Application of Successful EU Funds Absorption Models to Sustainable Regional Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I want to thank the author for submitting the paper “Application of Successful EU Funds Absorption Models on Sustainable Regional Development” .

Even though I find the research idea and the topic in general quite interesting and relevant, I have some concerns that should be addressed. I will outline these concerns along the paper.

1.       Nonetheless it might be elaborated elsewhere, it would be really useful to add the reason to conduct this study in the introduction section itself. Existing research gap(s) are not clearly specified in the introduction. Moreover, justification is needed. Why are Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary, and Poland different than other countries regarding absorption efficiency of EU funds? You should improve the framework of your paper.

2.       The author should deepen the theoretical part of their considerations on the basis of subject literature, especially regarding measuring efficiency of absorbing funds.

3.       Considering methodology, why did you choose that method? Justification is needed. The research is based on sample of 244 respondents. Why did you choose this sample? Have you considered all population of experts? How many experts were involved from each country? How the questionnaire was elaborated? How the survey was conducted?

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your feedback and suggestions for improving the work. We have accepted all your suggestions and are sending you a detailed description of the changes in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The subject taken up in this article is important and topical. However, the literature studies carried out (lines 89 to 186) are insufficient and perfunctory. For example, the Authors, referring to extreme opinions regarding the modeling and analysis the impact of EU funds on regional development (Cunito et al. 2021 vs. Maras 2022), do not take a position on this matter. The Authors omitted extensive literature in this area on the evaluation of the impact of regional policy supported by EU funds on the development of the region. As a consequence of this negligence, the Authors, pointing to the capacities necessary for attracting and utilizing funds from EU, (lines 152-154), omitted the significant achievements of strategic evaluation in this area. An example is the model of evaluation of strategic development policy of the region financed with EU funds according to the criterion of sustainable development (Jasińska-Biliczak, A., Malik, K. (2020). Measuring the Integrated Effectiveness of Regional Development: Directions for Regional Government, doi: 10.35808/ERSJ/1557). That model of strategic evaluation not only serves the hypothesis H1, but also enable recommendations on specific sustainable dimensions to be financed in order to fulfill the regional strategic goals pattern.

Another drawback is the way the H1 and H2 hypotheses are formulated, which seem quite obvious. Perhaps it is worth noting that it is not just about a simple relationship of the type: "human/material resources investment increases the utilization of available EU funds". It is important to maintain the sustainable development by investing in the different dimensions of regional development in the countries studied. In some regions, sustainability will be achieved by investing EU funds mainly in human capital, in others by infrastructure investments (economic capital), etc.

Only minor editing of English language are required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your feedback and suggestions for improving the work. We have accepted all your suggestions and are sending you a detailed description of the changes in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors did not disclose existing research gap(s) in the introduction. The research gaps in scientific literature on the field of investigations needs justification (with scientific sources). There is a lack of evidence why Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary, and Poland are the countries of interest. The information presented by authors should be enriched by new statistical data.

Methodology part is full of typos. Example: One sentences states that: “The total 400 number of respondents will be 244 experts in the preparation and implementation of projects from EU funds in Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary, and Poland” Next sentence: The selected sample is based on an internal database of experts in project preparation and implementation in Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary, and Poland, which consisted of a total of 400 experts (100 per 404 each individual country) who participated in the preparation or implementation of at least 405 5 projects each. The authors must precisely explain the process of they research. They must check grammar and style mistakes. What kind of database you use? Where is a link to that database? Why it is relevant? Do you have examples from previous studies which used that database?

The authors must use current sources of literature not like that: Fisher, 1925.

The authors did not disclose existing research gap(s) in the introduction. The research gaps in scientific literature on the field of investigations needs justification (with scientific sources). There is a lack of evidence why Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary, and Poland are the countries of interest. The information presented by authors should be enriched by new statistical data.

Methodology part is full of typos. Example: One sentences states that: “The total 400 number of respondents will be 244 experts in the preparation and implementation of projects from EU funds in Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary, and Poland” Next sentence: The selected sample is based on an internal database of experts in project preparation and implementation in Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary, and Poland, which consisted of a total of 400 experts (100 per 404 each individual country) who participated in the preparation or implementation of at least 405 5 projects each. The authors must precisely explain the process of they research. They must check grammar and style mistakes. What kind of database you use? Where is a link to that database? Why it is relevant? Do you have examples from previous studies which used that database?

The authors must use current sources of literature not like that: Fisher, 1925.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your time and suggestions that have improved our research. Response is in attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors corrected and supplemented the text of the article in accordance with the reviewer's instructions. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your time and suggestions that have improved our research.