s point of departure more transparent. We have reassessed the bibliography with some recent and relevant additions according to the assessment of the reviewers.

Action in revised manuscript: Section 2 was restructured into four thematic subsections: 2.1 on the evolution of S3, 2.2 on EDP, 2.3 on recurring bottlenecks, on 2.4 on monitoring and evaluation and references. This replaced the previous more compressed review format and makes the analytical progression clearer.

Where it appears: Section 2.1, opening sentence: "S3 entered EU cohesion policy as a place-based strategy for concentrating innovation effort..."; Section 2.2, opening sentence: "EDP was originally conceived as a participatory discovery process..."; Section 2.3, opening sentence: "Implementation bottlenecks recur most strongly in peripheral or weak-capacity regions..."; Section 2.4, opening sentence: "Monitoring and evaluation remain especially weak...".

References:

Camagni, R., & Capello, R. (2013). Regional innovation patterns and the EU regional policy reform: Toward smart innovation policies. Growth and Change, 44(2), 355-389. https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12012

Molica, F. (2024). Regional innovation policies and directionality: Exploring the role of conditionality. European Planning Studies, 32(8), 1653-1670. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2024.2362710

Molica, F., Cappellano, F., Makkonen, T., & Hassink, R. (2026). Embedding the mission-oriented approach in smart spe-cialization strategies: An exploratory assessment. European Planning Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2026.2642390

Pinto, H., Laranja, M., & Uyarra, E. (2024). Smart specialization, public authorities, and innovation intermediaries in developing regions. Regional Sustainability, 5(4), Article 100175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsus.2024.100175

Uyarra, E., Bugge, M. M., Coenen, L., Flanagan, K., & Wanzenböck, I. (2025). Geographies of mission-oriented innovation policy. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 56, Article 100970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2025.100970

 

5.

Comment: According to my understanding, the Section 3 Methodlogy, Section 4 Conceptual foundations for a S3+P andSection 5. Propsed model: S3 +P can be incorported into one new section as 3. Research Design. The section 4 can be section 3.1 about the thoeretical analysis, the section 3 can be section 3.2 about the research method, and the section 5 can be the main part of the research design for this study. Then the structure will be more clear for the readers. By the way, the title of figure 1 should be below the figure (same for other figures).

Response: We addressed this suggestion by clarifying our rationale for presenting the conceptual framework and the proposed model as substantive contributions, consistent with conventions commonly followed in theory-building articles, rather than as methodological appendices. We adopted the reviewer’s structural suggestion to the extent of recasting the former methodology section as “3. Research design and method” and subdividing it into conceptual approach, model-building procedure, and illustrative application. However, we retained Sections 4 and 5 as separate sections because they contain the paper’s substantive theoretical contribution rather than only procedural design elements. Merging all three into a single section would have reduced the visibility of the conceptual foundations and the proposed model themselves. Regarding figure captions, the revised manuscript standardizes figure labels and sources, but the caption placement itself was not changed in the current working file, following recommendations from universal typographic standards in academic journals (American Psychological Association, 2020; The University of Chicago Press Editorial Staff, 2017).

Action in revised manuscript: Section 3 was renamed and expanded into a clearer research-design section structured around conceptual approach, model-building procedure, and illustrative application. Sections 4 and 5 were retained as separate sections in order to preserve the visibility of the article’s substantive theoretical contribution. Figure labels and source lines were standardized in the revised manuscript, while caption placement was left to remain compatible with later editorial or production formatting if required.

Where it appears: Section 3, opening sentence: “This article adopts a conceptual design aimed at policy-oriented model building.”; Section 3.1, opening sentence: “The review is selective and theory-building rather than systematic in a statistical sense.”; Section 3.2, opening sentence: “Model building proceeded sequentially.”; Section 3.3, opening sentence: “The article also includes an illustrative application to Alentejo.”; Figure 1 caption: “Figure 1. Development with purpose as an emerging outcome”.

 

References:

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000

The University of Chicago Press Editorial Staff. (2017). The Chicago manual of style (17th ed.). The University of Chicago Press.

 

6.

Comment: Thesection 6 introduce the emprical analysis and its main findins. But the analyis is far from enough and more robust and sensity analysis are need, as well the more detailed discussion of the findings are needed. Section 6.2 proposes a set of 12 indicators, but the feasibility of measuring these indicators is questionable. Metrics like "Identity Cohesion" or "Regional Plasticity Index" are conceptually sound but methodologically complex. It does not address the cost, frequency, or technical capacity required to collect this data, especially for "lagging regions" which it aims to help. Furthermore, the authors mention the need for counterfactual methods in the research agenda but do not integrate this challenge into the monitoring framework itself. In the revison, the authors should include a critical discussion of the limitations, potential proxies, and a realistic assessment.

Response: We appreciate this important comment and addressed it by clarifying the conceptual status of the article and by delimiting more explicitly what is proposed here, and what remains for future empirical validation. The revised manuscript does not claim formal robustness testing, sensitivity testing, or causal validation. Instead, it reframes the proposed indicator set as a staged monitoring architecture intended to guide implementation and learning in a realistic and context-sensitive way.

To respond to the reviewer’s concern about feasibility, the revised text now distinguishes more clearly between indicators that can rely mainly on recurrent administrative or statistical sources and others that would require more demanding forms of operationalization, such as surveys, network analysis, documentary coding, or qualitative assessment. We also added Appendix A to map the 12 proposed indicators against existing national, European, and administrative proxies and to indicate where composite or interpretive measures would still be required.

The revised manuscript further expands the discussion of measurement limits, proxy dependence, and uneven regional capacity, especially in weaker-capacity settings. In addition, it now clarifies more explicitly that counterfactual methods are not part of the routine monitoring architecture proposed in this conceptual article. Rather, they are positioned as a complementary layer of periodic impact evaluation for selected interventions, once implementation maturity, baseline definition, and data quality make such analysis feasible.

Overall, we addressed the reviewer’s concern not by overstating empirical validation, but by strengthening the manuscript’s methodological transparency, clarifying the realistic scope of the monitoring proposal, and making the limitations and future empirical requirements more explicit.

.

Action in revised manuscript: The manuscript was revised to clarify more explicitly its conceptual status and to delimit more carefully the elements that remain for future empirical validation. Section 3.3 and Section 6.3 now state clearly that the Alentejo application is illustrative and heuristic rather than a formal case study or empirical validation exercise. Section 6.2 was substantially revised to distinguish intermediate and end indicators more clearly, to present the indicator set as a staged and adaptive monitoring architecture, and to explain how a realistic monitoring strategy may begin with routinely available administrative and statistical data before progressively incorporating more demanding measures. Appendix A was added to map the proposed indicators against existing proxies and to indicate where composite, survey-based, network-based, or interpretive operationalization would still be required. Section 7.3 was expanded to discuss measurement complexity, proxy dependence, and uneven regional capacity more explicitly, while Section 7.4 now clarifies that counterfactual and quasi-experimental approaches belong to a complementary layer of periodic impact evaluation rather than to the routine monitoring framework proposed in this article.

 

Where it appears: Section 3.3, opening sentence: “The article also includes an illustrative application to Alentejo. Its function is heuristic...”; Section 6.2, opening sentence: “The effective operationalization of the S3+P model requires a monitoring architecture capable of capturing both the functioning of the strategy and the longer-term results...”; Section 6.2, paragraph beginning: “For practical application, however, these indicators should be treated as a staged and adaptive monitoring architecture...”; Section 6.2, paragraph beginning: “Appendix A makes this staged logic more explicit...”; Section 6.3, paragraph beginning: “This illustrative application is intended solely to show how the S3+P framework may be interpreted...”; Section 7.3, opening sentence: “This article remains a conceptual contribution...”; Section 7.4, opening sentence: “Future research should therefore test whether purpose-oriented strategies improve coherence...”.

 

7.

Comment: Section 7 presents the main findings of this study, but its structure is unclear and it should be structured by more subsections, like 7.1 Conclusions, 7.2 Implications (practial implication, and theoretical implications), 7.3 Research limitation and future directions. The authors need to add a critical implication of this study, which show the significance and research contribution of this study. Moreover, the research limitation and future direction should be more detailed and with examples, otherwise it is meaningless. As a conclusion, the manuscript is somewhat hard to understand, not only because of its english writting, but also due to its poor structure. The authors need to think about how to correct structure the manuscript and extend their emprical analysis with interesting and insighful discussion.

Response: We appreciate this important comment and addressed it both structurally and substantively. In structural terms, the revised manuscript now includes a dedicated Section 7, “Discussion,” with four explicit subsections: practical implications, theoretical implications, limitations, and future research agenda. The Conclusion was separated into a distinct Section 8 and reduced to a shorter and more focused closing section. In substantive terms, the revised Discussion now makes the contribution of the article more explicit by clarifying the practical relevance of S3+P, situating the framework more clearly in relation to prior debates, and discussing the article’s limitations and future research needs in greater detail. Because the paper remains a conceptual contribution, we did not expand the Alentejo section into a full empirical study. Instead, we addressed this concern by clarifying the status of the analysis, making the limitations explicit, and strengthening the discussion in ways that are consistent with the actual design and contribution of the article. We also revised the manuscript’s overall structure and wording to improve readability and argumentative progression throughout.

Action in revised manuscript: A dedicated Section 7, “Discussion,” was added and organized into four explicit subsections covering practical implications, theoretical implications, limitations, and future research agenda. In parallel, the Conclusion was separated into a distinct Section 8 and shortened so that it now focuses more directly on the research question, the scope of the contribution, and the main takeaways. The discussion was also strengthened to make the article’s practical relevance, conceptual contribution, limitations, and future empirical requirements more explicit.

Where it appears: Section 7 heading: “Discussion”; Section 7.1, opening sentence: “S3+P suggests that purpose should be treated as an explicit criterion...”; Section 7.2, opening sentence: “Theoretically, the article connects bodies of literature that often remain separate...”; Section 7.3, opening sentence: “This article remains a conceptual contribution...”; Section 7.4, opening sentence: “Future research should therefore test whether purpose-oriented strategies improve coherence...”; Section 8 heading: “Conclusion”.

 

8.

Comment: Comments on the Quality of English Language: the manuscript is hard to understand and the quality of English language should be improved.

Response: We appreciate this comment and revised the manuscript carefully to improve clarity, readability, and overall argumentative flow. The revision was not limited to sentence-level editing. We also simplified dense passages, clarified the scope and status of the article, and reorganized the manuscript so that the progression from contextual framing to research design, conceptual development, operationalization, discussion, and conclusion is more explicit and easier to follow. In this sense, the improvement in readability results from both language revision and structural revision.

Action in revised manuscript: The manuscript was revised throughout to improve clarity, consistency, and readability. This involved not only language editing at sentence level, but also structural revision aimed at simplifying dense passages, clarifying the scope of the article, and making the progression from contextual framing to research design, conceptual development, operationalization, discussion, and conclusion more explicit and easier to follow.

Where it appears: Throughout the revised manuscript, and most visibly in Section 1, opening paragraphs framing the problem and research gap; Section 3, which now presents a clearer methodological sequence; Section 7, which separates implications, limitations, and future research; and Section 8, which provides a shorter and more focused conclusion.

We thank the Reviewer for their careful and constructive comments. The revised manuscript now presents a stronger contextual framing of S3, a clearer research-design section, a more explicit delimitation of the illustrative application, a dedicated discussion of practical and theoretical implications, and a shorter conclusion more directly aligned with the research question and the article’s contribution.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I have carefully read the manuscript and would like to commend you on the quality of the work. The paper presents a meaningful and well-structured analysis, and the proposed model – building on previous experience, introducing a clearly defined indicator framework and a six-step management cycle – represents a valuable and original contribution. The topic of smart specialization is highly relevant, especially in the context of EU cohesion policy, and the paper successfully connects the analytical framework to societal challenges and practical policy recommendations.

The research question is clearly formulated in the introduction. However, it would be useful to return to it more explicitly in the discussion of the results and in the conclusion. Strengthening this link would improve the internal coherence of the paper and help the reader to follow more clearly how the findings fit into the initial purpose of the study.

The review of the EU experience with S3 in the second part is informative and well-placed, especially in identifying gaps between literature and practice.

Sections 4, 5 and 6 are comprehensive and methodologically clear, supported by well-prepared figures. At the same time, some simplification would improve readability. In particular, the current subheadings in sections 4 and 5 seem to repeat elements that belong to the methodology and could be integrated there, which would make the structure more compact.

The section on implementation is detailed and convincingly explains the six-step process for defining priorities through a combination of quantitative evidence and participatory approaches. One sentence would benefit from clarification (line 340: “Diagnosis and reflection on networks and identity structures”), as the context and intended meaning are not entirely clear.

The conclusion reflects the content of the paper and provides useful recommendations. It could be further strengthened by focusing more directly on the key findings of the analysis and their implications.

Overall, this is an excellent manuscript. I recommend acceptance with minor changes aimed mainly at improving structural clarity and strengthening the connection between the research question, results, and conclusion.

Reviewer

Author Response

We would like to thank the Editor and the Reviewers for the time, care, and thoughtful engagement devoted to the evaluation of our manuscript. We are grateful for the constructive nature of the comments received, which have helped us improve the paper substantially in both structure and argument.

In response to the review process, we undertook a thorough revision of the manuscript. The revised version now provides a stronger contextual framing of Smart Specialization Strategy (S3), a clearer and more explicit research-design section, a more precise delimitation of the Alentejo application as illustrative rather than confirmatory, a dedicated discussion section covering practical and theoretical implications, limitations, and future research, and a shorter conclusion more directly aligned with the research question and the article’s contribution.

More specifically, the revision focused on five main improvements. First, we strengthened the introductory and literature-framing sections to clarify the contemporary evolution of S3, the role of the Entrepreneurial Discovery Process, and the recurrent implementation bottlenecks that motivate the proposed renewal. Second, we redesigned the methodological presentation of the article so that its conceptual, theory-building character is explicit throughout. Third, we clarified the scope of the proposed model and the status of the Alentejo section, which is intended as an illustrative regional application rather than as a formal empirical validation exercise. Fourth, we added a dedicated discussion section to engage more directly with implications, limitations, and future lines of inquiry. Fifth, we revised the manuscript stylistically and structurally to improve readability, coherence, and argumentative flow.

We have addressed the Reviewers’ comments with particular care. Where suggestions could be incorporated directly, we revised the manuscript accordingly. Where we retained a different option, we explain the rationale respectfully and with a view to preserving the manuscript’s analytical coherence and contribution. In all cases, we aimed to make the revised version more rigorous, more transparent in scope, and more useful to readers interested in the renewal of S3 in the context of sustainable and coordinated regional development.

For ease of review, below provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment and indicate, where relevant, the sections of the revised manuscript in which the corresponding changes have been introduced.

We hope that the revised manuscript now meets the expectations of the Editor and Reviewers more fully, and we remain sincerely grateful for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our work.

 

1.

Comment: Dear authors, I have carefully read the manuscript and would like to commend you on the quality of the work. The paper presents a meaningful and well-structured analysis, and the proposed model – building on previous experience, introducing a clearly defined indicator framework and a six-step management cycle – represents a valuable and original contribution. The topic of smart specialization is highly relevant, especially in the context of EU cohesion policy, and the paper successfully connects the analytical framework to societal challenges and practical policy recommendations.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this positive assessment and for recognizing both the policy relevance and the originality of the proposed model. In the revised version, we sought to preserve these strengths while improving structural clarity and making the conceptual scope and contribution even more explicit.

Action in revised manuscript: No discrete textual change was required by this positive comment alone, but the manuscript was further clarified and reorganized in response to the reviewer’s subsequent suggestions.

Where it appears: Overall manuscript structure, especially Sections 2–3 and 7–8.

2.

Comment: The research question is clearly formulated in the introduction. However, it would be useful to return to it more explicitly in the discussion of the results and in the conclusion. Strengthening this link would improve the internal coherence of the paper and help the reader to follow more clearly how the findings fit into the initial purpose of the study.

Response: We appreciate this helpful comment and have addressed it in the revised manuscript. Both the discussion and the conclusion now return more explicitly to the research question stated in the Introduction, namely how shared purpose can be incorporated into S3 in order to improve developmental direction and implementation quality across levels. In Section 7, this link is made clearer by explaining how S3+P treats purpose as an explicit criterion for diagnosis, prioritization, governance, portfolio design, and evaluation, thereby clarifying how the framework responds to recurring S3 challenges. Section 8 then restates this point in a more concise way by emphasizing that shared purpose can be incorporated into Smart Specialization Strategy as an organizing principle linking diagnosis, prioritization, governance, implementation, and evaluation across levels. We believe this revision improves the paper’s internal coherence and makes the connection between the research question, the discussion, and the conclusion more visible to the reader.

Action in revised manuscript: The link between the research question and the findings was made more explicit in both the discussion and the conclusion. Section 7 now clarifies more directly how S3+P responds to the research question, and Section 8 reformulates the conclusion around the article’s answer, contribution, and implications.

Where it appears: Section 1. Introduction: “This article therefore asks how shared purpose can be incorporated into S3 in order to improve developmental direction and implementation quality across levels.”; Section 7.1. Practical implications: “S3+P suggests that purpose should be treated as an explicit criterion…”; Section 8. Conclusion: “This article argues that shared purpose can be incorporated into Smart Specialization Strategy...”.

 

3.

Comment: The review of the EU experience with S3 in the second part is informative and well-placed, especially in identifying gaps between literature and practice.

Response: We appreciate this assessment. In the revised manuscript, we retained this sectional function and made it more explicit by reorganizing Section 2 around the main analytical dimensions that motivate the S3+P proposal.

Action in revised manuscript: Section 2 was retained but internally reorganized into four thematic subsections to sharpen the distinction between evolution, EDP, bottlenecks, and monitoring and evaluation.

Where it appears: Section 2.1, opening sentence: "S3 entered EU cohesion policy as a place-based strategy for concentrating innovation effort..."; Section 2.2, opening sentence: "EDP was originally conceived as a participatory discovery process..."; Section 2.3, opening sentence: "Implementation bottlenecks recur most strongly in peripheral or weak-capacity regions..."; Section 2.4, opening sentence: "Monitoring and evaluation remain especially weak...".

4.

Comment: Sections 4, 5 and 6 are comprehensive and methodologically clear, supported by well-prepared figures. At the same time, some simplification would improve readability. In particular, the current subheadings in sections 4 and 5 seem to repeat elements that belong to the methodology and could be integrated there, which would make the structure more compact.

Response: We addressed this suggestion by simplifying the methodological exposition in Section 3 while retaining the article’s substantive architecture. We created a clearer Section 3, “Research design and method,” with explicit subsections for conceptual approach, model-building procedure, and illustrative application. At the same time, we retained Sections 4 and 5 because they articulate the article’s conceptual foundations and proposed model, which we consider substantive results rather than methodological preliminaries. This compromise makes the structure more compact without obscuring the paper’s central theoretical contribution.

Action in revised manuscript: Methodological and design-related explanations were moved into a clearer Section 3, while Sections 4 and 5 were retained as separate substantive sections.

Where it appears: Section 3. Research design and method, opening sentence: "This article adopts a conceptual design aimed at policy-oriented model building."; Section 3.1, opening sentence: "The review is selective and theory-building rather than systematic in a statistical sense."; Section 3.2, opening sentence: "Model building proceeded in sequence."; Section 3.3, opening sentence: "The article also includes an illustrative application to Alentejo.".

5.

Comment: The section on implementation is detailed and convincingly explains the six-step process for defining priorities through a combination of quantitative evidence and participatory approaches. One sentence would benefit from clarification (line 340: “Diagnosis and reflection on networks and identity structures”), as the context and intended meaning are not entirely clear.

Response: The isolated wording noted by the reviewer was replaced by a fuller explanatory sentence clarifying that networks and identity are relevant in diagnosis and deliberation because relational configurations, narratives, and identity structures shape engagement and priority-setting. While the revised sentence is more explicit than in the previous version, its wording remains concise because it serves as a bridging statement within a broader paragraph on how the five mechanisms operate across the policy cycle.

Action in revised manuscript: The ambiguous phrase was replaced with a fuller sentence linking networks and identity to diagnosis, deliberation, engagement, and priority-setting within the six-step cycle.

Where it appears: Section 6.1, paragraph beginning: "The cycle organizes action around purpose and integrates the five mechanisms of S3+P.".

6.

Comment: The conclusion reflects the content of the paper and provides useful recommendations. It could be further strengthened by focusing more directly on the key findings of the analysis and their implications.

Response: This comment was fully addressed. The revised conclusion is now substantially shorter and more direct. It focuses on the article’s main findings, its contribution, and its broader implication for renewing S3.

Action in revised manuscript: The previous extended concluding section was replaced by a concise three-paragraph Conclusion centered on the article’s main answer and implications.

Where it appears: Section 8. Conclusion, opening sentence: "This article argued that shared purpose can be incorporated into Smart Specialization Strategy...".

7.

Comment: Overall, this is an excellent manuscript. I recommend acceptance with minor changes aimed mainly at improving structural clarity and strengthening the connection between the research question, results, and conclusion.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this recommendation. The revised manuscript implements the requested minor changes by improving structural clarity, clarifying design choices, and making the link between the research question, discussion, and conclusion more explicit.

Action in revised manuscript: Structural clarity was improved through the revised Section 2, the new Section 3 research-design structure, the addition of Section 7 “Discussion,” and the focused Section 8 “Conclusion.”

Where it appears: Sections 2–3 and 7–8.

 

We thank the Reviewer for their careful and constructive comments. The revised manuscript now presents a stronger contextual framing of S3, a clearer research-design section, a more explicit delimitation of the illustrative application, a dedicated discussion of practical and theoretical implications, and a shorter conclusion more directly aligned with the research question and the article’s contribution.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors This article presents a highly topical topic concerning smart specializations. A strength of the manuscript is the concept for improving the implementation of smart specializations. However, the theoretical foundations, research methodology, and discussion and results sections require further engagement from the authors. More detailed suggestions for improving the manuscript are provided below.   1. The abstract should include information on the methodology – the purpose, scope (subjective and time), and a description of the research methods – as well as the research results and conclusions.   2. The introduction lacks a broader context regarding the importance of smart specializations in the context of sustainable development – ​​it does not address the main S3 goals and how to achieve them. It is also worth noting that the S3 strategy was designed for less advanced regions, so that they can build their competitive advantage in specific areas rather than developing general capabilities. Furthermore, there is no reference to the challenges faced by regions (especially less advanced ones) in implementing S3, particularly in the areas of S3 management, monitoring, and evaluation. Furthermore, there is a lack of reference to the current state of knowledge, indicating what has already been researched regarding the implementation of smart specialization strategies and the associated problems. Specifically, is there current research suggesting solutions to some common problems in developing regional strategies, such as the "picking winner syndrome," the lack of understanding of the regional institutional context, and the copy-paste imitation of innovation policies designed in the best-performing/leading regions? Based on this, the research gap and the authors' approach to filling it should be clearly identified.   3. In Part Two, "Smart Specialization in the European Union: Evolution, Practice, and 69 Limitations," it is worth devoting more attention to explaining the EDP, which plays a key role in the S3 concept. Furthermore, it is worth emphasizing the need to update S3 to meet the prerequisites and referencing research by other authors, such as analyses of bottlenecks that hinder the diffusion of innovation (especially digitalization), monitoring and evaluation tools for measuring the achievement of strategy objectives, actions necessary to improve national and regional research and innovation systems, measures for international cooperation, and industrial transformation management, etc. Referencing the broader context and literature review would provide greater justification for the solutions proposed by the authors.   4. Part three, "methodology," should be seriously revised. The research procedure should be presented in detail: - The authors noted that the research was based on a critical synthesis of the literature, but there is a lack of broader information on how it was conducted, such as which databases were used, what keywords were used, how many results were obtained, what the focus of the identified publications was, how many publications were used, and why.  - Furthermore, there is also a lack of broader reference to the case study – a lack of justification and characterization for the selected case. There is also no reference to the selected example (Alentejo region in Portugal) in the title. It may be worth considering whether a case study is necessary given the conceptual nature of the article.   5. Section seven, "Conclusions," should clearly indicate the conclusions of the authors' analysis. The main research results and conclusions from the analyses should be presented. Ideally, this section should be limited to three paragraphs.   6. The manuscript does not contain a discussion section in which the obtained research results should be compared with studies conducted by other authors to date. Furthermore, it is important to highlight the limitations of the conducted research and future directions for research.

Author Response

We would like to thank the Editor and the Reviewers for the time, care, and thoughtful engagement devoted to the evaluation of our manuscript. We are grateful for the constructive nature of the comments received, which have helped us improve the paper substantially in both structure and argument.

In response to the review process, we undertook a thorough revision of the manuscript. The revised version now provides a stronger contextual framing of Smart Specialization Strategy (S3), a clearer and more explicit research-design section, a more precise delimitation of the Alentejo application as illustrative rather than confirmatory, a dedicated discussion section covering practical and theoretical implications, limitations, and future research, and a shorter conclusion more directly aligned with the research question and the article’s contribution.

More specifically, the revision focused on five main improvements. First, we strengthened the introductory and literature-framing sections to clarify the contemporary evolution of S3, the role of the Entrepreneurial Discovery Process, and the recurrent implementation bottlenecks that motivate the proposed renewal. Second, we redesigned the methodological presentation of the article so that its conceptual, theory-building character is explicit throughout. Third, we clarified the scope of the proposed model and the status of the Alentejo section, which is intended as an illustrative regional application rather than as a formal empirical validation exercise. Fourth, we added a dedicated discussion section to engage more directly with implications, limitations, and future lines of inquiry. Fifth, we revised the manuscript stylistically and structurally to improve readability, coherence, and argumentative flow.

We have addressed the Reviewers’ comments with particular care. Where suggestions could be incorporated directly, we revised the manuscript accordingly. Where we retained a different option, we explain the rationale respectfully and with a view to preserving the manuscript’s analytical coherence and contribution. In all cases, we aimed to make the revised version more rigorous, more transparent in scope, and more useful to readers interested in the renewal of S3 in the context of sustainable and coordinated regional development.

For ease of review, below provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment and indicate, where relevant, the sections of the revised manuscript in which the corresponding changes have been introduced.

We hope that the revised manuscript now meets the expectations of the Editor and Reviewers more fully, and we remain sincerely grateful for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our work.

 

1.

Comment: This article presents a highly topical topic concerning smart specializations. A strength of the manuscript is the concept for improving the implementation of smart specializations. However, the theoretical foundations, research methodology, and discussion and results sections require further engagement from the authors. More detailed suggestions for improving the manuscript are provided below.

Response: We thank the reviewer for recognizing the relevance of the topic and the value of the proposed concept. In the revised manuscript, we responded by strengthening theoretical framing, clarifying the methodological logic of the article, delimiting the illustrative status of the Alentejo section, and adding a dedicated discussion section with implications, limitations, and future research directions.

Action in revised manuscript: The manuscript was restructured and expanded in the areas specifically identified by the reviewer: theory, method, and discussion.

Where it appears: Sections 3–8, especially “3. Research design and method”, “4. Conceptual foundations”, “7. Discussion”, and “8. Conclusion”.

2.

Comment: 1. The abstract should include information on the methodology – the purpose, scope (subjective and time), and a description of the research methods – as well as the research results and conclusions.

Response: This comment was addressed. The abstract now states the research purpose, identifies the article as a conceptual study, specifies that the design combines a critical synthesis of the literature, a model-building procedure, and an illustrative regional application, and summarizes the principal result and conclusion.

Action in revised manuscript: The abstract was rewritten to include methodological information and a clearer statement of results and conclusion.

Where it appears: Abstract, opening sentence: "Smart Specialization Strategy (S3) has become a central instrument of European Union Cohesion Policy...".

3.

Comment: 2. The introduction lacks a broader context regarding the importance of smart specializations in the context of sustainable development – it does not address the main S3 goals and how to achieve them. It is also worth noting that the S3 strategy was designed for less advanced regions, so that they can build their competitive advantage in specific areas rather than developing general capabilities.

Response: This comment was addressed. The revised Introduction now provides a broader contextualization of Smart Specialization Strategy (S3) by presenting it as a core instrument of EU cohesion policy, clarifying its place-based rationale, and linking it more explicitly to sustainable regional development. It also explains more clearly that S3 is especially relevant for lagging or institutionally fragile regions, where the objective is not the generic expansion of capabilities, but the identification and consolidation of more selective, territorially grounded competitive advantages through entrepreneurial discovery. This broader framing was reinforced through references that stress both the differentiated regional logic of innovation policy and the relevance of S3 for less developed regions.

Action in revised manuscript: The Introduction was expanded and reframed around S3’s role in cohesion policy, sustainable-development expectations, and the pressures faced by lagging or institutionally fragile regions.

Where it appears: Section 1. Introduction, opening sentence: "Smart Specialization Strategy (S3) became a core instrument of EU cohesion policy...".

Reference:

del Castillo Hermosa, J., Paton Elorduy, J., & Barroeta Eguía, B. (2015). Smart specialization and entrepreneurial discovery: Theory and reality. Revista Portuguesa de Estudos Regionais, (39), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.59072/rper.vi39.376

 

4.

Comment: Furthermore, there is no reference to the challenges faced by regions (especially less advanced ones) in implementing S3, particularly in the areas of S3 management, monitoring, and evaluation.

Response: This comment was addressed. The revised manuscript now gives explicit attention to implementation bottlenecks in weaker-capacity regions and to the problems of multilevel coordination, monitoring, and evaluation that limit S3 performance in practice.

Action in revised manuscript: The discussion of recurring bottlenecks and of monitoring and evaluation was expanded and separated into distinct subsections within Section 2.

Where it appears: Section 2.3, opening sentence: "Implementation bottlenecks recur most strongly in peripheral or weak-capacity regions..."; Section 2.4, opening sentence: "Monitoring and evaluation remain especially weak...".

References:

Molica, F. (2024). Regional innovation policies and directionality: Exploring the role of conditionality. European Planning Studies, 32(8), 1653-1670. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2024.2362710

Molica, F., Cappellano, F., Makkonen, T., & Hassink, R. (2026). Embedding the mission-oriented approach in smart spe-cialization strategies: An exploratory assessment. European Planning Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2026.2642390

Pinto, H., Laranja, M., & Uyarra, E. (2024). Smart specialization, public authorities, and innovation intermediaries in devel-oping regions. Regional Sustainability, 5(4), Article 100175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsus.2024.100175

Uyarra, E., Bugge, M. M., Coenen, L., Flanagan, K., & Wanzenböck, I. (2025). Geographies of mission-oriented innovation policy. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 56, Article 100970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2025.100970

 

5.

Comment: Furthermore, there is a lack of reference to the current state of knowledge, indicating what has already been researched regarding the implementation of smart specialization strategies and the associated problems. Specifically, is there current research suggesting solutions to some common problems in developing regional strategies, such as the "picking winner syndrome," the lack of understanding of the regional institutional context, and the copy-paste imitation of innovation policies designed in the best-performing/leading regions? Based on this, the research gap and the authors' approach to filling it should be clearly identified.

Response: We appreciate this helpful comment and have addressed it in the revised manuscript. The Introduction and Section 2 now engage more explicitly with the current state of knowledge on recurrent S3 implementation problems. In particular, the revised text clarifies that the literature has already identified several persistent pathologies, including formalistic or incumbent-dominated Entrepreneurial Discovery Processes, policy-driven winner-picking, copy-paste imitation of priorities and policy mixes, and coordination failures across institutional and governance levels. The revised manuscript now makes this body of work more visible and uses it to position the research gap more precisely. On that basis, the gap is formulated as the still unresolved question of how shared purpose aligns or conflicts across individuals, organizations, and territories, and how such alignment may improve developmental direction and implementation quality across levels. The S3+P framework is therefore presented not as a general critique of S3, but as a response to a more specific conceptual and policy gap identified in the literature. Examples include Foray (2018) on tensions in S3 design and implementation, Molica (2024) on directionality in regional innovation policy, Pinto et al. (2024) on institutional constraints in weaker regional contexts, and Uyarra et al. (2025) on mission-oriented territorial coordination.

Action in revised manuscript: The Introduction and Section 2 were revised to position the article more explicitly in relation to the current literature on Smart Specialization Strategy, Entrepreneurial Discovery Process, multilevel coordination, implementation bottlenecks, and monitoring and evaluation. The revised text now identifies the research gap more precisely by showing that, although the literature has documented recurrent implementation weaknesses, it still insufficiently explains how shared purpose aligns or conflicts across actors and policy scales and how such alignment may improve developmental direction and implementation quality.

Where it appears: Section 1, paragraph beginning: “Research nevertheless shows persistent implementation weaknesses.”; Section 1, paragraph beginning: “Purpose becomes relevant in this setting...” and especially the sentence: “The unresolved gap is how purposes align or conflict across individuals, organizations, territories, and macro-policy frameworks.”; Section 2.2, opening sentence: “EDP was originally conceived as a participatory discovery process...”; Section 2.3, opening sentence: “Implementation bottlenecks recur most strongly in peripheral or weak-capacity regions...”; Section 2.4, opening sentence: “Monitoring and evaluation remain especially weak...”.

References:

Molica, F. (2024). Regional innovation policies and directionality: Exploring the role of conditionality. European Planning Studies, 32(8), 1653-1670. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2024.2362710

Pinto, H., Laranja, M., & Uyarra, E. (2024). Smart specialization, public authorities, and innovation intermediaries in devel-oping regions. Regional Sustainability, 5(4), Article 100175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsus.2024.100175

Uyarra, E., Bugge, M. M., Coenen, L., Flanagan, K., & Wanzenböck, I. (2025). Geographies of mission-oriented innovation policy. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 56, Article 100970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2025.100970

 

6.

Comment: 3. In Part Two, "Smart Specialization in the European Union: Evolution, Practice, and Limitations," it is worth devoting more attention to explaining the EDP, which plays a key role in the S3 concept. Furthermore, it is worth emphasizing the need to update S3 to meet the prerequisites and referencing research by other authors, such as analyses of bottlenecks that hinder the diffusion of innovation (especially digitalization), monitoring and evaluation tools for measuring the achievement of strategy objectives, actions necessary to improve national and regional research and innovation systems, measures for international cooperation, and industrial transformation management, etc. Referencing the broader context and literature review would provide greater justification for the solutions proposed by the authors.

Response: This comment was addressed. The revised Section 2 now includes a dedicated subsection on EDP, with greater attention to its original rationale, iterative character, and later reformulations, including the move towards EDP 2.0. We also strengthened the broader rationale for updating S3 by expanding the discussion of transformative agendas, implementing bottlenecks, monitoring and evaluation, interregional complementarities, and multilevel coordination. In addition, the revised manuscript now refers more explicitly to challenges related to digitalization, industrial transformation, and cross-regional articulation, insofar as these issues help justify why S3 requires a more directional, coordinated, and context-sensitive renewal. International cooperation is not treated as a standalone theme, but it is reflected in the discussion of interregional complementarities and the increasing need to align regional strategies with wider European and multilevel policy frameworks. The result is a broader and more structured justification for the proposed framework, while keeping the focus on the article’s central conceptual argument.

Action in revised manuscript: Section 2 was reworked into four subsections, including a dedicated subsection on EDP and separate subsections on bottlenecks and on monitoring, evaluation, and renewal. The revised text also incorporates a clearer discussion of digital transition pressures, industrial modernization, interregional complementarities, and multilevel coordination as part of the broader case for renewing S3.

Where it appears: Section 2.1, opening sentence: “S3 entered EU cohesion policy as a place-based strategy for concentrating innovation effort...” ; Section 2.2, opening sentence: “EDP was originally conceived as a participatory discovery process...” ; Section 2.3, opening sentence: “Implementation bottlenecks recur most strongly in peripheral or weak-capacity regions...” ; Section 2.4, opening sentence: “Monitoring and evaluation remain especially weak...”.

 

7.

Comment: 4. Part three, "methodology," should be seriously revised. The research procedure should be presented in detail: - The authors noted that the research was based on a critical synthesis of the literature, but there is a lack of broader information on how it was conducted, such as which databases were used, what keywords were used, how many results were obtained, what the focus of the identified publications was, how many publications were used, and why. Furthermore, there is also a lack of broader reference to the case study – a lack of justification and characterization for the selected case. There is also no reference to the selected example (Alentejo region in Portugal) in the title. It may be worth considering whether a case study is necessary given the conceptual nature of the article.

Response: We appreciate this important comment and substantially revised the methodology section to make the article’s design more explicit and transparent. The revised manuscript now distinguishes clearly between the conceptual approach, the sequential model-building procedure, and the illustrative application to Alentejo. It also explains more explicitly why Alentejo was selected and clarifies that its role is heuristic and illustrative, rather than that of a formal case study or empirical validation exercise. At the same time, we did not convert the review into a systematic-review protocol with database reporting, keyword strings, retrieval counts, and screening stages, because the article remains a conceptual and theory-building contribution rather than a systematic literature review. The revised manuscript now makes this methodological choice more explicit and grounds it more clearly in the literature on conceptual article design. In other words, the revision does not claim a methodological procedure that the article did not in fact follow. Instead, it clarifies the logic, scope, and limits of the chosen design. For the same reason, we did not add Alentejo to the title. Although the regional illustration helps demonstrate the practical interpretability of the framework, the main contribution of the paper remains a general conceptual model rather than a single-region case article.

Action in revised manuscript: Section 3 was fully redesigned to make the article’s methodological logic more transparent. The revised version now distinguishes clearly between the conceptual approach, the sequential model-building procedure, and the illustrative application to Alentejo. It also clarifies that the review is selective and theory-building rather than systematic in a statistical sense, and that the Alentejo section serves a heuristic and illustrative function rather than that of a formal case study or empirical validation exercise.

Where it appears: Section 3 heading: “Research design and method”; Section 3, opening sentence: “This article adopts a conceptual design aimed at policy-oriented model building.”; Section 3.1, opening sentence: “The review is selective and theory-building rather than systematic in a statistical sense.”; Section 3.2, opening sentence: “Model building proceeded sequentially.”; Section 3.3, opening sentence: “The article also includes an illustrative application to Alentejo. Its function is heuristic...”.

Reference:

Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10, 18-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0

 

8.

Comment: 5. Section seven, "Conclusions," should clearly indicate the conclusions of the authors' analysis. The main research results and conclusions from the analyses should be presented. Ideally, this section should be limited to three paragraphs.

Response: This comment was fully addressed. The former long conclusion was replaced by a short three-paragraph Section 8 that states the core conclusion of the analysis, summarizes the article’s contribution, and highlights its broader implication.

Action in revised manuscript: The conclusion was reduced and refocused into three short paragraphs.

Where it appears: Section 8. Conclusion, opening sentence: "This article argued that shared purpose can be incorporated into Smart Specialization Strategy...".

 

9.

Comment: 6. The manuscript does not contain a discussion section in which the obtained research results should be compared with studies conducted by other authors to date. Furthermore, it is important to highlight the limitations of the conducted research and future directions for research.

Response: We appreciate this important comment and addressed it by adding a dedicated Discussion section and by strengthening the comparison between the proposed framework and prior debates in the literature. The revised manuscript now includes explicit subsections on practical implications, theoretical implications, limitations, and future research agenda. These additions were intended not merely to summarize the model, but to position S3+P more clearly in relation to previous work on smart specialization, place-based development, directionality, evaluation, and territorial transformation. The revised discussion now clarifies more explicitly that S3+P retains the place-based and discovery-oriented rationale of S3, while extending it through a stronger emphasis on shared purpose, cross-level alignment, legitimacy, and broader evaluative criteria. The revised manuscript also now states its limitations more directly and in greater detail, especially with regard to its conceptual status, the illustrative role of the Alentejo application, and the measurement and operationalization challenges associated with some proposed indicators. Future research directions were also expanded so as to indicate more clearly which parts of the framework require empirical testing, comparative application, and more demanding validation strategies.

Action in revised manuscript: A dedicated Discussion section was added in order to engage more explicitly with the article’s implications, limitations, and future research needs. The revised manuscript now includes separate subsections on practical implications, theoretical implications, limitations, and future research agenda. These additions were used to position S3+P more clearly in relation to prior debates, to state the article’s limitations more directly, and to indicate more explicitly which elements of the framework require future empirical testing, comparative application, and more demanding validation strategies.

Where it appears: Section 7.1, opening sentence: “S3+P suggests that purpose should be treated as an explicit criterion...”; Section 7.2, opening sentence: “Theoretically, the article connects bodies of literature that often remain separate...”; Section 7.3, opening sentence: “This article remains a conceptual contribution.”; Section 7.4, opening sentence: “Future research should therefore test whether purpose-oriented strategies improve coherence...”; Section 8, opening sentence: “This article argues that shared purpose can be incorporated into Smart Specialization Strategy...”.

 

We thank the Reviewer for their careful and constructive comments. The revised manuscript now presents a stronger contextual framing of S3, a clearer research-design section, a more explicit delimitation of the illustrative application, a dedicated discussion of practical and theoretical implications, and a shorter conclusion more directly aligned with the research question and the article’s contribution.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

well done!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the Authors for their effort and commitment to diligently improving the manuscript. I have no further suggestions; the article can be accepted for publication in its current form.