Identification and Analysis of Technology and Knowledge Transfer Experiences for the Agro-Food Sector in Mexico

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript attempts to identify and present important elements and benefits of TKT in the Mexican agro-food sector. The manuscript collects, summarizes, and analyzes some cases of TKT in the Mexican agro-food sector, and I think it is the value of the manuscript that it collects and presents important cases in the specific context.

However, I am not conviced that why the method was selected. If the purpose of the research was to identify important factors and impacts of TKT in a specific context, the authors should have attempted to take a statistical approach by collecting samples from a specific population (e.g. TKT samples from a group of technology transfer offices) or performing a survey. The current methodology is close to the case study method. As the case study is usually used for generalization to theory (rather than population), requires a good theoretical discussion (literature review) and a good research framework. The current manuscript, despite its value in terms of cases, does not seem to present a research framework which is relevant for case analysis.

Moreover, the results may be important for practitioners in the Mexican agro-food industry, but are not sharp enough to attract researchers in general. Important elements and Results/Benefits in the Tables 2 and 3 are mostly already known.

I think the manuscript could be a impactful paper if improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study is interesting in that it draws an analysis and implications for a country's agricultural-food industry.

However, this study needs improvement in the following points.

First, this study should present the tables in an integrated and analytical manner in the results part. The current state is a list of 14 cases and it is not clear how these are related to the transfer of knowledge and technology.

Second, authors need to describe Mexico's agricultural-food industry at the beginning of Chapter 2. In addition, it should be clarified whether this industry in Mexico is in a developed country or a catch-up country. That's because the implications part of the discussion and conclusion makes it clear where the Mexican case can be applied. Furthermore, the authors should clearly describe the value chain in the agri-food industry and show where and what type of cooperation is possible.

Third, authors should present the method in detail. For example, from when to when in the first phase, it is not possible to know which journal documents are being searched. And if the diagram shows the order of adoption of these documents, it will be easier for readers to understand.

Fourth, as a result, there was no systematic review based on literatures in the first phase, and the research by website search in the second phase was the whole of this study. Website reports may be more vulnerable to evidence than journal literature. This fact should be mentioned.

Fifth, authors must describe the limitations of this study in the conclusion part.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper concentrates on the important issue from the perspective of academic institutions in regard to the effect of technology transfer and knowledge for the agro-food sector.

Strong sides of the papers:

1. Generally good writing skills of the author(s) - though there are sometimes problems with the style and English.
2. Good structure of the paper.
3. Concept of the research.

 

However, before publication the paper needs following improvements:

 

1. Introduction should be extended, i.e. brief information on used methods, why this method was chosen instead of etc.
2. There are some style problems – which confirms that the paper needs professional proofreading. For example, on page 1 Keywords and Abstract: „…the agri-food sector…”
3. Authors should develop the Abstract, presenting in particular the main results of the work
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.

• Becker B. A. and Eube C. (2018) Open innovation concept: integrating universities and business in digital age, Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex, 2018, 4(1), pp. 1-16
• da Luz, A. A.; Kovaleski, J. L. (2018) Framework Proposal for Management of Knowledge and Technology Transfer in Brazilian Academic Internships, Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 13(3), pp. 3-10
• González, E. R. V.; Rodríguez, S. E. (2016) Knowledge and Technology Transfer Relationship between a Research Center and the Production Sector: CIMAT Case Study, Latin American Business Review, 17(4), pp. 271-288
• Regnier, P. (2009) South-South trade and appropriate technology transfers among agro-food SMEs: the case of southeast Asia and western Africa, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 14(2), pp. 121-142

In my opinion these four references cannot be omitted.

 

5. Conclusions should be better. Linking theoretical considerations with empirical findings and providing some planning insights is critical in a journal with the scope of Journal of Open Innovation.
6. The limitations of the research should be given in the conclusions.

 

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.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The title of the paper promises the paper to handle issues of technology transfer and food industry. However, the paper is not suitable for an academic journal publication. There are several issues. First, the paper lacks theoretical background (or rigid literature review). Currently only a couple of academic references are used as the main body of references is taken from websites.  Second, the theoretical foundation seems to be built on Etzkowitz’s triple helix that is helplessly out of date. The triple helix model has been updated and reformed numerous times and the simple doctrine that universities, businesses and governments interact and have common projects is too light for a quality paper. The third and perhaps the most severe problem is that methodology is light and non visible. The authors claim they have collected data from Scopus – nothing of the analysis, treatment or verification is visible, and then the paper continues to claim that it has “An exhaustive websites review” that is not substantiated anyway except by the long list of simple tables of highly case sensitive technology transfer.The fourth problems comes from the generalization of the results. All information in tables are related to Mexico and the significance for an international reader is limited. The results should be treated in an international/global context in order to give depth and broader meaning for the study. Because there is no rigid analytical framework or refencing to experiences from other countries the impact of the work is limited. The paper should be fully rewritten so that the used literature would create an analytical framework that could be used in the analysis section that should also include visible identification of the applied research tools and discussion of verification and reliability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am afraid that my decision was already "reject" in the first round and the points (which I raised) have not been addressed in the current version. I suppose that an academic paper ought to have a framework of analysis (or a research framework, or a research model). I suggest that the authors review relevant literature, build a research framework, and perform a systemic analysis utilizing the framework. * There is a huge body of literature on technology transfer.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I applaud the authors for their work on technology transfer in the context of the Mexican agricultural industry. However, in order for this study to develop further, I believe the followings should be supplemented or clarified.

1. In the "Foods industry in Mexico", there seems to be an additional need for logic about the need for technology transfer, especially in industry-academia, in the food industry.

2. To help readers understand the results and discussion, write the explanations of the table1,2,3,4 in the text. Presenting only a table and asking the reader to interpret it is a method of describing unkind results.

3. The implications of the overall research are focused on government support. This study can suggest implications for facilitating industrial-educational connections at the university or corporate perspectives.

4. Line 262 : Correct “in Table 1 to 14” to “in Table 1 to 2”

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

N/A

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The points that I raised in the previous review have not been fully addressed.

However, I now understand the position of this paper in the authors' research project, and also understand the limitations in research methods.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

It seems that the revision was performed well in the current state.

If you want to more improve this manuscript anyway, I hope that it is in the form of a paragraph. It is difficult to be structured as paragraphs composed of a central sentence and an auxiliary sentence in current manuscript.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx