You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Richard Almgren1 and
  • Dmitry Skobelev2,*

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper depicts the governmental policy as an intervention instrument to govern the technology evolution, especially, fostering the technology upgrading as well as pushing the technology obsolescence when considering the resource efficiency and environmental protection. It’s really an important issue for technology management. However, the current state is not good enough to be published with distinctive contribution to decision makers of industry policy. Some suggestions are shown here.

  1. The essence of efficient industry policy is the incentive mechanism that attracts industrial partners to collaborate each other or with governmental institutions to pursue the national development targets. The technology governance elaborated in this paper shows the related techniques, approaches, and regulations initiated by two Russian institutions. If possible, the delineation between participation incentives and incentive compatibility, which are two basic parts of mechanism design and deliberately built in the related policies, will make the readers understood and sensible about how an efficient industry policy has been designed by the Russian authorities.
  2. The current state of this paper just demonstrates what and how the Russian government wants to push the new wave of technology paradigm. But its performance is still unavailable to examine the efficiency of policy mechanism. If possible, some lessons learned from Sweden, Germany, Netherlands or other EU countries should been articulated. Furthermore, this paper indicates what have been applied to tune the Russian policy process, protocol, enforcement, and so on, such that Russia may prevent from the similar failure. If so, the efficacy of technology governance shown here can be expected.
  3. There are too many citations, about one third of total references, not written by English. I am afraid how the readers could have extensive reading.

Author Response

Please find a reply to Reviewer 1

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Referee report for the manuscript entitled “Evolution of technology and technology governance”

 

The manuscript focuses on an interesting topic, “technology governance”, that is relevant to the journal and academic and professional audiences. However, the manuscript has insights to offer but some improvements are needed for the manuscript to be considered for publication in this leading journal of the field. The followings are the main weaknesses of the manuscript.

 

1) Abstract needs restructuring. Sentence 1 background and problem definition. Sentence 2 aim of the study, and/or research question/hypothesis. Sentence 3 methodology of the study. Sentence 4 results or findings of the study. Sentence 5 implications of the study.

 

2) The manuscript also does not provide an adequate background coverage of the scholarly work. The following publications needed to be incorporated in the self-driving section.

 

Technology and the city: systems, applications and implications. 2016. Routledge.

 

Planning for smart urban ecosystems: information technology applications for capacity building in environmental decision making. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management 4 (3 (12), 5-21.

 

Sustainable urban and regional infrastructure development: technologies, applications and management: technologies, applications and management. 2010. IGI Global.

 

Stimulating technological innovation through incentives: Perceptions of Australian and Brazilian firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 146, 403-412.

 

Disruptive impacts of automated driving systems on the built environment and land use: An urban planner’s perspective. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 5(2), 24.

 

3) There is a need for a methodology section. Basically, it is not clear what the manuscript does, what it aims to achieve, and which methods it uses.

 

4) Abstract talks about the use of framework of Sustainable Development Goals, but there is no mention of it in the rest of the paper. Include info on SDGs in the paper.

 

5) Place a figure of technology waves in the paper, this will help the readers understand the impact of technology in economic development through the course of time better. Such figure is available at the following publication.

 

Position paper: redefining knowledge-based urban development. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development 2(4), 340-356.

 

6) The manuscript does not have an engaging Conclusion and Discussion section. The section is limited in revealing the study findings clearly, and it does not clearly address the ‘so what’ question for research, for policy, and for practice.

 

7) A careful language editing is needed.

 

Good luck at the revision. I look forward to reading the revised version of the manuscript.

Author Response

Please find attached a reply to Reviewer 2

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The key points that the reviewer mentioned are the efficiency and implementation problems to the Russian policy intervened by two governmental authorities. Actually, their policies are rough, lacking of detailed articulation. As the authors claimed that the volunteer-oriented participation is improbable to achieve the policy target in according to other European countries. However, the compulsory regulation does not always enforce the policy if there exists the implementation problem that is caused by lacking of participation incentive, monitoring, and bonding mechanisms. The reviewer really wishes the authors to elaborate the mechanism developed by two Russian authorities in detailed analysis of policy efficiency. Try to ask the following questions to delineate the efficiency of mechanism design:

  1. Why does a firm have to obey the governmental policy? Why does it follow the policy immediately? May it react to the governmental policy after seeing others’ actions? May it get any compensation if joining first? Contrarily, may it get any penalty if delaying to participate the policy? How does the policy mechanism deal with these questions?
  2. If the firm joined the policy, why does it make full efforts to achieve the policy target? If the firm shrank the investment to pursue the performance, may the governmental authorities have the monitoring capabilities to detect its unqualified performance and even punish it? How does the policy mechanism deal with these questions?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

please find attached our rersponse to your Review

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have addressed most of my comments, it can be accepted for publication after a careful language editing. 

Author Response

Thank you, we are actually going to apply for additional editing service provided by Journal.