Has EU Accession Boosted Patent Performance in the EU-13? A Critical Evaluation Using Causal Impact Analysis with Bayesian Structural Time-Series Models

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Firstly, I would like to congratulate you on the effort to provide new insights on the causal effects of the enlargement of 9 the European Union (EU) by investigating the patents performance within the new EU member states 10 (EU-13). From reading the title and the abstract of this article it seems very interesting, and to some degree it creates in the mind of the reader a quite high expectation about reading a well comprehensive research paper revealing the connection between joining the EU ad patents performance.    

In the introduction there is an attempt to suggest that not only patents can be seen as long-terms investments but also as a quantitative output of technological success for countries (Maresch et al., 2016). Furthermore, this paper builds up an argument about existing disparities between EU-15 countries (which entered the EU before 2004) and EU-13 (countries that joined the EU in and after 2004) in relation to their capacities to create innovation outcomes and the related befit obtained by ascending into the EU. However, what is not there is a discussion about the main reasons behind this disparity between the two groups of countries (like populations, economies, social structures and levels of research and technology innovation, etc). Thus, the argument about the current gap is quite weak.

The method & Data section is quite clear, but the actual methodology approach is not too clear in terms of the steps taken and how to interpret them to best understand the potential impact of ascension to EU and disparities between the two groups. Therefore, a step-by-step model of the methodology and related analysis used in the paper could greatly improve the paper from a reader point of view.  

Once again, the results of the study are well presented as displaying independent results (based on individual analysis) but hard to follows as part of a step-by-step model to answer a specific research question. It is a bit unclear if the discussions are meant to be embedded into the results section or to be part of the conclusions, this must be clarified and act accordingly. Conclusions are quite well structured, but they could be linked better to the research question and to the requested “step-by-step-model” to strengthen up the importance of this study.

I hope these comments can help to further improve your paper and best of luck.

Best Regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors of the manuscript,

Thanks for giving me the possibility of reviewing this paper.  I hope my comments can be helpful in finalising your manuscript.

The paper provides extensive assessment of the patents performance before and after expansion of EU with EU-13 countries on 2004. This paper questions the data ana analyses if EU membership has increased the number of patents, especially within EU – 13 countries.

ABSTRACT - well-written and clear. It articulates the topicallity and knowledge gap that you want to solve in your research. The abstract clearly show the goal of this paper and methods used to conduct the research.

INTRODUCTION – 

This section is interesting and gives an insigh in to the research subject. The introduction explains the topic of the article very well. The introduction highlight a specific issue of the study and existing difficulties. Also, the introduction justifies the selection of the research methods used.

RELATED WORK

The literature analyses provides the wide overview of the related literature on the studies about the patents, research methods used by other scholars. This section provides an overview and justification to the selected research methods and how they have been previously applied in other studies.

MATERIALS and METHODS – well done. This part is detailed to prove the validity and the reliablity of the research. Authors have explained the data set and sources used. Also, authors have provided detailed justification of the statistical analyses methods applied.  

RESULTS - This section is well done, providing wide overview of the empirical research done and results obtained. 

I am happy with your research findings, they were interesting and valuable, an form good base for the discussion and conclusions. 

The article does not have a separate discussion section, however, I would encourage you to reconsider introduction of such section. This would allow you to reflect the findings and results in the context of other studies and investigations. Results obtained are interesting, especially in some countries, like having negative effects after accesion to EU. This would be a good base to discuss such finding in relation to other findings and conclusion of other researchers, probably in other geographical areas. 

CONCLUSIONS - This part also may have some improvements. In the conclusion the authors must emphasize the key contribution of the study. Curently this section is relatively extensive for the most relevant conclusions. This extensive describion could be relevant for the disccion part.

In this part I would suggest you to highlight most important conclusions and highlights. Also, I would encourage you to stress better practical managerial implications and future research avenues. 

OTHER 

This is more technical issue – the manuscript do not follow the template provided by the journal. 

In general, this manuscript includes valuable analysis and useful findings. The authors have put huge efforts in the data analysis. I believe that these findings can be useful to other researchers and this publication will be cited by other scholars.

The paper appears appropriate to be published in this journal, but assuming some improvements suggested.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The title and the abstract coincide with the content of the paper. Keywords are well-chosen.

Abstract: should be written again in academic forms. Main aim, where study conducted, model used, period, and main findings

The abstract and introduction of the paper should address theoretical gaps in the literature. What is the theoretical motivation for empirically examining this research question and how does this paper contribute to the existing literature? I suggest that the introduction focus on the dependent and independent variables in a way that motivates the research agenda.

I propose in the introduction should specify the methodology of research and research hypotheses. The diagnosis itself should indicate the novelty of the results and to publish the considerations in scientific journals. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance, including specific hypotheses being tested. The current state of the research field should be reviewed carefully and key publications cited.

The research gap must be created by a systematic literature review that provides 'holes' in the state of knowledge on the topic. I believe that a full review should not be done, but an analysis of about 5-8 studies on the topic under discussion. You can find some examples, which will show the relevance of the issue, as it is indeed a topic of current, relevant research. At the end of the justification you should write something like: According to what we were able to find, there are no studies referring and reporting on ... With this you have therefore proven that the issue is relevant, and you have also proven that your study does indeed fill a research gap

The main problem is the epistemological structure (why the article was conceived and how the study was developed). I suggest the following structure of objectives: (i) research gap; (ii) research question; (iii) purpose of the article; (iv) intermediate objectives; (v) assumptions or hypo; and (vi) research method. This structure must appear in the introduction.

In conclusion, I propose 

-evaluate the critical research, show its limitations and weaknesses,

- highlight the new knowledge and the lessons learned from it,

- describe the importance of the research and how it affects the wider field, show how the information obtained can be further used

Conclusions must be clearly and unambiguously linked to the results of the survey. Their theoretical and practical implications should be indicated (This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex.) 

The paper must be fully in line with the prescribed template (References). (See the Instructions for Authors).

In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]

Conclusion is optional, consider dropping the conclusion and create a chapter : Discussion.

It is a pity that the chapter was abandoned: Discussion. This would probably have shown what our results mean in general and why our analyses are important.

What did we establish new in our research?

What did others know, and what do we know?

What are the similarities and differences in the results?

What conclusions can be drawn from this?

What research plans do we have?

Did our results confirm the hypothesis?

In the chapter: Results-show objectively - as far as possible - the key findings of the research, but without interpreting them.

Research manuscripts should comprise:

Front matter: Title, Author list, Affiliations, Abstract, Keywords

Research manuscript sections: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions (optional).

Back matter: Supplementary Materials, Acknowledgments, Author Contributions, Conflicts of Interest, References.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author (s),

Firstly, I would like to stat by thank you in putting the effort for addressing most of the recommendations quite well. Secondly, the step-by step instructions is nicely done. However, what it could improve the paper is embedding these steps into the paper clearly. For instance by using the same language in the paper like:

- forecasting model or time-series model?

- train the forecasting model (which is the relative section in the paper that does this?)  

- Compute forecast after intervention and find the deviation from the factual observation-This is the casual effect (which is the relative section in the paper that does this?)  

Regards 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we are glad you are satisfied with our update to the paper.  After minor revision requested, we made the paper compliant with the journal's requirements. Besides that, we addressed your comments regarding the step-by-step description and linked each step to the appropriate section.

Furthermore, we made some language updates throughout the paper, please check the diff for the details.

Best Regards

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper has been adapted to the reviewer's comments. I request acceptance of the article in the presented form after adjusting it to the editorial requirements.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we are glad you are satisfied with our update to the paper.  After minor revision requested, we made the paper compliant with the journal's requirements.

Best Regards