Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

- The order of the quotes in the text is wrong. It should not start with reference 37.

- Please, adjust the text.

- Improve writing and grammar in general.

- References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text.

- Please read carefully the template of the magazine and carefully adjust to it.

Author Response

Dear review, 

Thank you very much for your helpful comments and suggestions which we sought to incorporate as best as possible. 

1) the order of the quotes was changed in line with the requirements of the journal.

2) the entire text was adjusted and the references were numbered in order of appearence of the text.

3) A number of additional references was added.

4) We carved out the research questions more clearly.

5)The results were elaborated in more detail.

6) The additional text was marked in red for easier tracking.

7) We added a conclusion section.

8) The discussion section was enriched by a paragraph on SDGs.

9) The entire manuscript was checked in terms of grammar issues.

Sincerely, 

the authors

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic chosen by authors is actual and up-to-date. It is obvious from the content – authors have experience in HERI and UAS management. There are many researches done on this context and time-to-time meanings described in literature analysis part (Entrepreneurial University, Triple Helix, Mode2, RIS, Engaged University etc.) content vise have been used as synonyms. So, it would be recommended to the authors do the content analysis of definitions for further researches.

Anyway, the research is done in a good quality. There are a few drawbacks:

1.      Line 98: 20th 98 century. the so-called “ – dot after century is surplus.

2.      There is no difference in content of tables No1 and No2. Why?

3.      Discussion part could be strengthened by SDG.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you very much for your helpful comments and suggestions which we sought to incorporate as best as possible. It was a slip-up that the two tables in the text were the same; in the attachment we had two different ones and we have changed them now also in the text. 

In addition, we revised the document thouroughly:

1) A number of additional references was added and it was made clear that many of these concepts are used as synonyms.

2) We carved out the research questions more clearly.

3)The results were elaborated in more detail and presented more clearly. We also provided more context.

4) Line 98: the dot was deleted.

4) The additional text was marked in red for easier tracking.

5) We added a conclusion section.

6) The discussion section was enriched by a paragraph on SDGs.

Sincerely, 

the authors 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

You present an interesting tittle of the paper.

But when the scientific reader wants to go deeper in the questions you want to tests. 

But the scienfitic reader don't finde any scientific questions. Furthermore, there are no hypotheses to contrast. 

The merit of the paper is highlight the interest in Austria about University of Applied Sciencs in the Triple Hélix since the beguining of the 90's. But now we are in the university of XXI century, and we are in the n-Hélix university.  The social responsibility of universities is much more complex.

So, nowdays there is a need to contrast many hipotheses about social engagement of universities. and its implications for all stakeholders.

You present the awareness of the topic, with a study population maybe biasesd,  and with a survey design without scientific bases (you only saidt that you use some kind of questions but not its origen and interests).You present a descriptive study, maybe biased because of the population you use.

There are no scientific methodology, no scientific analysis.

And there is no conclussions in the paper presented.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you very much for your helpful comments and suggestions which we sought to incorporate as best as possible. 

1) A substantial number of additional references was added.

2) We carved out the research questions more clearly and added section 4  to define the purpose of the study. 

3)The results were elaborated in more detail and presented more clearly. 

4) We also provided more context and described what each group of questions addressed. 

5) We made clear that this is a descriptive data analysis of a pilot study that is not representative.

6) We addressed issues of bias; pointing out that with a purposive sampling approach adressing a pre-selected expert cohort cognitive and systemic biases are more likely to occur. See section 5. 

7) The additional text was marked in red for easier tracking.

8) We added a conclusion section.

9) The discussion section was enriched by a paragraph on SDGs and the complexity of the social responsibility is discussed in more detail. 

We hope that these changes have a substantial impact to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Sincerely, 

the authors 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a descriptive study about how Third Mission activities are perceived and conducted in the participating Austrian AUS.

Thank you for making clear that the initial findings point to a trend towards entrepreneurial activities and collaboration with communities for meaningful social transformation.