Next Article in Journal
The Development of Scientific Activity in Russian Universities
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring the Relationship between Customer Loyalty and Financial Performance of Banks: Customer Open Innovation Perspective
Open AccessArticle
Peer-Review Record

The Development of an Interaction Mechanism between Universities and Other Innovation System Actors: Its Influence on University Innovation Activity Effectiveness

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6(4), 109; https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6040109
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6(4), 109; https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6040109
Received: 24 August 2020 / Revised: 27 September 2020 / Accepted: 3 October 2020 / Published: 10 October 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Comments:

-  Suggest moving the explanation sentence (e.g. why develop this indicator at all?) in Line 14-16 to the third sentence of the abstract, starting on Line 9. Alternately, you need to discuss what you are doing and why it matters, much sooner in the abstract.

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. We have moved sentences as it was suggested

-  Watch for the correct tense of the sentences in the Abstract (see specific edits below).

Response 2: Thank you for your comment. We have corrected tenses in the abstract

-  Lines 35-36: What is the second fundamental mechanism of science organization? Only one (openness) is identified and discussed.

Response 3: Thank you for your comment. We have inserted the missing word

-  Section 1.1 – need to make it clearer that “open science” and “open innovation” are distinct from one another, and why that matters. You discuss “traditional open science” and “new open innovation” (Line 60) in the last paragraph, but this difference should be clarified and identified sooner in the paragraph and paper.

Response 4: Thank you for your comment. We have clarified that concepts “open science” and “open innovations” are different but interconnected

-  Section 1.2 – need to make it really clear what are the boundaries of the living laboratory you are studying. Is it just the university; is it the university and surrounding community; other universities? A network can be many things – more clarity on the specific networks and boundaries of the living lab are needed here.

Response 5: Thank you for your comment. We have added the paragraph before Figure 1 that explains the boundaries of the living laboratory and its purposes as well.

-  Line 90 references “economic departments” that can act as a driver – do you mean economic departments of the university, or other organizations? Do you really mean “finance”, or, more broadly, departments that are engaged in economic activity, such as applying for grants?

Response 6: Thank you for your comment. We mean Economic departments as educational and research units in the field of economy. On the basis of this structure university should organize a working group that will be responsible for making connections with other departments (research groups) to conduct multidisciplinary studies, maintaining actual information (on current projects, promising areas of research for high-tech companies and etc) in the Living lab and promotion of communication within this platform. Also, it will be in charge of fundraising projects, contacts with business representatives and government and cooperation through the network business incubator.    

-  Line 94 indicates that this department (at the university?) can be used to channel applications and requests though as well (?) – perhaps you are actually meaning an “administrative” department that can be responsible for making connections, channeling resources, etc. more efficiently? It is not clear what this “economic department” does, or where it sits within an organization or the living lab network.

Response 7: Thank you for your comment. Answered above.

-  **Suggest revising Section 1.2 to more clearly organize and state the purpose of the section – move the final sentence (Line 145) up near the start of the section and/or into the Introduction even – it takes too long to read to Line 145 to understand where all of this is going.

Response 8: Thank you for your comment. It’s corrected.

-  Figure 1 is helpful and clear – a lot of the organization/clarity recommendations above could be accomplished by moving Figure 1 up to the beginning of Section 1.2, and explaining the Figure, rather than building up to the Figure. References/citations are needed as well - many statements are made, but it is not clear where these come from; are they from the research that the authors conducted, or from the literature (not cited). For example, Line 103 states “Through a network business incubator it is possible to increase the commercialization of developed innovative products and technologies of the university as an independent developer...” (citation?). Further, many terms are introduced (living laboratory platform; network business incubator; virtual business incubator; open innovation platforms) – these concepts/topics are important,  but need to be organized more coherently to ensure that they are discussed in terms of the “living lab network” being studied. Otherwise, it is difficult to follow why different topics are being introduced/talked about.

Response 9: Thank you for your comment. We placed the Figure in the beginning of the section and added several references.

-  Line 149 (and rest of the section) – Refer to “the university”; is this a university “in general”, or a specific university? If a specific university (e.g. case study) please state which one it is. If not, please clarify the language to be generic, e.g. “... innovations in universities, in order to evaluate...”

Response 10: Thank you for your comment. Here we meant university in general. Have corrected. Thank you!

-  Regarding the methodology and Equation 4 presented in Lind 208, was there a minimum required number of experts (e) who were surveyed? For example, how many experts needed to respond in order to Eq. 4 to be calculated with confidence? Please make sure to state this minimum expert weighting requirement, e.g. a minimum of 5 experts (e) were needed to test for consistency of expert opinions used to calculate Eq. 2 and Eq. 3.

Response 11: Thank you for your comment. Added.

-  A significant share of Section 3 (which should be Results) is used to describe methods and even introduce a new equation. Suggest that parts of Section 3 that are specific to the methodology be moved to Section 2, rather than in Section 3. Section 3 should be focused only on results and observations

Response 12: Thank you for your comment. All description of methods used in the study we moved to the Section 2.

-  Living Lab, open science, and open innovation were discussed extensively in the introduction – suggest reconnecting the discussion (Section 4) to make reference to how the living lab and principles of open science and open innovation fit into the study, contribution, and future work.

Response 13: Thank you for your comment. We have described the connection between living lab, open science, open innovation and our study in the discussion section.

Edits:

-  Line 6: consider rewording sentence, e.g. “... we consider the interaction between university and other innovation system participants as an indicator of innovation economy development.”

Response 14: Thank you for your comment. It’s corrected.

-  Line 8: adjust tense of sentence, e.g. “...it has become possible to organize...”

Response 15: Thank you for your comment. It’s corrected.

-  Line 38: add (‘s) to “Merton” – should read “Merton’s”

Response 16: Thank you for your comment. It’s corrected.

-  Line 39: modify to read “...principles of science [5], which include: Communalism, ...”

Response 17: Thank you for your comment. It’s corrected.

-  Line 43: adjust to read “...services for researchers to make science more accessible...”

Response 18: Thank you for your comment. It’s corrected.

-  Line 44: remove “...knowledge available to everyone...” and add “...the sharing of scientific results...”

Response 19: Thank you for your comment. It’s corrected.

-  Line 47: adjust to read “...innovation focuses on the use of...”

Response 20: Thank you for your comment. It’s corrected.

-  Line 81: specifically state “Russia” instead of “our country”.

Response 21: Thank you for your comment. It’s corrected.

-  Line 87: remove “From our point of view...” and “promising” – simple description is sufficient

Response 22: Thank you for your comment. It’s corrected.

-  Line 151: reword to read “Indicators can be used to characterize the structure of the university’s...”

Response 23: Thank you for your comment. It’s corrected.

-  Line 153: remove the word “one” – “per scholar” is sufficient, and implies an average. This should also be adjusted in Table 1 under the Grant Activity indicator.

Response 24: Thank you for your comment. It’s corrected.

-  Line 202: remove additional word “attribute”

Response 25: Thank you for your comment. It’s corrected.

-  Table 3: Add in descriptions to the 2020 and 2021 columns to clarify that these are “forecasts” or “expectations”

Response 26: Thank you for your comment. It’s corrected.

-  Table 3: notation uses both decimals and commas – thus it is unclear whether there is an error, or a mixed format for presenting numerical values (e.g. The number of publications per scholar – Scenario A 2018 = 1.9, vs. The number of publications per scholar – Scenario A 2019 = 2,5).

Response 27: Thank you for your comment. Done uniformly.

-  Table 3: please fix the justification (not full-page) for the row labels, as they are difficult to read clearly, especially as they are so closely located to the Scenario columns (A, B). -

Response 28: Thank you for your comment. It’s corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have enjoyed reading this paper that focuses on an update topic and provides new insight about interaction between University and other actor with Open Innovation as "new" paradigm. t I truly regret to suggest a go into more depth on the specific questions in theoretical framework (for example co-creation and Open Innovation or partnership involvement) and in methods as well. Moreover, I fail to see a strong contribution in the paper as it stands as well as several weaknesses in discussion section.

The key points to improve are:

  • The introduction should be improved detecting the gaps, introducing better objetives and hypothesis, furthermore the contributions and in brief, presenting the structure of the research work.
  • Regarding literature framekork, some concepts linked with Open Innovation should be introduced and differenciated. For example: crowdsourcing, involvement of stakeholders and, mainly, co-creation. Likewise, the introduction of stakeholders and groups of interaction with University should be presented. Furthermore, I think some details about this should be an improvement as well in results. 
  • Method: The variables and the analysis is well introduced but it needs to include: sample, data collection…  You don't know that the sample is the Peter the Great Polytechnic University so... I suggest the authors explain how the research was designed and carried out.
  • I can’t find specifically hipothesis and consequently they are not tested with a field research in order to achive it.
  • Final section. There are not enough dicussion supported in previous literature. Thus I can’t find a clear contribution in the field of the paper. Some practical implications should be added. Furthermore, there are not limitations and the proposal of future research are really scarce. This research work would be practical implications for practitioners and make an extra effort for developing additional suggestions for researchers.

Good luck!

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Comments:

The introduction should be improved detecting the gaps, introducing better objectives and hypothesis, furthermore the contributions and in brief, presenting the structure of the research work

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. We have improved the Introduction, detecting the gaps, hypothesis and structure of the work.

Regarding literature framework, some concepts linked with Open Innovation should be introduced and differentiated. For example: crowdsourcing, involvement of stakeholders and, mainly, co-creation. Likewise, the introduction of stakeholders and groups of interaction with University should be presented. Furthermore, I think some details about this should be an improvement as well in results. 

Response 2: Thank you for your comment. We have put additional concepts of Open Innovation and we have introduced stakeholders and improved the Discussion session about this.

I can’t find specifically hipothesis and consequently they are not tested with a field research in order to achieve it.

Response 3: Thank you for your comment. We added the research questions and hypothesis in the Materials and Methods.

Final section. There are not enough discussion supported in previous literature. Thus I can’t find a clear contribution in the field of the paper. Some practical implications should be added. Furthermore, there are not limitations and the proposal of future research are really scarce. This research work would be practical implications for practitioners and make an extra effort for developing additional suggestions for researchers.

Response 4: Thank you for your comment. We have clarified contribution of our paper and improved literature discussion. We added the section of study’s limitations and expanded the vision of our future research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Comments:

Title: The title is unclear about the paper’s theme.

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. The title directly reflects the goal of the study conducted.

Abstract: the abstract is unclear about the gap in the literature, the main goal and the theoretical contributions. The authors “only” stress that “The offered evaluation methodology can be used to get normalized indicators for monitoring the development of innovative activities at university and analysis of university’s innovations integration into the national and world innovation system”. The paper has, in my opinion, flaws regarding its structure, namely the fact that the literature review is a subchapter of the introduction and there is no “conclusion” section.

Response 2: Thank you for your comment. We have improved the abstracted with some details about gap in the literature, main goal and contribution. Also, we decided not to take out literature review, as it should appear before the description of the proposed mechanism.

Introduction: First, what I think is the gap (see lines 29-33) is not supported by literature. Second, such as in the abstract, the main goal is unclear. The article only mentions that “In this connection, the development of an effective interaction mechanism is relevant”. Several questions emerge: what do the authors mean by “interaction mechanism”? why is it important to develop such mechanism? In my opinion, the authors should better contextualize and describe the pertinence of the theme under analysis. The introduction should allow the readers to have a perfect notion of what the paper’s about, something which it fails to do.

Response 3: Thank you for your comment. We have added a reference to lines 29-33. The main goal now is in the Introduction. We have better explained the pertinence of the topic and the importance of interaction mechanism for improvement in scientific cooperation and commercialization of innovations.

Theoretical background: it starts by the following sentence: “Open science as a phenomenon is based on two fundamental mechanisms of science organization: openness [2, 3,4]”: The authors only mention one mechanism. Lines 35-46 focus on open scientific practices. Then, the authors “jump” to open innovation. Why? The pertinence of open innovation in a context of open scientific practices should be stressed. The setting (universities) should also be better explored/explained.

Response 4: Thank you for your comment. We have inserted the missing word at the start. Also, we have explained the connection between open science and open innovations.

Developing the Interaction Mechanism: this section starts by stressing the importance of interaction in the innovation process. Once again there is a “jump” in the text, i.e. it lacks connection to the previous section. Furthermore, please see the following sentence in line 67: “as the most promising according to many scientists.”

Response 5: Thank you for your comment. We have added a connected paragraph at end of section 1.1. We supported our statements with the references.

Lines 87-146: this whole text is not supported by literature (I only saw one reference). In fact, the authors start by referring “From our point of view”. The authors write about an “online platform” to foster interaction and information dissemination; the creation of a “network business incubator” for fostering interaction with external actors (and what about the internal actors?); “virtual business incubators” (line 110), etc..

Response 6: Thank you for your comment. We supported our statements with the references.

The relationship between all these concepts, as well as open innovation platforms is, theoretically, missing. See, for example, figure 1. The relationship between the different concepts should be grounded on appropriate literature. In sum, and regarding to the literature review, I denote a lack of scientific soundness.

Response 7: Thank you for your comment. We have added explanation of some concepts and have clarified the relationship between them.

Section 2. materials and methods: this section starts by the following sentence: “Since the developed forms and mechanisms were aimed at solving the problem of the low level of commercialization of innovations in the university”. Is this the paper’s goal? If so, it should be well justified in the previous sections. The methodology should be adequate to the research problem, which is difficult to identify in the previous sections. For example, is this a case study? In line 186 I read that a survey was done.

Response 8: Thank you for your comment. We have added research questions that define the goal of the study indicated in the Introduction section.

It was two surveys of experts. The first survey was to define the forecast values of innovation activity indicators taking into account the implementation of the proposed forms and mechanisms of interaction and the second to determine the weight values for all indicators. We have added the surveys’ forms in Appendix A and B.

Also, were the indicators found in the literature? This is crucial to assess the validity of the results.

Response 9: Thank you for your comment. We added a section in the literature review on the papers studying the indicators used for evaluation the efficiency of innovation activity at university. For our evaluation we used general indicators as well as specific and more appropriate for the university type.

  1. Results: once again, a different objective (see lines 230-231): “We propose calculating the effectiveness of the implemented interaction mechanism on the basis of forecast estimates of indicators”. The text, as a whole, should be coherent. In lines 235-239, the authors write that a questionnaire was developed and experts were interviewed, something which should be described in the previous section. The authors should write some details about the questionnaire and the interviews (for example, were semi-structured interviews, the length, etc.) Finally, concluding remarks and research limitations are missing.

Response 10: Thank you for your comment. The part of the Results section was moved to the Methodology section, including the information on the survey. Also, we added the questionnaire form for experts that we used for our survey (Appendix A).

Finally, concluding remarks and research limitations are missing. Cues for further research are scarce.

Response 11: Thank you for your comment. We added the section of study’s limitations and expanded the vision of our future research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The changes that the authors have incorporated have significantly improved the paper's clarity and contribution.

Author Response

Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the improvement in the manuscript. However authors are not solved completely the weakness identified. Firstly, the introduction have not included the structure of the work and the main contribution neither. They have included goals but, from my point of view, the Introduction is a key section to introduces the issue and wake up the interest in the research work and in its contribution and sincerely, I can't see it. 

I am still thinking there are some concepts linked with OI that are not enough presented in the theoretical framework and, consequently, they are not in References. For example, triple helix regarding stakeholder involvement in universities

Regarding methods, the authors haven't supported their decision about the method, the models to build the questionnaire, the validity of the variables, and even their interest to be included according to the goals of the study. I would suggest following a structure like: data collection and sample, variables, statistics/model... Likewise, it is suggested that RQ and Hypothesis are well linked with the theoretical framework. Currently, they are at the beginning of methods. I believe it is not the correct way for this kind of research work. 

Finally, the connection between discussion and the RQ and hypothesis could be improved despite the significant change made in this section. 

I encourage the authors because the paper has potential but they should do their best to share it in the correct way. 

Author Response

Firstly, the introduction have not included the structure of the work and the main contribution neither. They have included goals but, from my point of view, the Introduction is a key section to introduces the issue and wake up the interest in the research work and in its contribution and sincerely, I can't see it. 

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. We advanced the introduction by describing the existed problems and the way how we are going to solve them. Also, we added the paragraph on the work structure.

I am still thinking there are some concepts linked with OI that are not enough presented in the theoretical framework and, consequently, they are not in References. For example, triple helix regarding stakeholder involvement in universities

Response 2: Thank you for your comment. We presented the “triple helix” concept and the models of the "four-link helix" to describe stakeholder involvement in universities.

Regarding methods, the authors haven't supported their decision about the method, the models to build the questionnaire, the validity of the variables, and even their interest to be included according to the goals of the study. I would suggest following a structure like: data collection and sample, variables, statistics/model... Likewise, it is suggested that RQ and Hypothesis are well linked with the theoretical framework. Currently, they are at the beginning of methods. I believe it is not the correct way for this kind of research work.

Response 3: Thank you for your comment. We changed the structure of the section in compliance with your recommendations. And added information that our method was based on the elaborated by ITMO university methodology of monitoring the effectiveness of universities’ innovation activity that is actively used in Russia for university comparisons.

Finally, the connection between discussion and the RQ and hypothesis could be improved despite the significant change made in this section.

Response 4: Thank you for your comment. We have made changes as you asked.

We ask to take into account that the Editor recommended us to add a part about culture for open innovation dynamics in the literature review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper addresses the Effectiveness Evaluation of Interaction Mechanism between University and Other Innovation System. First of all, I notice several improvements in the paper. However, I still have several concerns regarding it (see below):

Title: In my opinion, the title remains unclear about the paper’s theme.

Abstract: the abstract is still unclear about the gap in the literature: the authors state that they “have closed the existing literature gap”, without mentioning what is the gap. Also I suggest the authors to avoid expressions or terms such as this (“closed”). In this version, the main goal appears in the last sentence and it is confusing after reading that “We have confirmed the importance of the considered concepts”. However, if the paper’s goal is what appears in the last sentence, in the abstract the authors are not addressing that goal, specifically, what are the results of the efficiency’s evaluation. In resume, the abstract is confusing. My suggestion is to, previously, make a structured abstract to align all the elements.

In my opinion, the paper has the same structural flaws when compared with the first version (see my first review).

Introduction:  What I continue to think is the gap (see lines 29-33) is still not justified by relevant literature. I explain: the authors added a paragraph explaining the lack of interaction which is crucial. However, such paragraph should be grounded on literature. In the introduction section I now see two goals: create the mechanism and assess its effectiveness. Therefore, the authors should explain what is an “interaction mechanism” and why is it important to develop such mechanism. Once again, and in my opinion, the introduction does not allow the readers to have a perfect notion of what the paper’s about.

Theoretical background: Regarding the first version there were improvements in this section. However, the authors should be better aware of some concepts (see lines 117-120) such as absorptive capacity or social capital, since these are dimensions of knowledge management and Intellectual Capital, respectively. The concepts should be contextualized. Sometimes less is better.

Developing the Interaction Mechanism: There were also improvements in this section. However, this section starts with figure 1 (which also appears at the end of the section!), which I presume was made by the authors. The elements and the relationships between each element should be objectively justified. The authors only claim that “The offered interaction mechanism that based on open innovation platforms is presented in Figure 1.”. I think there is a problem of focus and text structuring. In my opinion this fact leads to what the lack of scientific soundness, as I wrote in the first version of the paper.

Section 2. materials and methods: this section now starts with two research questions, followed by a hypothesis. This fact is supporting my argument that paper suffers of scientific structural problems. The research questions should be addressed in the introduction and should be aligned with the paper’s goal. In line 329 its argued that interview was made to employees. The authors should be more explicit: to whom? When? Why? The length… Also, what were the results of the personal interviews?

  1. Results: The results are seven tables, which lack explanation.
  2. Discussion: the papers’ results should be discussed towards the reviewed literature. In my opinion this section should be separated from a conclusion’s section

In resume, I continue to denote a lack of focus and, as I said in my first revision, a lack of scientific soundness. I think there is a structural problem, i.e. the paper must be scientifically coherent along the text. Again, and based on the above comments, I continue to think that the authors should go back to the main research problem, the gap in the literature, the paper’s relevance, its main goal (and specific) and the research questions. The problem can be in the mix of two different goals: the first, creating the mechanism (which, well founded, could result in one paper); the second, assess its effectiveness (this could be another paper).

Author Response

Title: In my opinion, the title remains unclear about the paper’s theme.

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. We have changed the title and hope that now it reflects the paper’s theme in the better way.

Abstract: the abstract is still unclear about the gap in the literature: the authors state that they “have closed the existing literature gap”, without mentioning what is the gap. Also I suggest the authors to avoid expressions or terms such as this (“closed”). In this version, the main goal appears in the last sentence and it is confusing after reading that “We have confirmed the importance of the considered concepts”. However, if the paper’s goal is what appears in the last sentence, in the abstract the authors are not addressing that goal, specifically, what are the results of the efficiency’s evaluation. In resume, the abstract is confusing. My suggestion is to, previously, make a structured abstract to align all the elements.

Response 2: Thank you for your comment. We totally changed the abstract. Now it shows the existed problem, our goals that intended to solve the problem, methods we used in the study and results we got.

Introduction: What I continue to think is the gap (see lines 29-33) is still not justified by relevant literature. I explain: the authors added a paragraph explaining the lack of interaction which is crucial. However, such paragraph should be grounded on literature. In the introduction section I now see two goals: create the mechanism and assess its effectiveness. Therefore, the authors should explain what is an “interaction mechanism” and why is it important to develop such mechanism. Once again, and in my opinion, the introduction does not allow the readers to have a perfect notion of what the paper’s about.

Response 3: Thank you for your comment. We advanced the Introduction section according to your recommendation.

Theoretical background: Regarding the first version there were improvements in this section. However, the authors should be better aware of some concepts (see lines 117-120) such as absorptive capacity or social capital, since these are dimensions of knowledge management and Intellectual Capital, respectively. The concepts should be contextualized. Sometimes less is better.

Response 4: Thank you for your comment. We decided not to delve into the concept of intellectual capital in this work, as this will shift the focus of the study. Thus, we have reduced the use of these concepts.

Developing the Interaction Mechanism: There were also improvements in this section. However, this section starts with figure 1 (which also appears at the end of the section!), which I presume was made by the authors. The elements and the relationships between each element should be objectively justified. The authors only claim that “The offered interaction mechanism that based on open innovation platforms is presented in Figure 1.”. I think there is a problem of focus and text structuring. In my opinion this fact leads to what the lack of scientific soundness, as I wrote in the first version of the paper.

Response 5: Thank you for your comment. We explained the offered mechanism highlighting the connection between all participants and the exchange of knowledge.

Section 2. materials and methods: this section now starts with two research questions, followed by a hypothesis. This fact is supporting my argument that paper suffers of scientific structural problems. The research questions should be addressed in the introduction and should be aligned with the paper’s goal. In line 329 its argued that interview was made to employees. The authors should be more explicit: to whom? When? Why? The length… Also, what were the results of the personal interviews?

Response 6: Thank you for your comment. We changed the structure of this section trying to make it more clear and justified. For our research we conducted 2 surveys, the results are presented in the Tables of Section “Results”. Research questions are now in the Introduction

Results: The results are seven tables, which lack explanation

Response 7: Thank you for your comment. The main results are reflected in the table 7 (the indicator of innovation activity effectiveness) and there we gave the explanation of the results. Tables 4,5,6 show the intermediate indicators that were calculated according to the methodology described in Section 3.

Discussion: the papers’ results should be discussed towards the reviewed literature. In my opinion this section should be separated from a conclusion’s section

Response 8: Thank you for your comment. We added more comments concerning literature review and our results. Also, we separated the section and added the conclusion.

We ask to take into account that the Editor recommended us to add a part about culture for open innovation dynamics in literature review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The current version has been solved some of the pointed weakness although discussion could be still improved. Anyway, I think the paper is adequate to be published in the journal. 

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper addresses the Effectiveness Evaluation of Interaction Mechanism between University and Other Innovation System. Such as in my last review I notice several improvements, but also continue to have some important concerns (see below):

Abstract: the abstract lacks scientific rigor. Words such as “methods” or “results” appear without any connection. Also, while the gap is the inexistence of a model, the article’s goal is to develop a mechanism (instead of a model) and also evaluate its effectiveness. There is no link between gap and goal.

Introduction:  the authors address three research questions:

Which form of interaction between innovation system actors is the most appropriate in Russia today?

What should be the basis of an effective interaction mechanism?

How to measure the effectiveness of the interaction mechanism?

I have concerns regarding the fit between these research questions and the goal which is not explicit in the introduction. Instead, the goal is explicit in the abstract: “This research is aimed to develop a mechanism for multilateral interaction between universities and other participants in the innovation system, which ensures the activation of scientific and innovative activities, acceleration of the transfer process and effective commercialization of innovative ideas”.

Once again, it seems that there is a lack of focus/fit between the gap in the literature, the goal(s) and the research questions

Theoretical background and Developing the Interaction Mechanism: I can say that there were improvements in this sections. However, and once again, I think that the authors sometimes “forget” the research problem. What I mean is that the authors should be more focused regarding the concepts that really matter, to answer their research questions and meet the article’s goal (regarding which I think there is a problem – see above). Also, in my opinion the literature review should culminate with a framework (figure 1). Instead, in section 2.2, the authors basically start by claiming “The offered interaction mechanism that based on open innovation platforms is presented in Figure 1”. Thereby, in my opinion there is a structural problem, particularly with regard to how the text flows. Finally, section 2.2 ends with a hypothesis, something which lacks fit when I think about the introduction with the absence of goals and the research questions (please see when and how to use hypotheses).

Finally, this leads me to the conclusions’ section:

In the conclusions’ section the authors should again address the goals and research questions, resume their findings and present their theoretical and practical contributions, something which is not done.

In resume, I still denote several incoherencies, which I think are a consequence of structural problems and a lack of focus regarding the research problem (see my comments above).

Back to TopTop