Knowledge Transmission Platforms for Rural Development: A Conceptual Framework and an Applied Case Study from Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study examines the role of digital knowledge transfer platforms in rural development. The topic is particularly interesting, but the article presents some weaknesses that should be addressed in order for it to be reconsidered for possible publication.

Introduction

-Before analyzing the sections of the article, the research question that this research aims to answer should be clearly stated.

-Since you are dealing with digital platforms, which are constantly evolving, your bibliographic references should be more recent and further enriched, so that what you write is better documented.

Literature Review

-The addition of bibliographic references also applies to this section.

Materials and Methods

4.1. Structured Literature Review

Since the literature review is one of the key contributions of your study, you should provide detailed information on how it was conducted, i.e. in which databases, with what criteria, and when.

4.3. Case Study Design

You should provide more specific information about the case study and why it was chosen over others. This should also be mentioned in the introduction section.

5. Results: Case Study – CreandoTuProvincia

Your results should be restructured. They should be written in the style of a scientific article. Now it looks more like a narrative. It doesn't make sense for an article.

Tables and figures should be added.

The text needs to be more coherent.

6. Discussion

Your results should be discussed to a greater extent in relation to the existing literature.

7. Conclusions

The implications must be transferred to the conclusions. The conclusions should first briefly state the results, then the methods used, and the practical, theoretical and political implications.

Author Response

Comment 1. Clarification of the research question

Response:
The explicit formulation of two research questions has been incorporated into the Introduction section in order to strengthen the analytical structure of the manuscript and clarify the focus of the study.

Comment 2. Updating and strengthening of references

Response:
The bibliographic base has been revised and updated, incorporating more recent references, particularly in the fields of digital platforms, platform governance, and knowledge applied to public policy. These references have been integrated into the existing structure without altering the coherence of the theoretical framework.

Comment 3. Greater detail in the literature review

Response:
The methodological section (Section 4.1) has been strengthened by specifying the literature selection process, including the databases consulted, inclusion criteria, keywords, and time period considered, in order to improve transparency and traceability.

Comment 4. Justification of the case study

Response:
The justification of the case has been expanded in the methodological section (Section 4.3), specifying the selection criteria and its suitability as an illustrative case for the application of the conceptual framework.

Comment 5. Restructuring of results

Response:
The analytical structure of the case study section has been reinforced through the incorporation of a table applying the conceptual framework (Table 2), which links each dimension with observable criteria and empirical evidence. In addition, the text has been revised to strengthen its analytical character and avoid a purely narrative approach.

Comment 6. Inclusion of tables and figures

Response:
Two key tables have been incorporated:

• Table 1: analytical operationalisation of the conceptual framework
• Table 2: application of the framework to the case study

These tables structure the relationship between the theoretical model and its empirical application.

Comment 7. Stronger connection between discussion and literature

Response:
The discussion section has been strengthened through a more explicit connection with previous research, highlighting the consistency of the findings with the literature on knowledge intermediation and evidence use in complex policy environments.

Comment 8. Improvement of conclusions

Response:
The beginning of the conclusions section has been restructured to explicitly address the research questions, integrating results, methodological approach, and implications of the study.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is interesting paper, and the formulated research problem is timely and original. Combining the challenges of rural development with the concepts of knowledge intermediation and digital platforms represents an innovative approach. The authors rightly point out that data alone is insufficient without the structures to operationalize it. This topic aligns perfectly with current research trends surrounding smart villages and the territorialization of public policies. The authors successfully identify a research gap arguing that the literature on digital platforms rarely focuses on structured knowledge transmission within a specific non-profit territorial context. Another strength of the article is the construction of a coherent and logical 5-dimensional Conceptual Framework. The clear narrative structure of the text and the authors' reflection on their own research limitations in the discussion section are also highly commendable. The aim of the paper is clearly defined in the introduction. Given the conceptual and illustrative nature of the work the authors did not formulate traditional research hypotheses. While this is acceptable for this format, I would suggest adding explicit research questions. Formulating one or two precise questions would significantly strengthen the scientific rigor of the paper. Finally only about 22% of the references come from the last five years. While referencing older works (e.g., from 2012 or 2016) is justified when discussing classic rural development theories, relying on texts from 2014–2018 is, in my opinion, insufficient for a rapidly evolving field like digital platforms and their governance. I recommend updating the reference list with more current literature.

Author Response

Comment 1. Interest and originality of the approach

Response:
We thank the reviewer for the positive assessment of the manuscript’s approach and the relevance of the research problem addressed.

Comment 2. Inclusion of research questions

Response:
Two explicit research questions have been incorporated into the Introduction in order to strengthen the scientific rigor of the study, in line with the reviewer’s suggestion.

Comment 3. Updating of the bibliography

Response:
The bibliography has been updated by incorporating recent works, particularly in the fields of digital platforms and governance, in order to reinforce the manuscript’s alignment with the current state of research.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript highlights the importance of interactive and evidence-based knowledge transmission via platforms, emphasizing that this process is not linear but highly comprehensive. It is based on a holistic approach and deals with a conceptual framework for knowledge-based platforms and their applicability for policymakers. However, the methodology for designing the conceptual framework is not transparent and clear. Please follow the attached comments.

Kind regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1. Lack of methodological transparency in the construction of the framework

Response:
The methodological section (Sections 4.1 and 4.2) has been substantially expanded, detailing the literature review process, selection criteria, databases used, and the analytical synthesis procedure (inductive–deductive logic and conceptual aggregation).

Comment 2. Potential arbitrariness in the selection of dimensions

Response:
The process of constructing the conceptual framework has been clarified through a detailed description of the identification of recurring patterns, thematic grouping, and conceptual aggregation, in order to reinforce its internal coherence and reduce the perception of subjectivity.

Comment 3. Lack of operationalisation of the model

Response:
A specific table (Table 1) has been incorporated, operationalising each dimension of the framework through observable qualitative criteria. This addition enhances analytical transparency and facilitates the use of the model by other researchers, without transforming it into a quantitative measurement instrument.

Comment 4. Empirical application of the model

Response:
The application of the framework has been strengthened through the inclusion of a second table (Table 2), which links each dimension with empirical evidence from the case, structuring the analysis in an explicit and systematic manner.

Comment 5. Placement of the case study

Response:
The integration of the case within the methodological logic has been reinforced, clarifying its role as an analytical application of the framework rather than as an evaluation of results.

Comment 6. Applicability of the model

Response:
The framework has been explicitly positioned as a qualitative analytical tool based on observable criteria, enabling its application across different territorial contexts without reliance on quantitative indicators.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made significant additions and modifications to their manuscript, based on the comments. The research is now ready for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The quality of the manuscript has been improved. The authors achieve the higher transferability of the proposed analytical framework. 

Best regards