Regional Innovation Systems as a Remedy for Structurally Affected Regions—Empirical Evidence from the Czech Republic
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe review is attached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for the time and efforts you invested in our manuscript, and we hope that we have been able to address your comments. We have revised our manuscript according to your comments, and we explain the changes in light of the comments below. All changes in the manuscript are tracked.
Comments 1: The term "structurally affected" seems to me a strange one. What does mean "affect" here? May be it is a try of political correctness? In the text there are many more convenient terms such as "peripheral", "structurally disadvantaged", and so on.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We added the explanation in the Introduction section of our manuscript to clarify the reason, why we use this term.
Although the terms „structurally disadvantaged“ and „peripheral“ are also possible in this context and are often considered synonymous to „affected“ regions, there is a small difference between them in academic discourse. The main characteristic of „peripheral regions“ is their geographical distance from the developed centre. It is precisely this distance that causes their poorer economic development. In academic discourse, while the term disadvantage usually represents one specific negative characteristic of a region (e.g. high unemployment, high crime, etc.), the term structurally "affected" region is understood to represent a much broader range of negative characteristics (economic, social and environmental).
Comments 2: A formula of calculation the efficiency of funding on p.7 (by the way, it is recommended to numerate the formulas) seems not completely adequate. When you decrease funding in the denominator, you increase the efficiency given the value of respective indicator.
Response 2: We thank you for pointing out the shortcomming of missing numbers of formulas. We numerated the formulas in our revised manuscript.
Regarding the calculation, the efficiency is calculated in such a way that for each indicator (see Figure 1) its ratio to financing is calculated - e.g. Number of registererd patents in a region and year divided by public expenditure for R&D in a region and year tells us about how many patents account for one CZK of public support invested in the region. The fact that reducing public support (i.e. denominator) can lead to greater efficiency makes sense. It means that even though less public money was invested in the region, its innovation activity increased (the indicator in the numerator, e.g. number of registered patents, did not decrease or could have increased). On the other hand, if public funding increases (in the denominator) and the number of patents does not increase (in the numerator), then the effectiveness of the support decreases.
Comments 3: After the last formula on that page, what does mean "Nk is a number of values in region "k""?
Response 3: The explanation was added to the revised manuscript: This is the calculation of the average efficiency, where „Nk“ is the number of values, i.e. the number of elements (or data points) in the data set.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article “Regional innovation systems as a remedy for structurally affected regions – empirical evidence from the Czech Republic” is well structured, I enjoyed reading it. The research design, research questions, goal and methods are clearly stated. Empirical research and the results of beta convergence and the method of calculating the average efficiency of public funds are clearly presented. Conclusions are thoroughly supported by the results that public support for R&D has a positive effect on development of the innovation environment presented in the article.
As for recommendations I would suggest to add couple sentences about current situation 2023 to 2024 in 14 regions of the Czech Republic. Has the stated trends continued?
I would also recommend to find and summarize more reference sources 2023, 2024 in the effect of public funding for R&D on the development of the innovation environment .
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for the time and efforts you invested in our manuscript, and we hope that we have been able to address all your comments. We have revised our manuscript according to your comments, and we explain the changes in light of the comments below. All changes in the manuscript are tracked.
Comments 1: As for recommendations I would suggest to add couple sentences about current situation 2023 to 2024 in 14 regions of the Czech Republic. Has the stated trends continued?
Response 1: We thank the reviewer the comment; we added a paragraph about the current situation into the revised manuscript (in the Discussion section).
Based on the analysis of the National Innovation Strategy of the Czech Republic (Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Czech Republic, 2024), it is possible to say that the benefits of public financial support for science and research and development of regional innovation systems, which were identified by us, are currently following the same trend as in the period 2012-2022. These regional innovation systems have been strengthened through increased public financial support and targeted strategic actions on innovation and research. Improvements were particularly evident in structurally affected regions, where public support contributed significantly to the growth of the innovation environment and regional competitiveness.
Comments 2: I would also recommend to find and summarize more reference sources 2023, 2024 in the effect of public funding for R&D on the development of the innovation environment.
Response 2: We thank for this valuable comment that enables us to improve the manuscript. We added several new studies.
Spithoven, A., & Merlevede, B. (2023). The productivity impact of R&D and FDI spillovers: characterising regional path development. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 48(2), 560-590.
Zhong, Z., & Chen, Z. (2023). Business environment, technological innovation and government intervention: influences on high-quality economic development. Management Decision, 61(8), 2413-2441.
Mahardhani, A. J. (2023). The role of public policy in fostering technological innovation and sustainability. Journal of Contemporary Administration and Management (ADMAN), 1(2), 47-53.
Shao, K., & Wang, X. (2023). Do government subsidies promote enterprise innovation? Evidence from Chinese listed companies. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 8(4), 100436.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
your article is very interesting and original, abstract is prepared on the excellent level but I have some comments:
1. simplify the title of article for example: Investigating of regional innovation systems in Czech republic
2. to divide the part Introduction on two parts - introduction and literature review for clarity
3. RQ1, RQ2 to give in Introduction from 119-143 line
4. The part - Literature review begin of section line 39 According to Asheim et al. [4]...
5. to fill in the part 2.3. methods - formula numbering Eijk (1).....
6. Table 1 I recommend giving the introduction of results because those data are statistical data, not discrete data and I think it was calculated
7. in the part of the discussion I think the results of hypotheses RQ1 and RQ2, were confirmed or not.
8. In conclusion I think there are not suggestions for regions of an innovative system to describe generally.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for the time and efforts you invested in our manuscript, and we hope that we have been able to address all your comments. We have revised our manuscript according to your comments, and we explain the changes in light of the comments below. All changes in the manuscript are tracked.
Comments 1: Simplify the title of article for example: Investigating of regional innovation systems in Czech republic.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this comment, however, we think that the proposed title is too general, it does not accurately describe the intention of the paper, because we do not examine regional innovation systems as a whole, but we want to show that it is one of the possibilities to improve the development of structurally affected regions. If the reviewer doesn't mind, we'd prefer to keep our original name.
Comments 2: To divide the part Introduction on two parts - introduction and literature review for clarity .
Response 2: We thank for this valuable comment that enables us to improve the manuscript. We divided the part Introduction into two parts, as recommended.
Comments 3: RQ1, RQ2 to give in Introduction from 119-143 line.
Response 3: We thank the reviewer for this comment, the paper is now clearer. We moved the aim and the research questions to the Introduction section.
Comments 4: The part - Literature review begin of section line 39 According to Asheim et al. [4]...
Response 4: Thank you for this comment, we divided the part Introduction section into two parts, the Literature Review begins as recommended.
Comments 5: To fill in the part 2.3. methods - formula numbering Eijk (1).....
Response 5: Thank you for pointing out this shortcoming. We added the numbers of formulas.
Comments 6: Table 1 I recommend giving the introduction of results because those data are statistical data, not discrete data and I think it was calculated.
Response 6: Thank you for this comment. We agree with the reviewer that Table 1 could be in the results, but this table only shows how the data looks, i.e. what are the units of the data, what are the minimum and maximum values ​​in the set of all regions, what is the average. They are not directly the results of the research; they are composed only to give an idea of ​​the differences between the regions. That's why we think it's appropriate to keep them in the Data section, because the table only describes the data that is subsequently analyzed.
Comments 7: In the part of the discussion I think the results of hypotheses RQ1 and RQ2, were confirmed or not.
Response 7: Thank you for this comment; the answers to the research questions are given in the section Conclusion.
Comments 8: In conclusion I think there are not suggestions for regions of an innovative system to describe generally.
Response 8: We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. We added a paragraph in the Conclusion section.
Based on the results of our study, structurally disadvantaged regions benefit significantly from targeted public financial support for R&D to develop the innovation environment in the region. Therefore, for regional innovation policymakers in these regions, we recommend implementing the following: prioritize the allocation of public financial resources to address the unique needs of structurally affected regions to maximize their impact on innovation activities. Additionally, foster collaborative networks among research institutions, universities and businesses to facilitate knowledge and resource sharing, which is crucial in the process of regional and urban development. It is also important to invest in education and training programs to build a skilled workforce capable of supporting innovation, and create incentives for private sector investment in R&D to complement public funding. Based on the results of our study, more developed regions with already saturated innovation ecosystem respond on average less to public financial support to R&D development. Therefore, we recommend to shift focus from direct financial support towards fostering a more diverse and interconnected innovation ecosystem, encourage cross-sector collaboration and partnerships that can drive innovation.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
