Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Assessment 
The research examines a pertinent subject. The article examines the green and digital transitions in rural regions by evaluating socio-technical preparedness. The article's utilization of a mixed-methods approach, integrating quantitative maturity scores with qualitative analysis of training requirements, constitutes a significant strength. The text would improve with more comprehensive descriptions of the technique, a clearer presentation of specific results, and a more thorough discussion of the implications and limitations.
The quantitative maturity scores are delineated as follows: "Pacentro and Majella Madre = 5; Yecla = 10; Adelo Area = 25." The abstract fails to elucidate the significance of these scores for maturity levels (e.g., does a score of 5 indicate extremely low maturity, while 25 signifies very high maturity, and what is the scale?). It would be beneficial to succinctly present the range or a concise interpretation of these values in the abstract to furnish quick context. 

The introduction offers a comprehensive review of maturity models and social innovation; nevertheless, several sections might benefit from increased conciseness or improved integration. The comprehensive history of maturity models (CMM, CMMI) could be succinctly refined to emphasize their applicability in the contexts of social innovation and digital transformation pertinent to this study. The connections among social innovation, socio-technological domains, and maturity models should be more clearly aligned with the paper's primary purpose. I recommend that the authors compose a distinct section for the literature review. 
The materials and methods section of the publication indicates that eight dimensions were chosen from the original SCIROCCO tool. It is essential to elucidate the rationale for the selection of these particular eight dimensions and their alignment with "green and digital transitions," rather than merely asserting their applicability. A concise rationale for the omission of more original SCIROCCO dimensions would enhance this section. Furthermore, Table 1 enumerates the chosen SCIROCCO criteria. Additional clarification of the specifics of each criterion within the framework of the modified tool would be beneficial for a referee. What specific indicators or questions were utilized to evaluate "Readiness to Change" or "Digital Transformation" maturity inside the modified framework? 
The characterization of Phase 1 is ambiguous. In what manner was "stakeholder evidence" aligned with "established criteria"? What type of evidence was gathered (e.g., documents, interviews, pre-existing data)? What systematic approach was employed for this mapping, and what were the established criteria? Enhancing methodological detail in this context would greatly augment reproducibility and transparency. 
In Phase 2, the article indicates that local stakeholders participated in a "self-assessment." What was the structure of this self-assessment? Was it based on a questionnaire, workshop, or interview? What criteria were employed to choose and recruit the "45+ adults, SMEs, and micro-firms" for this phase? What was the specific content of the self-assessment (e.g., categories of questions posed)? 
Regarding the Scoring Mechanism: Table 2 presents quantitative evaluations for each criterion along with aggregate ratings. The methodology for deriving these scores from the qualitative and quantitative data gathered in Phases 1 and 2 is ambiguous. A detailed elucidation of the scoring system for each dimension (e.g., a Likert scale, descriptive levels culminating in a number score) would significantly improve the transparency of the quantitative outcomes. What are the numerical translations of the descriptions "1-Compelling need is recognized" and "3-Vision or plan embedded in policy" in Table 2, and what is the maximum achievable score for each criterion? 
The qualitative examination of developing training needs is characterized as "concentrating on the distribution of the emerging issues within SHAFE domains: individuals, digital technology, and locations." Additional information regarding the qualitative data collection techniques (e.g., interviews, focus groups, workshops) and the theme analysis approach employed to categorize these demands into MACRO, MESO, and MICRO levels will enhance methodological rigor. 
Regarding the results section of the paper: Table 2 displays the maturity evaluation; nevertheless, the formatting need enhancement for increased reading. The cell content is highly condensed, and the correlation between qualitative descriptions and numerical ratings is occasionally difficult to discern across many pilot locations. Consider segmenting lengthy descriptions or employing concise bullet points within cells. 
Figures 1 (Framework of the customized SCIROCCO tool) and 2 (Tailored support for NES training pilots community) are visually elucidative. Nevertheless, the writing within the figures may be diminutive and challenging to decipher in certain cases. Provide high-resolution figures for publication. 
The report provides quantitative scores and qualitative emerging needs; however, a more explicit integration of both data in the "Results" section would enhance clarity. For example, following the presentation of maturity scores, an analysis of their correlation with particular qualitative findings regarding strengths and shortcomings at each pilot site could yield further insights. 
The discourse briefly addresses problems, including disparities in rural regions affecting the adoption of digital tools. A more clear "Limitations" sub-section should be included, wherein the authors address the constraints of their study design, the modified SCIROCCO tool, the sample size (particularly for qualitative phases), and any possible biases. Self-assessment tools may exhibit bias, and this must be recognized. 
The research references existing maturity models; however, a more thorough comparison of the findings from this adapted SCIROCCO application with other studies on digital or green transition maturity in analogous or disparate situations would enhance the discourse. How do the maturity levels identified in these rural European locations compare to those in other regions or sectors? 
The findings address the possibility of additional projects. The discourse may elaborate on particular pathways for further inquiry, directly deriving from the discoveries and constraints recognized. 
The conclusions encapsulate the achievements of the NES project and the efficacy of the modified SCIROCCO model. Articulate the principal insights clearly and succinctly, closely aligning with the original objectives. Refrain from presenting new facts or excessive elaborations. 
Maintain uniform formatting across the reference list. Certain submissions may have minor stylistic variances. 
The manuscript contains some minor grammatical errors and typographical mistakes, such as the necessity for a period or separation in "Maddalena Illario, illario@unina.it: Tel.: +39.081.7464211" and the inconsistent naming of "Pacentro and Maiella Madre," which is referred to as "Pacentro and Majella Madre" in other instances. A comprehensive proofreading by a fluent English speaker would be advantageous. 
Verify that all figures and tables are accurately numbered and cited within the text. 
By fixing these issues, the quality of the content could be enhanced. Upon the correction of the aforementioned points, the article may be published.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

As mentioned, the quality of English could be improved.

Author Response

The authors thank you for giving the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort that you dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by you. Please see below for a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns

 

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Comments 1: The quantitative maturity scores are delineated as follows: "Pacentro and Majella Madre = 5; Yecla = 10; Adelo Area = 25." The abstract fails to elucidate the significance of these scores for maturity levels (e.g., does a score of 5 indicate extremely low maturity, while 25 signifies very high maturity, and what is the scale?). It would be beneficial to succinctly present the range or a concise interpretation of these values in the abstract to furnish quick context.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, further information on the significance of the SCIROCCO Score have been included in the abstract.

 

Comments 2: The introduction offers a comprehensive review of maturity models and social innovation; nevertheless, several sections might benefit from increased conciseness or improved integration. The comprehensive history of maturity models (CMM, CMMI) could be succinctly refined to emphasize their applicability in the contexts of social innovation and digital transformation pertinent to this study. The connections among social innovation, socio-technological domains, and maturity models should be more clearly aligned with the paper's primary purpose. I recommend that the authors compose a distinct section for the literature review.

Response 2: Agree. The introduction has been revised according to the reviewer's suggestions. Some points have been summarized. Additional content has been added to connect the introduction to the research objectives. A specific section has been dedicated to a literature review.

 

Comments 3: The materials and methods section of the publication indicates that eight dimensions were chosen from the original SCIROCCO tool. It is essential to elucidate the rationale for the selection of these particular eight dimensions and their alignment with "green and digital transitions," rather than merely asserting their applicability. A concise rationale for the omission of more original SCIROCCO dimensions would enhance this section. Furthermore, Table 1 enumerates the chosen SCIROCCO criteria. Additional clarification of the specifics of each criterion within the framework of the modified tool would be beneficial for a referee. What specific indicators or questions were utilized to evaluate "Readiness to Change" or "Digital Transformation" maturity inside the modified framework?

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, Table 1 has been updated by inserting, in addition to the criteria, the objectives, the questions and the answers of the NES SCIROCCO tool. The paragraphes 2.1 and 2.2 have been integrally rewrite in order to better explain both the Scirocco Model and its context of experimentation, both the rationale of SCIROCCO model adaptation to the NES project.

 

Comments 4: The characterization of Phase 1 is ambiguous. In what manner was "stakeholder evidence" aligned with "established criteria"? What type of evidence was gathered (e.g., documents, interviews, pre-existing data)? What systematic approach was employed for this mapping, and what were the established criteria? Enhancing methodological detail in this context would greatly augment reproducibility and transparency.

In Phase 2, the article indicates that local stakeholders participated in a "self-assessment." What was the structure of this self-assessment? Was it based on a questionnaire, workshop, or interview? What criteria were employed to choose and recruit the "45+ adults, SMEs, and micro-firms" for this phase? What was the specific content of the self-assessment (e.g., categories of questions posed)?

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, in Paragraph 3, a description is provided of how we applied the adapted version of the SCIROCCO assessment tool for NES. The two phases of the application have been reported and discussed, including methodological details, participants, and the typology of data gathered.

 

Comments 5: Regarding the Scoring Mechanism: Table 2 presents quantitative evaluations for each criterion along with aggregate ratings. The methodology for deriving these scores from the qualitative and quantitative data gathered in Phases 1 and 2 is ambiguous. A detailed elucidation of the scoring system for each dimension (e.g., a Likert scale, descriptive levels culminating in a number score) would significantly improve the transparency of the quantitative outcomes. What are the numerical translations of the descriptions "1-Compelling need is recognized" and "3-Vision or plan embedded in policy" in Table 2, and what is the maximum achievable score for each criterion?

Response 5: Agree. Table 1 has been updated by inserting, in addition to the criteria, the objectives, the questions and the answers of the NES SCIROCCO tool. It includes also the scoring system.

 

Comments 6: The qualitative examination of developing training needs is characterized as "concentrating on the distribution of the emerging issues within SHAFE domains: individuals, digital technology, and locations." Additional information regarding the qualitative data collection techniques (e.g., interviews, focus groups, workshops) and the theme analysis approach employed to categorize these demands into MACRO, MESO, and MICRO levels will enhance methodological rigor.

Response 6: Agree. Paragraph 3 (Results) has been rewritten to include more details about the main concerns that emerged from the three pilot sites (in text and tabs), clarifying the link with the MACRO, MESO, and MICRO levels of the training framework.

 

Comments 7: Regarding the results section of the paper: Table 2 displays the maturity evaluation; nevertheless, the formatting need enhancement for increased reading. The cell content is highly condensed, and the correlation between qualitative descriptions and numerical ratings is occasionally difficult to discern across many pilot locations. Consider segmenting lengthy descriptions or employing concise bullet points within cells.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, the Table 2 has been enlarged.

 

Comments 8: Figures 1 (Framework of the customized SCIROCCO tool) and 2 (Tailored support for NES training pilots community) are visually elucidative. Nevertheless, the writing within the figures may be diminutive and challenging to decipher in certain cases. Provide high-resolution figures for publication.

Response 8: Agree. High-resolution figures have been provided.

 

Comments 9: The report provides quantitative scores and qualitative emerging needs; however, a more explicit integration of both data in the "Results" section would enhance clarity. For example, following the presentation of maturity scores, an analysis of their correlation with particular qualitative findings regarding strengths and shortcomings at each pilot site could yield further insights.

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, paragraph 3 (Results) has been rewritten according with the reviewer's suggestions.

 

Comments 10: The discourse briefly addresses problems, including disparities in rural regions affecting the adoption of digital tools. A more clear "Limitations" sub-section should be included, wherein the authors address the constraints of their study design, the modified SCIROCCO tool, the sample size (particularly for qualitative phases), and any possible biases. Self-assessment tools may exhibit bias, and this must be recognized. The research references existing maturity models; however, a more thorough comparison of the findings from this adapted SCIROCCO application with other studies on digital or green transition maturity in analogous or disparate situations would enhance the discourse. How do the maturity levels identified in these rural European locations compare to those in other regions or sectors? The findings address the possibility of additional projects. The discourse may elaborate on particular pathways for further inquiry, directly deriving from the discoveries and constraints recognized.

Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, paragraph 4.1 has been inserted to report study’s limitations

 

Comments 11: The conclusions encapsulate the achievements of the NES project and the efficacy of the modified SCIROCCO model. Articulate the principal insights clearly and succinctly, closely aligning with the original objectives. Refrain from presenting new facts or excessive elaborations.

Response 11: Agree. Paragraph 5 has been revised according to the reviewer’s suggestion

 

Comments 12: Maintain uniform formatting across the reference list. Certain submissions may have minor stylistic variances.  The manuscript contains some minor grammatical errors and typographical mistakes, such as the necessity for a period or separation in "Maddalena Illario, illario@unina.it: Tel.: +39.081.7464211" and the inconsistent naming of "Pacentro and Maiella Madre," which is referred to as "Pacentro and Majella Madre" in other instances. A comprehensive proofreading by a fluent English speaker would be advantageous. Verify that all figures and tables are accurately numbered and cited within the text.

Response 11: Agree. Tables, images, and references are all updated. Typos and grammatical mistakes are eliminated.

 

 

3. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: As mentioned, the quality of English could be improved.

Response 1: An English check has been carried out

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents the results of using the adapted SCIROCCO tool to assess the maturity of the socio-technical context of the green and digital transitions. The topic is relevant both in practice and in academia. The manuscript presents the research process and its results. Unfortunately, the manuscript does not follow good practices for reporting scientific research. Due to the lack of key elements of scientific reporting, it is not possible to make specific judgments and suggestions for improvement. Therefore, I can only provide general guidelines for improvement.

The introduction is very general and does not provide adequate background for the research. There is no definition of the research gap. The definition of the objective to report on the maturity analysis approach at pilot sites nicely highlights the central problem of the manuscript. The report is not intended to be a scientific research article, but rather a project report. In this sense, there is no clear objective that would justify the originality and scientific contribution of the work.

The main shortcomings of this approach are as follows:

- The research is not placed in the context of previous research; the theoretical framework is defined only by the SCIROCCO model, which is not underpinned by theory or relevant references.

- The methods are poorly presented, both in terms of data collection and analysis,

- The reporting of results is inadequate, as we only get an overview of the maturity assessments.

- For this reason, the study cannot be replicated, which is a major problem with the manuscript.

As a general guideline, I offer the following suggestions for improvement:

- definition of the research gap,

- justify the originality and scientific contribution of the paper,

- placing the maturity model in the theoretical framework and previous research,

- underpinning and defining the research methods and ensuring the replicability of the research.

Author Response

The authors thank you for giving the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort that you dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by you. Please see below for a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns
Comments 1: The introduction is very general and does not provide adequate background for the research. There is no definition of the research gap. The definition of the objective to report on the maturity analysis approach at pilot sites nicely highlights the central problem of the manuscript. The report is not intended to be a scientific research article, but rather a project report. In this sense, there is no clear objective that would justify the originality and scientific contribution of the work.
The main shortcomings of this approach are as follows:
- The research is not placed in the context of previous research; the theoretical framework is defined only by the SCIROCCO model, which is not underpinned by theory or relevant references.
- The methods are poorly presented, both in terms of data collection and analysis,
- The reporting of results is inadequate, as we only get an overview of the maturity assessments.
- For this reason, the study cannot be replicated, which is a major problem with the manuscript.
As a general guideline, I offer the following suggestions for improvement:
- definition of the research gap,
- justify the originality and scientific contribution of the paper,
- placing the maturity model in the theoretical framework and previous research,
- underpinning and defining the research methods and ensuring the replicability of the research.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, the introduction has been revised according to the reviewer's suggestions. Some points have been summarized. Additional content has been added to connect the introduction to the research objectives. A specific section has been dedicated to a literature review. The methodology has been wider revised in the paragraphs 2.1, 2.2 and 3. The paragraph 3 (Results) has been revised including more details about main concerns emerged from the three Pilots Site (in text and tabs)

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses the issue of skills development for the workforce in (Mediterranean countries) rural  areas in the context of digital and green transitions. It proposes and demonstrates the use of a self-assessment instrument (SCIROCCO) to identify gaps in skills and develop proposals for training to fill these gaps.

Although it addresses a very important area (which has already been addressed from different perspectives), it reads quite superficial (like an executive summary). It fails to surface the benefits and challenges of the socio-technical systems approach that claims to be based on. A socio-technical systems approach means that, in addition to discussing criteria/dimensions of assessment, the interrelations among them have to be considered too. Modern assessment tools embrace a systems approach, not a laundry-list approach.

In addition, how the criteria system has been calibrated? For instance, what is the difference between a score 1 and a score 2 in "Readiness" to change"? These things must be explained.

How is the method compared to other available methods? The "Introduction" should be dedicated to discussing this, not the use of "maturity levels" in different domains.

Finally, the paper needs improvement in the coherence and continuity between its different sections.     

Author Response

The authors thank you for giving the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort that you dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by you. Please see below for a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns

Comments 1: The paper addresses the issue of skills development for the workforce in (Mediterranean countries) rural areas in the context of digital and green transitions. It proposes and demonstrates the use of a self-assessment instrument (SCIROCCO) to identify gaps in skills and develop proposals for training to fill these gaps.

Although it addresses a very important area (which has already been addressed from different perspectives), it reads quite superficial (like an executive summary). It fails to surface the benefits and challenges of the socio-technical systems approach that claims to be based on. A socio-technical systems approach means that, in addition to discussing criteria/dimensions of assessment, the interrelations among them have to be considered too. Modern assessment tools embrace a systems approach, not a laundry-list approach.

In addition, how the criteria system has been calibrated? For instance, what is the difference between a score 1 and a score 2 in "Readiness" to change"? These things must be explained.

How is the method compared to other available methods? The "Introduction" should be dedicated to discussing this, not the use of "maturity levels" in different domains.

Finally, the paper needs improvement in the coherence and continuity between its different sections.    

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, the introduction has been revised according to the reviewer's suggestions. Some points have been summarized. Additional content has been added to connect the introduction to the research objectives. A specific section has been dedicated to a literature review. The methodology has been wider revised in the paragraphs 2.1, 2.2 and 3. Table 1 has been updated by inserting, in addition to the criteria, the objectives, the questions and the answers of the NES SCIROCCO tool. It includes also the scoring system. The paragraph 3 (Results) has been revised including more details about main concerns emerged from the three Pilots Site (in text and tabs). Paragraph 4.1 has been inserted to report study’s limitations

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors provided a better version of their work, both in content and presentation, which is publishable.