sash-ka/mdpi_arguments_relation · Datasets at Hugging Face

arg_1 stringlengths 4 5.08k	round_1 float64 2 8 ⌀	ann_1 float64 1 2 ⌀	arg_2 stringlengths 8 2.19k	round_2 float64 1 7 ⌀	ann_2 float64 1 2 ⌀	annotation_name stringclasses 131 values	is_attacks int64 0 1
I have tried to address your principle concern by improving the scope of the work, revising the method section, results, discussion and conclusion.	2	1	As a separate recommendation, the paper needs smoother transitions between topics on pages 2-7. The authors should add one or two lines smoothing the flow for the reader, rather than relying on subject headings.	1	2	admsci5030125_boyarkin	1
I have tried to improve the information density of the paper from being to verbiose.	2	1	The paper is on the one hand quite verbose, but with respect to the peer review incomplete. Possible risks in peer review are many more than the ones listed in Table 3.	1	2	admsci5030125_boyarkin	1
I have added the results of the stakeholder analysis to improve the communication our view of the PRP.	2	1	The paper can become stronger if it limits itself to the Peer Review Ring Incident and will look at the various aspects of that scenario including risk reducing measures.	1	2	admsci5030125_boyarkin	1
I have tried to address your other concerns by improving the scope of the work, revising the method section, results, discussion and conclusion.	2	1	It didn't become clear to me as a reader where the specific results of the 13 steps of the CIRA application are and where these are described. What are the conclusions about the root cause? Or are there multiple root causes? And what definition of root cause is used?	1	2	admsci5030125_boyarkin	1
I have elaborated on all the areas you commented, and clarified the CIRA methodology and hopefully my contribution.	2	1	there is not enough explanation about the CIRA and the person(s) who developed this method. Also there is not enough clarification and elaboration on the differences of your work on CIRA and your customizations comparing to the original methodology.	1	2	admsci5030125_boyarkin	1
Thank you for comments on the grammar issues, these are now fixed. Abbrevation issues should be fixed.	2	1	There are some typos, punctuations and grammatical errors in the paper,	1	2	admsci5030125_boyarkin	1
I have also tried to address your other concerns by improving the scope of the work, revising the method section, results, discussion and conclusion.	2	1	There are some consistency issues in your writing. This does not look professional in scientific papers.	1	2	admsci5030125_boyarkin	1
I have included all your suggested changes together with a major spellcheck.	4	1	There is a need for some editing; e.g. grammatical and punctuation corrections, elements in the text.	3	2	admsci5030125_boyarkin	1
I have tried to address your principle concern by improving the scope of the work, revising the method section, results, discussion and conclusion.	2	1	Given the authors stated goal of promoting the CIRA technique and approach to demonstrating its uses, I would recommend re-formatting the paper as a pedagogical tool. Rather than claiming to validate the method, focus on a detailed step by step examination of its implementation using a known outcome.	1	2	admsci5030125_makarova	1
I have tried to improve the information density of the paper from being to verbiose.	2	1	The paper is on the one hand quite verbose, but with respect to the peer review incomplete.	1	2	admsci5030125_makarova	1
I have added the results of the stakeholder analysis to improve the communication our view of the PRP.	2	1	The paper can become stronger if it limits itself to the Peer Review Ring Incident and will look at the various aspects of that scenario including risk reducing measures.	1	2	admsci5030125_makarova	1
I have tried to address your other concerns by improving the scope of the work, revising the method section, results, discussion and conclusion.	2	1	What are the conclusions about the root cause? Or are there multiple root causes? And what definition of root cause is used?	1	2	admsci5030125_makarova	1
I have elaborated on all the areas you commented, and clarified the CIRA methodology and hopefully my contribution.	2	1	Also there is not enough clarification and elaboration on the differences of your work on CIRA and your customizations comparing to the original methodology.	1	2	admsci5030125_makarova	1
I have included all your suggested changes together with a major spellcheck.	4	1	There is a need for some editing; e.g. grammatical and punctuation corrections, elements in the text.	3	2	admsci5030125_makarova	1
Agree that it should not be an issue. Therefore, I recalibrated the piece to note that co-operatives are not third sector organizations, but instead have similar features that could allow the institutional analyst fertile ground for innovations in governance.	2	1	the third sector, its definition and description is missing. I would not have thought of this as a major issue unless Evers and Laville (2004) The third sector in Europe, Edward Elgar, spesifically discuss whether cooperations are defined within or outside the third sector. Maybe taken for granted here? The least we should expect is a definition.	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
I agree that this is not a case study; I made the mistake in haste. I have therefore changed the paper from a case study to a discussion paper. Additionally, I note in the paper that I perform an archival analysis of media accounts in an effort to demonstrate how the utilization of the ODPs for analysizing secondary data may better position the analyst to perform rigorous, interogative fieldwork.	2	1	the case description and analysis is based only on media accounts - no actual first hand information to inform the analysis. I find this less than satisfying. It should be possible to interview a few key individuals about the case to make sure the medis picture is corrected where this is needed. Media does not always get it right. There is not enough evidence to prove anything about CEC.	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
See the DISCUSSION and CONCLUSION sections, where I have added additional analyses.	2	1	I also have problems with the depth of the discussion, and I feel the conclusion does not match the promises of the abstract.	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
Corrected and accounted for.	2	1	Figure 1 text overwrite part of the figure, and there should be comments on how this is different from a general structure for a private sector company (if you look at stakeholders as shareholders)	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
I do not believe this is a necessary reference as I cite the International Co-operative Alliance principles, and the Rochdale Principles are somewhat commonly understood.	2	1	Bottom of page 9: Missing reference to Co-operative principles by Rochdale Society.	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
Accounted for.	2	1	USA context concerning cooperatives (upper half page 10) should be highlighted even more for readers to be able to compare to their own context (for instance in Europe)	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
Addressed in the text.	2	1	The cooperative firm removes adversarial aspects of market contracting (page 11) - what adversarial aspects?	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
Corrected.	2	1	are references 27 and 33 used in the text? (could not find them) Good luck in further research and writing on this subject.	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
I have changed the headings for these sections to better reflect the content. They read as follows: 2.	4	1	The literature part is improved by changing the headline, putting it in the right setting. The change illustrates how headlines can change the apperance of the text contents. However, I cannot see how chapter 2.2. is a sub-theme under the Ostrom Principles? If they are - the connection need explainnig. If they are not, the main headling Chapter 2 should be reformulated again.	3	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
This is general knowledge, thereby not necessitating a reference. If the reviewers disagree, I would add a reference.	4	1	I still miss a source reference at the bottom of page 9 (Rochdale Society).	3	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
I have added commentary about moral hazard and information asymetries.	4	1	On top of page 11 there is still no examples of adversarial effects removed by co-operative.	3	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
Agreed. Agreed. I have added additional elaboration.	4	1	The comments added in the beginning of Chapter 3 on methodology are important and improves the text a lot. The author openly acknowledges that the basis for a complete picture is lacking. I do not expect the complete picture, but should have comments on limitations and to what degree the conclusions and learnings are possible to generalize.	3	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
Commentary added, nothing the need for additiona interogation.	4	1	Conclusion: middle of page 16: "we cannot know the motivations behind.." Have you tried to talk to them? I believe it is possible to get to know.	3	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
Commentary added for further clarity.	4	1	Low on page 16: "The ownership becomes absentee, ..." This is in the case of co-operative?	3	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
I agree with your points about the over-emphasis on principle-agent types of governance arrangements. The Cornforth (2004) article reoriented my thinking (thank you). I recognized that it was not "P-A" I was critiquing, but the unitarist tradition. That approach helped with definitional rigor	2	1	Furthermore, there is no discussion of principal-agent literature in a third sector context (see, for example, Jegers, 2009), which is quite surprising since the proposition to go beyond the traditional principal-agent literature is one of the main ideas of the manuscript.	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
I believe the recalibration of the core critique from "P-A" to unitarism addresses the commentary, here.	2	1	Furthermore, attempts have already been made to broaden the principal-agent approach in nonprofit organizations (Ben-Ner et al., 2012; Van Puyvelde et al., 2012, Coule, 2015), leading me to the question what this manuscript actually adds to the literature.	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
A further recalibration. I adusted the commentary to address "pluralistic" governance as opposed to stakeholder governance.	2	1	In the introduction, the author also mentions underdeveloped modes of stakeholder governance in the third sector. I do not agree with this view. Several stakeholder governance frameworks for third sector organizations have already been developed in the literature (Young, 2011; Van Puyvelde et al., 2012; Wellens and Jegers, 2014).	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
I editted the paper for consistenct, in line with your commentary.	2	1	The author uses “stakeholder-controlled firm”, “third sector organizations”, “nonprofit organizations”, “social enterprise”, and “co-operative” without clearly defining these types and mentioning which nonprofit type is actually the focus of the study.	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
The definition used is from the official representative body, the International Co-operative Alliance.	2	1	I am also not convinced by the definition of co-operatives mentioned in the paper.	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
Acknowledged. First, the paper is no longer listed as a case study, but as a discussion piece. Second, I note in the paper that I am not making the claim that the co-operative model is part of the third sector.	2	1	Furthermore, given that the world of third sector organizations is very rich and heterogeneous, one should be careful by discussing third sector organizations in general, especially since the case study seems to focus on co-operative enterprises. Instead of being vague and using a mixed terminology, the manuscript should clearly distinguish which nonprofit type is the subject of the paper, and be very careful in generalizing the findings of this study to third sector governance, which mistakenly happens in the conclusion (p. 15). Given the case study, I would focus on the governance of co-operatives	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
Acknowledged. The "Literature Review" section now falls under a more accurate heading of "Introducing the Ostrom Design Principles."	2	1	The literature review is completely missing.	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
I believe that this then addresses the issues that fall in line with your critiques about the theoretical foundation.	2	1	The literature review is completely missing.	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
As per your suggestions, I did focus on the co-operative model I believe that Cornforth’s paper (2004) might be a good starting point.	2	1	Given the aforementioned comments, I would advise the author to revise the paper by focusing on the governance of nonprofit associations / co-operatives.	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
Very helpful! Thank you!	2	1	I believe that Cornforth’s paper (2004) might be a good starting point.	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
Note that the paper no longer claims this to be a case study, and instead positions itself as a discussion paper, performing a secondary archival analysis of media accounts.	2	1	In addition, a more extensive literature review and comparison with previous principal-agent literature and stakeholder governance models (especially Van Puyvelde et al., 2012 and Coule, 2015) may give the manuscript a more solid theoretical foundation. As such, applying the idea of the Ostrom design principles to nonprofit governance and illustrating this with a case study may more clearly show the contribution of the manuscript to the current literature.	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
Thank you.	2	1	The basic premise of this article is good: the application of Ostrom's design principles as a way of analysing / evaluating governance in third sector organisations is quite innovative, particularly combined with a discussion of third sector / cooperative governance principles.	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
I agree with your critique. I have adjusted accordingly. I did this by separating the co-operative model from the third sector, and instead noted that there exists commonalities which allows for comparative learning and innovations in governance.	2	1	The characterisation of third sector governance is too crude. For example, the third sector itself can be seen as diverse with philanthropic, mutual, cooperative and association sub-sectors. The comments at the start of the literature review might apply to foundations and charities, but are less true of association and mutuals (let alone cooperatives). Also, where there are accounting regulations (like SORP), there are mechanism that keep associations and charities accountable to their donors.	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
Note that throughout the document I incorporate Coule's unitary-pluralist dimensions.	2	1	Given the inclusion of Coule's paper, I would have already expected more sensitivity to divisions unitary and pluralist theories of governance but by reviting this (and reading Turnbull's Cornforth's and Ridley-Duff's precursor to Coule's work), this should be adequately addressed.	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
Agreed and accounted for.	2	1	Secondly, I just can't agree that third sector governance is derived from for-profit principles. It is - mostly - derived from philanthropic principles (or mutual principles inside the social economy). There is, however, some common practices, but not for the reasons described. Just as the wealthy entrepreneur seeks to control the private enterprise through shareholdings, so the wealthy philanthropist seeks to control the non-profit enterprise through trust law. In both cases, Principle-Agent assumptions apply, but not because both are based on for-profit assumptions. These apply in both cases because funding is sought from wealthy providers with the power to frame laws that require their investees to use the money for the purposes stimpulated by them. In the social economy (associations, mutuals and cooperatives) the legal structures and accountabilities are different (and are captured well in the paper). Associations, mutuals and cooperatives, however, are not dependent on the patronage of the rich, but the patronage of the many, and their mass member legal structures and accountability mechanisms reflect this.	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
Agreed. I misrepresented the analysis. It is not a case study, but instead an cursory archival analysis and exploration, utilizing secondary sources.	2	1	This is weak, perhaps too weak for an academic paper. Certainly, some description of the process by which the case study was developed (sources used, data collection techniquies, analysis techniques) are needed to be publishable. The use of media sources, while not ideal, might be adequate if the author(s) can show systematic and comprehensive collection of them. However, the credibility of the paper and findings would be enormously enhanced is some primary interview data could be collected and presented. Is there a way to interview members who participated in action (or access sources written by them)?	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
Agreed. The Analysis, Discussiom, and Conclusion sections are more fleshed out.	2	1	The framework for this section exists but feels a bit superficial and under-developed. I think it needs linking back to the findings more clearly and to be elaborated and slightly more length (cut some literature if needed to stay within the word length limits).	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
Agreed, and accounted for.	2	1	Lastly, the discussion and conclusions need to stick to contributions to theory / research practice and refrain from commenting on wider issues without adequate justification. Stick to commenting on the usefulness and value of ODPs, and draw out any theoretical contributions regarding the design principles themselves, or their value as a theoretical perspective for governance research. Some well grounded comments on their use in other governance research are merited right at the end.	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
I hope that the revisions in the abstract an introduction better clarify the purpose.	2	1	I do not understand the purpose of the paper.	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
Agreed. I accounted for this throughout the document. Terminology is used in a definitionally consistent manner.	2	1	The author is mixing up several concepts and ignore the abundant literature on governance in nonprofits not dealing with the agency theory.	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
Note that I adjusted the paper, and recalibrated it from a case study, to a discussion paper that utilizes an archival analysis of secondary sources. I do this in order to demonstrate how the Ostrom Design Principles may be used by the researcher to better contextualize the subject being studied so they may enter the field prepared to deeply interrogate.	2	1	The style is more journalistic and free opinion than rigourous research.	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
Noted and accounted for throughout the document.	2	1	Public enterprises, third sector cooperatives are all mixedup.	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
Acknowledged. I cleaned and honed the Introduction, and added a more robust Conclusion.	2	1	The conceptual framework is not clearly presented and I do not see what are the contributions except some free statements at the end not really related to the analysis.	1	2	admsci5030148_devetyaro	1
Therefore, I recalibrated the piece to note that co-operatives are not third sector organizations, but instead have similar features that could allow the institutional analyst fertile ground for innovations in governance.	2	1	the third sector, its definition and description is missing. The third sector in Europe, Edward Elgar, spesifically discuss whether cooperations are defined within or outside the third sector.	1	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
I have therefore changed the paper from a case study to a discussion paper. Additionally, I note in the paper that I perform an archival analysis of media accounts in an effort to demonstrate how the utilization of the ODPs for analysizing secondary data may better position the analyst to perform rigorous, interogative fieldwork.	2	1	the case description and analysis is based only on media accounts - no actual first hand information to inform the analysis.	1	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
See the DISCUSSION and CONCLUSION sections, where I have added additional analyses.	2	1	I also have problems with the depth of the discussion, and I feel the conclusion does not match the promises of the abstract.	1	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
Corrected and accounted for.	2	1	Figure 1 text overwrite part of the figure, and there should be comments on how this is different from a general structure for a private sector company (if you look at stakeholders as shareholders)	1	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
I do not believe this is a necessary reference as I cite the International Co-operative Alliance principles, and the Rochdale Principles are somewhat commonly understood.	2	1	Bottom of page 9: Missing reference to Co-operative principles by Rochdale Society.	1	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
Accounted for.	2	1	USA context concerning cooperatives (upper half page 10) should be highlighted even more for readers to be able to compare to their own context (for instance in Europe)	1	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
Addressed in the text.	2	1	The cooperative firm removes adversarial aspects of market contracting (page 11) - what adversarial aspects?	1	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
Corrected.	2	1	are references 27 and 33 used in the text? (could not find them) Good luck in further research and writing on this subject.	1	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
I have changed the headings for these sections to better reflect the content.	4	1	However, I cannot see how chapter 2.2. is a sub-theme under the Ostrom Principles? If they are - the connection need explainnig. If they are not, the main headling Chapter 2 should be reformulated again.	3	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
This is general knowledge, thereby not necessitating a reference. If the reviewers disagree, I would add a reference.	4	1	I still miss a source reference at the bottom of page 9 (Rochdale Society).	3	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
I have added commentary about moral hazard and information asymetries.	4	1	On top of page 11 there is still no examples of adversarial effects removed by co-operative.	3	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
Agreed. Agreed. I have added additional elaboration.	4	1	The author openly acknowledges that the basis for a complete picture is lacking. I do not expect the complete picture, but should have comments on limitations and to what degree the conclusions and learnings are possible to generalize.	3	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
Commentary added, nothing the need for additiona interogation.	4	1	Conclusion: middle of page 16: "we cannot know the motivations behind.." Have you tried to talk to them? I believe it is possible to get to know.	3	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
Commentary added for further clarity.	4	1	Low on page 16: "The ownership becomes absentee, ..." This is in the case of co-operative?	3	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
I agree with your points about the over-emphasis on principle-agent types of governance arrangements.	2	1	The abstract of the manuscript mentions that dominant modes of third sector organizational governance adhere to a narrow principal-agent orientation. Similarly, in the introduction, it is stated that governance research on third sector organizations predominantly fixates analysts on the board-management dynamic.	1	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
I believe the recalibration of the core critique from "P-A" to unitarism addresses the commentary, here.	2	1	In the abstract, the author also states that the over-reliance on the principal-agent model introduces two challenges. However, a solid foundation for this argument is missing.	1	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
A further recalibration. I adusted the commentary to address "pluralistic" governance as opposed to stakeholder governance.	2	1	In the introduction, the author also mentions underdeveloped modes of stakeholder governance in the third sector. I do not agree with this view. Several stakeholder governance frameworks for third sector organizations have already been developed in the literature (Young, 2011; Van Puyvelde et al., 2012; Wellens and Jegers, 2014).	1	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
I editted the paper for consistenct, in line with your commentary.	2	1	The author uses “stakeholder-controlled firm”, “third sector organizations”, “nonprofit organizations”, “social enterprise”, and “co-operative” without clearly defining these types and mentioning which nonprofit type is actually the focus of the study.	1	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
The definition used is from the official representative body, the International Co-operative Alliance.	2	1	I am also not convinced by the definition of co-operatives mentioned in the paper.	1	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
As per your suggestions, I did focus on the co-operative model I believe that Cornforth’s paper (2004) might be a good starting point.	2	1	Given the aforementioned comments, I would advise the author to revise the paper by focusing on the governance of nonprofit associations / co-operatives.	1	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
I agree with your critique. I have adjusted accordingly.	2	1	The characterisation of third sector governance is too crude.	1	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
Note that throughout the document I incorporate Coule's unitary-pluralist dimensions.	2	1	Given the inclusion of Coule's paper, I would have already expected more sensitivity to divisions unitary and pluralist theories of governance but by reviting this (and reading Turnbull's Cornforth's and Ridley-Duff's precursor to Coule's work), this should be adequately addressed.	1	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
Agreed and accounted for.	2	1	I just can't agree that third sector governance is derived from for-profit principles.	1	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
Agreed. I misrepresented the analysis. It is not a case study, but instead an cursory archival analysis and exploration, utilizing secondary sources.	2	1	Certainly, some description of the process by which the case study was developed (sources used, data collection techniquies, analysis techniques) are needed to be publishable.	1	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
Agreed. The Analysis, Discussiom, and Conclusion sections are more fleshed out.	2	1	The framework for this section exists but feels a bit superficial and under-developed. I think it needs linking back to the findings more clearly and to be elaborated and slightly more length (cut some literature if needed to stay within the word length limits).	1	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
Agreed, and accounted for.	2	1	Lastly, the discussion and conclusions need to stick to contributions to theory / research practice and refrain from commenting on wider issues without adequate justification.	1	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
I hope that the revisions in the abstract an introduction better clarify the purpose.	2	1	I do not understand the purpose of the paper.	1	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
Agreed. I accounted for this throughout the document. Terminology is used in a definitionally consistent manner.	2	1	The author is mixing up several concepts and ignore the abundant literature on governance in nonprofits not dealing with the agency theory.	1	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
Note that I adjusted the paper, and recalibrated it from a case study, to a discussion paper that utilizes an archival analysis of secondary sources.	2	1	The style is more journalistic and free opinion than rigourous research.	1	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
Noted and accounted for throughout the document.	2	1	Public enterprises, third sector cooperatives are all mixedup.	1	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
Acknowledged. Acknowledged. I cleaned and honed the Introduction, and added a more robust Conclusion.	2	1	The conceptual framework is not clearly presented and I do not see what are the contributions except some free statements at the end not really related to the analysis.	1	2	admsci5030148_makarova	1
We fundamentally reorganized our manuscript so that its story and structure might be much clearer in the revision. In Section 2.2 we explicitly presented three hypotheses that are tested and discussed in later sections using information on six cluster cases. Section 5 also was reorganized so that the relationship of local cluster management to basic conditions and to national cluster polity, respectively, could be tested for each country using some cases of clusters and cluster management.	2	1	the analysis of the data is weak, and the paper remains largely descriptive. Would suggest to use these case studies as a source of ideas on how policies and cluster initative management migth relate to each other; that would make this a more interesting paper.	1	2	admsci5040213_boyarkin	1
We revised and simplified Figure 1 by deleting cluster performance and its relationships with other factors because in fact we do not address them in our manuscript.	2	1	The conceputal framework (figure 1) is very similar to the 'cluster initiative performance model' in the Cluster Initiative Greenbook (Solvell et al., 2003), adding the hypothesis that there might be an interaction between policy context and management and being somewhat more narrow on the elements included.	1	2	admsci5040213_boyarkin	1
We read and cited in our manuscript the suggested and other references that correspond to [25], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35] and [36] (especially in Section 2.2) in revising our conceptual framework.	2	1	There are also existing reviews of cluster policies in Europe that should be considered (Clusters are Individuals, 2012, BMWi; VDI/VDE; Dasti). There is also a growing literature on cluster initiative management in Europe (see the EU's "Excellence Initiative' with the benchmarking of cluster initiatives) that should be considered.	1	2	admsci5040213_boyarkin	1
This manuscript addresses the relationship of national cluster policy and its local implementation, and not the policy organization within the government. Therefore, we slightly changed the titles of the manuscript and Section 5, and revised related terms throughout the manuscript, using the terms such as “local implementation” or “local management”.	2	1	The language the authors use is here a bit imprecise - they seem to be talking about the management of cluster initiatives, not about the management of the policies themselves (which is more a question of how the program oversight is organized within government; also an interesting but different question).	1	2	admsci5040213_boyarkin	1
The revised version went through a professional, native English editing.	4	1	I would encourage you to have a native speaker look at it, mainly to clarify the language in some places.	3	2	admsci5040213_boyarkin	1
Indeed, it is not a big surprise that the characteristics of national cluster policies and their local implementation are consistent, but still it is our (small but significant) contribution to concretely show the consistency in international comparison with original interviews of cluster managers. It is beyond the scope of our manuscript to answer the question as to which model is better for the cluster performance, so we leave it as a future research agenda.	4	1	Content-wise to me the key observation is the - potentially systematic - connection between the way cluster policies arestructure and the organization of cluster initiatives. This is not a big suprise, and it doesn't really answer the question asto which model is better (only that there are internally consistent models that are different). But it is still a usual observation to make.	3	2	admsci5040213_boyarkin	1
We revised the concept and its explanation, and added some references in Section 2.2 and in Introduction. For more details, please see below.	2	1	the conceptual framework appears simplistic, technocratic and static, and it is not sufficiently rooted in literature as evident from the scarcity of references in section 2.2. It is simplistic and technocratic because it views cluster performance as an outcome of initial conditions (i.e., the state of cluster development), cluster management and national polices. The paper thus rests on the untested presumption that cluster management and national policies actually impact the performance of clusters. As scholars, the authors should challenge this technocratic faith of policy-makers and practitioners, although evaluation is beyond this paper’s scope.	1	2	admsci5040213_boyarkin	1
In this manuscript, we do not intend to demonstrate direct performance effect of cluster conditions, cluster policy, and cluster management. This is beyond the scope of our paper. It would be an important research topic to challenge the “technocratic faith”, but we cut the discussion about the factors of cluster performance from the text and Figure 1 in order to avoid any misunderstanding. Instead, we added a detailed discussion about “initial conditions” (now “basic conditions”) of clusters in Section 2.2 and 3.1 (a new section).	2	1	the conceptual framework appears simplistic, technocratic and static, and it is not sufficiently rooted in literature as evident from the scarcity of references in section 2.2. It is simplistic and technocratic because it views cluster performance as an outcome of initial conditions (i.e., the state of cluster development), cluster management and national polices. The paper thus rests on the untested presumption that cluster management and national policies actually impact the performance of clusters. As scholars, the authors should challenge this technocratic faith of policy-makers and practitioners, although evaluation is beyond this paper’s scope.	1	2	admsci5040213_boyarkin	1
In page 4 below in Section 2.2, we added a brief explanation of the “initial” (now “basic”) conditions of clusters. There we suggested that they comprise various regional characteristics and that also R8 scientific or industrial focus may differ across clusters within life science or biotechnology. In the new Section 3.1, we explained the differences of basic conditions in more detail.	2	1	‘initial conditions’ fail to capture the complexity of clusters if they are reduced to a dichotomy of private vs. public sector dominance. Even when the industry (biotechnology) is held constant, clusters differ in a number of ways, esp. regarding their specialisation within biotechnology, their maturity, size (number of firms and employee) and firm size structure.	1	2	admsci5040213_boyarkin	1
It is true that in some cases local cluster organization had been established and had started its activity before the focal cluster policy started. Because of limited information, we could not sufficiently consider cluster and policy dynamics over time, but referred to the lack of dynamic approach in our study in the conclusion.	2	1	At present, the final section is merely a summary with the exception of the very last sentence briefly sketching the need for including evaluation in comparative cluster policy research.	1	2	admsci5040213_boyarkin	1
* We recognized that we did not concretely explain the initial (we changed the term to “basic” in the revision) conditions of clusters in the previous version. Moreover, we recognize that it is important to discuss in detail how these countries differ regarding basic conditions and why the national cluster policies differ across them. Therefore, we fundamentally changed the structure of our manuscript and set up a new Section 3.1 to discuss these issues in detail. Here, we cited the suggested book chapter and paper, but mainly used statistical evidence from OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard on (different) innovation systems to characterize basic conditions of clusters and to distinguish between private- and public-driven clusters. We summarized the discussion in Table 1 (new).	2	1	A conceptual and/or theoretical perspective is needed to shed light at the differences found. in terms of the role of the state versus private initiative, governance traditions and philosophies, centralist vs. federal set-up. The authors should include a discussion on how these countries differ e.g.	1	2	admsci5040213_boyarkin	1
Maybe “intellectual cluster” is a specific jargon in the Japanese policy. Following your suggestion, and according to the EU reports we cited in our manuscript, we deleted the adjective “intellectual” for clusters and just use “clusters”, because it does neither affect our concept nor findings.	2	1	The authors focus on what they call ‘intellectual clusters’, a term that appears 21 times throughout the paper although I cannot recall having ever seen it in a decade or so of studying clusters and cluster policies. According to the definition on the top of page 4, the term denotes a cluster led by a public research organisation, which is rather specific and I doubt it applies to the six case studies outlined in the paper. Even so, the term ‘intellectual’ does not look fully appropriate here, which may be due to its translation from a Japanese original. ‘Public research-led cluster’ might be more to the point, as it appears difficult to judge if these are more or less ‘intellectual’ than other forms of clusters. At the least, it would appear sound to qualify these six cases as science-based clusters, but then this would apply to the biotech industry and all its clusters in general.	1	2	admsci5040213_boyarkin	1
We did not include USA in the international comparison because, as you correctly suggested, there is no comparable national cluster policy there. However, we use USA in Table 1 on basic conditions as the baseline reference for the three countries.	2	1	The choice of clusters is generally well explained on pp. 2-3. When elaborating on the choice of nations, one might wonder why the United States have not been included – possibly because there is no comparable national cluster policy?!	1	2	admsci5040213_boyarkin	1
We recognize that the term “representative” is misleading. We replaced it with “outstanding” in the revised manuscript.	2	1	When explaining the choice of regional cases, the term ‘representative’ appears misleading. It seems that the most prominent or successful cases have been selected, at least for Germany and France. How can these be ‘representative’ for whatever population of biotech clusters in these countries?	1	2	admsci5040213_boyarkin	1
We added detailed information about the number and types of interview partners and interview time on page 9 at the end of Section 2.3 (Research Methodology).	2	1	When outlining their research methodology, the authors should state precisely how many interviews they conducted. It looks as if one interview was done with the cluster manager in the six regions, but the authors also claim to have interviewed ‘the presidents of cluster firms’ (p. 8, line 20) without indicating the number. Given the conceptual framework outlined in figure 1, one might also wonder why national policymakers, i.e. representatives of the respective national cluster programmes, have not been surveyed as well.	1	2	admsci5040213_boyarkin	1
* We did not interview the officers in charge of cluster policy in the government because information on national cluster policy was sufficiently available from cluster managers and second sources including ministry’s websites and because we are more interested in the relationship of cluster policy with basic conditions and local management than in the cluster policy itself.	2	1	When outlining their research methodology, the authors should state precisely how many interviews they conducted. It looks as if one interview was done with the cluster manager in the six regions, but the authors also claim to have interviewed ‘the presidents of cluster firms’ (p. 8, line 20) without indicating the number. Given the conceptual framework outlined in figure 1, one might also wonder why national policymakers, i.e. representatives of the respective national cluster programmes, have not been surveyed as well.	1	2	admsci5040213_boyarkin	1
With 3 references, we discussed in the (newly inserted) third paragraph of Section 2.3 the advantages of comparative case studies across countries focusing on biotechnology.	2	1	some reflection on the adopted comparative case study research design with references would be desirable.	1	2	admsci5040213_boyarkin	1
The classification between top-down and bottom-up clusters is misleading. In the conceptual framework we distinguish between public-driven and private-driven clusters, so that in the revised version we focused on this type of distinction and cut all descriptions on top-down and bottom-up clusters.	2	1	sections 4.3 to 4.5 leave an impression that the assessment of these cases as ‘bottom-up’ is not completely justified. The authors seem to assume that cluster policies are either bottom-up or top-down, without any shades of grey in between. Compared to the Japanese cases, the French and German cases are clearly more bottom-up, but they still display clear – if not dominant – elements of top-down governance and public agency. This dichotomy should be refined and the classification of cases qualified as, e.g., ‘relatively bottom-up’.	1	2	admsci5040213_boyarkin	1

I have tried to address your principle concern by improving the scope of the work, revising the method section, results, discussion and conclusion.

2

1

As a separate recommendation, the paper needs smoother transitions between topics on pages 2-7. The authors should add one or two lines smoothing the flow for the reader, rather than relying on subject headings.

1

2

admsci5030125_boyarkin

1

I have tried to improve the information density of the paper from being to verbiose.

2

1

The paper is on the one hand quite verbose, but with respect to the peer review incomplete. Possible risks in peer review are many more than the ones listed in Table 3.

1

2

admsci5030125_boyarkin

1

I have added the results of the stakeholder analysis to improve the communication our view of the PRP.

2

1

The paper can become stronger if it limits itself to the Peer Review Ring Incident and will look at the various aspects of that scenario including risk reducing measures.

1

2

admsci5030125_boyarkin

1

I have tried to address your other concerns by improving the scope of the work, revising the method section, results, discussion and conclusion.

2

1

It didn't become clear to me as a reader where the specific results of the 13 steps of the CIRA application are and where these are described. What are the conclusions about the root cause? Or are there multiple root causes? And what definition of root cause is used?

1

2

admsci5030125_boyarkin

1

I have elaborated on all the areas you commented, and clarified the CIRA methodology and hopefully my contribution.

2

1

there is not enough explanation about the CIRA and the person(s) who developed this method. Also there is not enough clarification and elaboration on the differences of your work on CIRA and your customizations comparing to the original methodology.

1

2

admsci5030125_boyarkin

1

Thank you for comments on the grammar issues, these are now fixed. Abbrevation issues should be fixed.

2

1

There are some typos, punctuations and grammatical errors in the paper,

1

2

admsci5030125_boyarkin

1

I have also tried to address your other concerns by improving the scope of the work, revising the method section, results, discussion and conclusion.

2

1

There are some consistency issues in your writing. This does not look professional in scientific papers.

1

2

admsci5030125_boyarkin

1

I have included all your suggested changes together with a major spellcheck.

4

1

There is a need for some editing; e.g. grammatical and punctuation corrections, elements in the text.

3

2

admsci5030125_boyarkin

1

I have tried to address your principle concern by improving the scope of the work, revising the method section, results, discussion and conclusion.

2

1

Given the authors stated goal of promoting the CIRA technique and approach to demonstrating its uses, I would recommend re-formatting the paper as a pedagogical tool. Rather than claiming to validate the method, focus on a detailed step by step examination of its implementation using a known outcome.

1

2

admsci5030125_makarova

1

I have tried to improve the information density of the paper from being to verbiose.

2

1

The paper is on the one hand quite verbose, but with respect to the peer review incomplete.

1

2

admsci5030125_makarova

1

I have added the results of the stakeholder analysis to improve the communication our view of the PRP.

2

1

The paper can become stronger if it limits itself to the Peer Review Ring Incident and will look at the various aspects of that scenario including risk reducing measures.

1

2

admsci5030125_makarova

1

I have tried to address your other concerns by improving the scope of the work, revising the method section, results, discussion and conclusion.

2

1

What are the conclusions about the root cause? Or are there multiple root causes? And what definition of root cause is used?

1

2

admsci5030125_makarova

1

I have elaborated on all the areas you commented, and clarified the CIRA methodology and hopefully my contribution.

2

1

Also there is not enough clarification and elaboration on the differences of your work on CIRA and your customizations comparing to the original methodology.

1

2

admsci5030125_makarova

1

I have included all your suggested changes together with a major spellcheck.

4

1

There is a need for some editing; e.g. grammatical and punctuation corrections, elements in the text.

3

2

admsci5030125_makarova

1

Agree that it should not be an issue. Therefore, I recalibrated the piece to note that co-operatives are not third sector organizations, but instead have similar features that could allow the institutional analyst fertile ground for innovations in governance.

2

1

the third sector, its definition and description is missing. I would not have thought of this as a major issue unless Evers and Laville (2004) The third sector in Europe, Edward Elgar, spesifically discuss whether cooperations are defined within or outside the third sector. Maybe taken for granted here? The least we should expect is a definition.

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

I agree that this is not a case study; I made the mistake in haste. I have therefore changed the paper from a case study to a discussion paper. Additionally, I note in the paper that I perform an archival analysis of media accounts in an effort to demonstrate how the utilization of the ODPs for analysizing secondary data may better position the analyst to perform rigorous, interogative fieldwork.

2

1

the case description and analysis is based only on media accounts - no actual first hand information to inform the analysis. I find this less than satisfying. It should be possible to interview a few key individuals about the case to make sure the medis picture is corrected where this is needed. Media does not always get it right. There is not enough evidence to prove anything about CEC.

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

See the DISCUSSION and CONCLUSION sections, where I have added additional analyses.

2

1

I also have problems with the depth of the discussion, and I feel the conclusion does not match the promises of the abstract.

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

Corrected and accounted for.

2

1

Figure 1 text overwrite part of the figure, and there should be comments on how this is different from a general structure for a private sector company (if you look at stakeholders as shareholders)

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

I do not believe this is a necessary reference as I cite the International Co-operative Alliance principles, and the Rochdale Principles are somewhat commonly understood.

2

1

Bottom of page 9: Missing reference to Co-operative principles by Rochdale Society.

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

Accounted for.

2

1

USA context concerning cooperatives (upper half page 10) should be highlighted even more for readers to be able to compare to their own context (for instance in Europe)

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

Addressed in the text.

2

1

The cooperative firm removes adversarial aspects of market contracting (page 11) - what adversarial aspects?

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

Corrected.

2

1

are references 27 and 33 used in the text? (could not find them) Good luck in further research and writing on this subject.

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

I have changed the headings for these sections to better reflect the content. They read as follows: 2.

4

1

The literature part is improved by changing the headline, putting it in the right setting. The change illustrates how headlines can change the apperance of the text contents. However, I cannot see how chapter 2.2. is a sub-theme under the Ostrom Principles? If they are - the connection need explainnig. If they are not, the main headling Chapter 2 should be reformulated again.

3

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

This is general knowledge, thereby not necessitating a reference. If the reviewers disagree, I would add a reference.

4

1

I still miss a source reference at the bottom of page 9 (Rochdale Society).

3

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

I have added commentary about moral hazard and information asymetries.

4

1

On top of page 11 there is still no examples of adversarial effects removed by co-operative.

3

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

Agreed. Agreed. I have added additional elaboration.

4

1

The comments added in the beginning of Chapter 3 on methodology are important and improves the text a lot. The author openly acknowledges that the basis for a complete picture is lacking. I do not expect the complete picture, but should have comments on limitations and to what degree the conclusions and learnings are possible to generalize.

3

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

Commentary added, nothing the need for additiona interogation.

4

1

Conclusion: middle of page 16: "we cannot know the motivations behind.." Have you tried to talk to them? I believe it is possible to get to know.

3

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

Commentary added for further clarity.

4

1

Low on page 16: "The ownership becomes absentee, ..." This is in the case of co-operative?

3

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

I agree with your points about the over-emphasis on principle-agent types of governance arrangements. The Cornforth (2004) article reoriented my thinking (thank you). I recognized that it was not "P-A" I was critiquing, but the unitarist tradition. That approach helped with definitional rigor

2

1

Furthermore, there is no discussion of principal-agent literature in a third sector context (see, for example, Jegers, 2009), which is quite surprising since the proposition to go beyond the traditional principal-agent literature is one of the main ideas of the manuscript.

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

I believe the recalibration of the core critique from "P-A" to unitarism addresses the commentary, here.

2

1

Furthermore, attempts have already been made to broaden the principal-agent approach in nonprofit organizations (Ben-Ner et al., 2012; Van Puyvelde et al., 2012, Coule, 2015), leading me to the question what this manuscript actually adds to the literature.

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

A further recalibration. I adusted the commentary to address "pluralistic" governance as opposed to stakeholder governance.

2

1

In the introduction, the author also mentions underdeveloped modes of stakeholder governance in the third sector. I do not agree with this view. Several stakeholder governance frameworks for third sector organizations have already been developed in the literature (Young, 2011; Van Puyvelde et al., 2012; Wellens and Jegers, 2014).

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

I editted the paper for consistenct, in line with your commentary.

2

1

The author uses “stakeholder-controlled firm”, “third sector organizations”, “nonprofit organizations”, “social enterprise”, and “co-operative” without clearly defining these types and mentioning which nonprofit type is actually the focus of the study.

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

The definition used is from the official representative body, the International Co-operative Alliance.

2

1

I am also not convinced by the definition of co-operatives mentioned in the paper.

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

Acknowledged. First, the paper is no longer listed as a case study, but as a discussion piece. Second, I note in the paper that I am not making the claim that the co-operative model is part of the third sector.

2

1

Furthermore, given that the world of third sector organizations is very rich and heterogeneous, one should be careful by discussing third sector organizations in general, especially since the case study seems to focus on co-operative enterprises. Instead of being vague and using a mixed terminology, the manuscript should clearly distinguish which nonprofit type is the subject of the paper, and be very careful in generalizing the findings of this study to third sector governance, which mistakenly happens in the conclusion (p. 15). Given the case study, I would focus on the governance of co-operatives

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

Acknowledged. The "Literature Review" section now falls under a more accurate heading of "Introducing the Ostrom Design Principles."

2

1

The literature review is completely missing.

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

I believe that this then addresses the issues that fall in line with your critiques about the theoretical foundation.

2

1

The literature review is completely missing.

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

As per your suggestions, I did focus on the co-operative model I believe that Cornforth’s paper (2004) might be a good starting point.

2

1

Given the aforementioned comments, I would advise the author to revise the paper by focusing on the governance of nonprofit associations / co-operatives.

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

Very helpful! Thank you!

2

1

I believe that Cornforth’s paper (2004) might be a good starting point.

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

Note that the paper no longer claims this to be a case study, and instead positions itself as a discussion paper, performing a secondary archival analysis of media accounts.

2

1

In addition, a more extensive literature review and comparison with previous principal-agent literature and stakeholder governance models (especially Van Puyvelde et al., 2012 and Coule, 2015) may give the manuscript a more solid theoretical foundation. As such, applying the idea of the Ostrom design principles to nonprofit governance and illustrating this with a case study may more clearly show the contribution of the manuscript to the current literature.

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

Thank you.

2

1

The basic premise of this article is good: the application of Ostrom's design principles as a way of analysing / evaluating governance in third sector organisations is quite innovative, particularly combined with a discussion of third sector / cooperative governance principles.

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

I agree with your critique. I have adjusted accordingly. I did this by separating the co-operative model from the third sector, and instead noted that there exists commonalities which allows for comparative learning and innovations in governance.

2

1

The characterisation of third sector governance is too crude. For example, the third sector itself can be seen as diverse with philanthropic, mutual, cooperative and association sub-sectors. The comments at the start of the literature review might apply to foundations and charities, but are less true of association and mutuals (let alone cooperatives). Also, where there are accounting regulations (like SORP), there are mechanism that keep associations and charities accountable to their donors.

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

Note that throughout the document I incorporate Coule's unitary-pluralist dimensions.

2

1

Given the inclusion of Coule's paper, I would have already expected more sensitivity to divisions unitary and pluralist theories of governance but by reviting this (and reading Turnbull's Cornforth's and Ridley-Duff's precursor to Coule's work), this should be adequately addressed.

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

Agreed and accounted for.

2

1

Secondly, I just can't agree that third sector governance is derived from for-profit principles. It is - mostly - derived from philanthropic principles (or mutual principles inside the social economy). There is, however, some common practices, but not for the reasons described. Just as the wealthy entrepreneur seeks to control the private enterprise through shareholdings, so the wealthy philanthropist seeks to control the non-profit enterprise through trust law. In both cases, Principle-Agent assumptions apply, but not because both are based on for-profit assumptions. These apply in both cases because funding is sought from wealthy providers with the power to frame laws that require their investees to use the money for the purposes stimpulated by them. In the social economy (associations, mutuals and cooperatives) the legal structures and accountabilities are different (and are captured well in the paper). Associations, mutuals and cooperatives, however, are not dependent on the patronage of the rich, but the patronage of the many, and their mass member legal structures and accountability mechanisms reflect this.

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

Agreed. I misrepresented the analysis. It is not a case study, but instead an cursory archival analysis and exploration, utilizing secondary sources.

2

1

This is weak, perhaps too weak for an academic paper. Certainly, some description of the process by which the case study was developed (sources used, data collection techniquies, analysis techniques) are needed to be publishable. The use of media sources, while not ideal, might be adequate if the author(s) can show systematic and comprehensive collection of them. However, the credibility of the paper and findings would be enormously enhanced is some primary interview data could be collected and presented. Is there a way to interview members who participated in action (or access sources written by them)?

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

Agreed. The Analysis, Discussiom, and Conclusion sections are more fleshed out.

2

1

The framework for this section exists but feels a bit superficial and under-developed. I think it needs linking back to the findings more clearly and to be elaborated and slightly more length (cut some literature if needed to stay within the word length limits).

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

Agreed, and accounted for.

2

1

Lastly, the discussion and conclusions need to stick to contributions to theory / research practice and refrain from commenting on wider issues without adequate justification. Stick to commenting on the usefulness and value of ODPs, and draw out any theoretical contributions regarding the design principles themselves, or their value as a theoretical perspective for governance research. Some well grounded comments on their use in other governance research are merited right at the end.

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

I hope that the revisions in the abstract an introduction better clarify the purpose.

2

1

I do not understand the purpose of the paper.

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

Agreed. I accounted for this throughout the document. Terminology is used in a definitionally consistent manner.

2

1

The author is mixing up several concepts and ignore the abundant literature on governance in nonprofits not dealing with the agency theory.

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

Note that I adjusted the paper, and recalibrated it from a case study, to a discussion paper that utilizes an archival analysis of secondary sources. I do this in order to demonstrate how the Ostrom Design Principles may be used by the researcher to better contextualize the subject being studied so they may enter the field prepared to deeply interrogate.

2

1

The style is more journalistic and free opinion than rigourous research.

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

Noted and accounted for throughout the document.

2

1

Public enterprises, third sector cooperatives are all mixedup.

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

Acknowledged. I cleaned and honed the Introduction, and added a more robust Conclusion.

2

1

The conceptual framework is not clearly presented and I do not see what are the contributions except some free statements at the end not really related to the analysis.

1

2

admsci5030148_devetyaro

1

Therefore, I recalibrated the piece to note that co-operatives are not third sector organizations, but instead have similar features that could allow the institutional analyst fertile ground for innovations in governance.

2

1

the third sector, its definition and description is missing. The third sector in Europe, Edward Elgar, spesifically discuss whether cooperations are defined within or outside the third sector.

1

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

I have therefore changed the paper from a case study to a discussion paper. Additionally, I note in the paper that I perform an archival analysis of media accounts in an effort to demonstrate how the utilization of the ODPs for analysizing secondary data may better position the analyst to perform rigorous, interogative fieldwork.

2

1

the case description and analysis is based only on media accounts - no actual first hand information to inform the analysis.

1

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

See the DISCUSSION and CONCLUSION sections, where I have added additional analyses.

2

1

I also have problems with the depth of the discussion, and I feel the conclusion does not match the promises of the abstract.

1

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

Corrected and accounted for.

2

1

Figure 1 text overwrite part of the figure, and there should be comments on how this is different from a general structure for a private sector company (if you look at stakeholders as shareholders)

1

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

I do not believe this is a necessary reference as I cite the International Co-operative Alliance principles, and the Rochdale Principles are somewhat commonly understood.

2

1

Bottom of page 9: Missing reference to Co-operative principles by Rochdale Society.

1

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

Accounted for.

2

1

USA context concerning cooperatives (upper half page 10) should be highlighted even more for readers to be able to compare to their own context (for instance in Europe)

1

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

Addressed in the text.

2

1

The cooperative firm removes adversarial aspects of market contracting (page 11) - what adversarial aspects?

1

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

Corrected.

2

1

are references 27 and 33 used in the text? (could not find them) Good luck in further research and writing on this subject.

1

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

I have changed the headings for these sections to better reflect the content.

4

1

However, I cannot see how chapter 2.2. is a sub-theme under the Ostrom Principles? If they are - the connection need explainnig. If they are not, the main headling Chapter 2 should be reformulated again.

3

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

This is general knowledge, thereby not necessitating a reference. If the reviewers disagree, I would add a reference.

4

1

I still miss a source reference at the bottom of page 9 (Rochdale Society).

3

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

I have added commentary about moral hazard and information asymetries.

4

1

On top of page 11 there is still no examples of adversarial effects removed by co-operative.

3

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

Agreed. Agreed. I have added additional elaboration.

4

1

The author openly acknowledges that the basis for a complete picture is lacking. I do not expect the complete picture, but should have comments on limitations and to what degree the conclusions and learnings are possible to generalize.

3

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

Commentary added, nothing the need for additiona interogation.

4

1

Conclusion: middle of page 16: "we cannot know the motivations behind.." Have you tried to talk to them? I believe it is possible to get to know.

3

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

Commentary added for further clarity.

4

1

Low on page 16: "The ownership becomes absentee, ..." This is in the case of co-operative?

3

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

I agree with your points about the over-emphasis on principle-agent types of governance arrangements.

2

1

The abstract of the manuscript mentions that dominant modes of third sector organizational governance adhere to a narrow principal-agent orientation. Similarly, in the introduction, it is stated that governance research on third sector organizations predominantly fixates analysts on the board-management dynamic.

1

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

I believe the recalibration of the core critique from "P-A" to unitarism addresses the commentary, here.

2

1

In the abstract, the author also states that the over-reliance on the principal-agent model introduces two challenges. However, a solid foundation for this argument is missing.

1

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

A further recalibration. I adusted the commentary to address "pluralistic" governance as opposed to stakeholder governance.

2

1

In the introduction, the author also mentions underdeveloped modes of stakeholder governance in the third sector. I do not agree with this view. Several stakeholder governance frameworks for third sector organizations have already been developed in the literature (Young, 2011; Van Puyvelde et al., 2012; Wellens and Jegers, 2014).

1

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

I editted the paper for consistenct, in line with your commentary.

2

1

The author uses “stakeholder-controlled firm”, “third sector organizations”, “nonprofit organizations”, “social enterprise”, and “co-operative” without clearly defining these types and mentioning which nonprofit type is actually the focus of the study.

1

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

The definition used is from the official representative body, the International Co-operative Alliance.

2

1

I am also not convinced by the definition of co-operatives mentioned in the paper.

1

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

As per your suggestions, I did focus on the co-operative model I believe that Cornforth’s paper (2004) might be a good starting point.

2

1

Given the aforementioned comments, I would advise the author to revise the paper by focusing on the governance of nonprofit associations / co-operatives.

1

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

I agree with your critique. I have adjusted accordingly.

2

1

The characterisation of third sector governance is too crude.

1

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

Note that throughout the document I incorporate Coule's unitary-pluralist dimensions.

2

1

Given the inclusion of Coule's paper, I would have already expected more sensitivity to divisions unitary and pluralist theories of governance but by reviting this (and reading Turnbull's Cornforth's and Ridley-Duff's precursor to Coule's work), this should be adequately addressed.

1

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

Agreed and accounted for.

2

1

I just can't agree that third sector governance is derived from for-profit principles.

1

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

Agreed. I misrepresented the analysis. It is not a case study, but instead an cursory archival analysis and exploration, utilizing secondary sources.

2

1

Certainly, some description of the process by which the case study was developed (sources used, data collection techniquies, analysis techniques) are needed to be publishable.

1

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

Agreed. The Analysis, Discussiom, and Conclusion sections are more fleshed out.

2

1

The framework for this section exists but feels a bit superficial and under-developed. I think it needs linking back to the findings more clearly and to be elaborated and slightly more length (cut some literature if needed to stay within the word length limits).

1

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

Agreed, and accounted for.

2

1

Lastly, the discussion and conclusions need to stick to contributions to theory / research practice and refrain from commenting on wider issues without adequate justification.

1

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

I hope that the revisions in the abstract an introduction better clarify the purpose.

2

1

I do not understand the purpose of the paper.

1

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

Agreed. I accounted for this throughout the document. Terminology is used in a definitionally consistent manner.

2

1

The author is mixing up several concepts and ignore the abundant literature on governance in nonprofits not dealing with the agency theory.

1

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

Note that I adjusted the paper, and recalibrated it from a case study, to a discussion paper that utilizes an archival analysis of secondary sources.

2

1

The style is more journalistic and free opinion than rigourous research.

1

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

Noted and accounted for throughout the document.

2

1

Public enterprises, third sector cooperatives are all mixedup.

1

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

Acknowledged. Acknowledged. I cleaned and honed the Introduction, and added a more robust Conclusion.

2

1

The conceptual framework is not clearly presented and I do not see what are the contributions except some free statements at the end not really related to the analysis.

1

2

admsci5030148_makarova

1

We fundamentally reorganized our manuscript so that its story and structure might be much clearer in the revision. In Section 2.2 we explicitly presented three hypotheses that are tested and discussed in later sections using information on six cluster cases. Section 5 also was reorganized so that the relationship of local cluster management to basic conditions and to national cluster polity, respectively, could be tested for each country using some cases of clusters and cluster management.

2

1

the analysis of the data is weak, and the paper remains largely descriptive. Would suggest to use these case studies as a source of ideas on how policies and cluster initative management migth relate to each other; that would make this a more interesting paper.

1

2

admsci5040213_boyarkin

1

We revised and simplified Figure 1 by deleting cluster performance and its relationships with other factors because in fact we do not address them in our manuscript.

2

1

The conceputal framework (figure 1) is very similar to the 'cluster initiative performance model' in the Cluster Initiative Greenbook (Solvell et al., 2003), adding the hypothesis that there might be an interaction between policy context and management and being somewhat more narrow on the elements included.

1

2

admsci5040213_boyarkin

1

We read and cited in our manuscript the suggested and other references that correspond to [25], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35] and [36] (especially in Section 2.2) in revising our conceptual framework.

2

1

There are also existing reviews of cluster policies in Europe that should be considered (Clusters are Individuals, 2012, BMWi; VDI/VDE; Dasti). There is also a growing literature on cluster initiative management in Europe (see the EU's "Excellence Initiative' with the benchmarking of cluster initiatives) that should be considered.

1

2

admsci5040213_boyarkin

1

This manuscript addresses the relationship of national cluster policy and its local implementation, and not the policy organization within the government. Therefore, we slightly changed the titles of the manuscript and Section 5, and revised related terms throughout the manuscript, using the terms such as “local implementation” or “local management”.

2

1

The language the authors use is here a bit imprecise - they seem to be talking about the management of cluster initiatives, not about the management of the policies themselves (which is more a question of how the program oversight is organized within government; also an interesting but different question).

1

2

admsci5040213_boyarkin

1

The revised version went through a professional, native English editing.

4

1

I would encourage you to have a native speaker look at it, mainly to clarify the language in some places.

3

2

admsci5040213_boyarkin

1

Indeed, it is not a big surprise that the characteristics of national cluster policies and their local implementation are consistent, but still it is our (small but significant) contribution to concretely show the consistency in international comparison with original interviews of cluster managers. It is beyond the scope of our manuscript to answer the question as to which model is better for the cluster performance, so we leave it as a future research agenda.

4

1

Content-wise to me the key observation is the - potentially systematic - connection between the way cluster policies arestructure and the organization of cluster initiatives. This is not a big suprise, and it doesn't really answer the question asto which model is better (only that there are internally consistent models that are different). But it is still a usual observation to make.

3

2

admsci5040213_boyarkin

1

We revised the concept and its explanation, and added some references in Section 2.2 and in Introduction. For more details, please see below.

2

1

the conceptual framework appears simplistic, technocratic and static, and it is not sufficiently rooted in literature as evident from the scarcity of references in section 2.2. It is simplistic and technocratic because it views cluster performance as an outcome of initial conditions (i.e., the state of cluster development), cluster management and national polices. The paper thus rests on the untested presumption that cluster management and national policies actually impact the performance of clusters. As scholars, the authors should challenge this technocratic faith of policy-makers and practitioners, although evaluation is beyond this paper’s scope.

1

2

admsci5040213_boyarkin

1

In this manuscript, we do not intend to demonstrate direct performance effect of cluster conditions, cluster policy, and cluster management. This is beyond the scope of our paper. It would be an important research topic to challenge the “technocratic faith”, but we cut the discussion about the factors of cluster performance from the text and Figure 1 in order to avoid any misunderstanding. Instead, we added a detailed discussion about “initial conditions” (now “basic conditions”) of clusters in Section 2.2 and 3.1 (a new section).

2

1

the conceptual framework appears simplistic, technocratic and static, and it is not sufficiently rooted in literature as evident from the scarcity of references in section 2.2. It is simplistic and technocratic because it views cluster performance as an outcome of initial conditions (i.e., the state of cluster development), cluster management and national polices. The paper thus rests on the untested presumption that cluster management and national policies actually impact the performance of clusters. As scholars, the authors should challenge this technocratic faith of policy-makers and practitioners, although evaluation is beyond this paper’s scope.

1

2

admsci5040213_boyarkin

1

In page 4 below in Section 2.2, we added a brief explanation of the “initial” (now “basic”) conditions of clusters. There we suggested that they comprise various regional characteristics and that also R8 scientific or industrial focus may differ across clusters within life science or biotechnology. In the new Section 3.1, we explained the differences of basic conditions in more detail.

2

1

‘initial conditions’ fail to capture the complexity of clusters if they are reduced to a dichotomy of private vs. public sector dominance. Even when the industry (biotechnology) is held constant, clusters differ in a number of ways, esp. regarding their specialisation within biotechnology, their maturity, size (number of firms and employee) and firm size structure.

1

2

admsci5040213_boyarkin

1

It is true that in some cases local cluster organization had been established and had started its activity before the focal cluster policy started. Because of limited information, we could not sufficiently consider cluster and policy dynamics over time, but referred to the lack of dynamic approach in our study in the conclusion.

2

1

At present, the final section is merely a summary with the exception of the very last sentence briefly sketching the need for including evaluation in comparative cluster policy research.

1

2

admsci5040213_boyarkin

1

* We recognized that we did not concretely explain the initial (we changed the term to “basic” in the revision) conditions of clusters in the previous version. Moreover, we recognize that it is important to discuss in detail how these countries differ regarding basic conditions and why the national cluster policies differ across them. Therefore, we fundamentally changed the structure of our manuscript and set up a new Section 3.1 to discuss these issues in detail. Here, we cited the suggested book chapter and paper, but mainly used statistical evidence from OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard on (different) innovation systems to characterize basic conditions of clusters and to distinguish between private- and public-driven clusters. We summarized the discussion in Table 1 (new).

2

1

A conceptual and/or theoretical perspective is needed to shed light at the differences found. in terms of the role of the state versus private initiative, governance traditions and philosophies, centralist vs. federal set-up. The authors should include a discussion on how these countries differ e.g.

1

2

admsci5040213_boyarkin

1

Maybe “intellectual cluster” is a specific jargon in the Japanese policy. Following your suggestion, and according to the EU reports we cited in our manuscript, we deleted the adjective “intellectual” for clusters and just use “clusters”, because it does neither affect our concept nor findings.

2

1

The authors focus on what they call ‘intellectual clusters’, a term that appears 21 times throughout the paper although I cannot recall having ever seen it in a decade or so of studying clusters and cluster policies. According to the definition on the top of page 4, the term denotes a cluster led by a public research organisation, which is rather specific and I doubt it applies to the six case studies outlined in the paper. Even so, the term ‘intellectual’ does not look fully appropriate here, which may be due to its translation from a Japanese original. ‘Public research-led cluster’ might be more to the point, as it appears difficult to judge if these are more or less ‘intellectual’ than other forms of clusters. At the least, it would appear sound to qualify these six cases as science-based clusters, but then this would apply to the biotech industry and all its clusters in general.

1

2

admsci5040213_boyarkin

1

We did not include USA in the international comparison because, as you correctly suggested, there is no comparable national cluster policy there. However, we use USA in Table 1 on basic conditions as the baseline reference for the three countries.

2

1

The choice of clusters is generally well explained on pp. 2-3. When elaborating on the choice of nations, one might wonder why the United States have not been included – possibly because there is no comparable national cluster policy?!

1

2

admsci5040213_boyarkin

1

We recognize that the term “representative” is misleading. We replaced it with “outstanding” in the revised manuscript.

2

1

When explaining the choice of regional cases, the term ‘representative’ appears misleading. It seems that the most prominent or successful cases have been selected, at least for Germany and France. How can these be ‘representative’ for whatever population of biotech clusters in these countries?

1

2

admsci5040213_boyarkin

1

We added detailed information about the number and types of interview partners and interview time on page 9 at the end of Section 2.3 (Research Methodology).

2

1

When outlining their research methodology, the authors should state precisely how many interviews they conducted. It looks as if one interview was done with the cluster manager in the six regions, but the authors also claim to have interviewed ‘the presidents of cluster firms’ (p. 8, line 20) without indicating the number. Given the conceptual framework outlined in figure 1, one might also wonder why national policymakers, i.e. representatives of the respective national cluster programmes, have not been surveyed as well.

1

2

admsci5040213_boyarkin

1

* We did not interview the officers in charge of cluster policy in the government because information on national cluster policy was sufficiently available from cluster managers and second sources including ministry’s websites and because we are more interested in the relationship of cluster policy with basic conditions and local management than in the cluster policy itself.

2

1

When outlining their research methodology, the authors should state precisely how many interviews they conducted. It looks as if one interview was done with the cluster manager in the six regions, but the authors also claim to have interviewed ‘the presidents of cluster firms’ (p. 8, line 20) without indicating the number. Given the conceptual framework outlined in figure 1, one might also wonder why national policymakers, i.e. representatives of the respective national cluster programmes, have not been surveyed as well.

1

2

admsci5040213_boyarkin

1

With 3 references, we discussed in the (newly inserted) third paragraph of Section 2.3 the advantages of comparative case studies across countries focusing on biotechnology.

2

1

some reflection on the adopted comparative case study research design with references would be desirable.

1

2

admsci5040213_boyarkin

1

The classification between top-down and bottom-up clusters is misleading. In the conceptual framework we distinguish between public-driven and private-driven clusters, so that in the revised version we focused on this type of distinction and cut all descriptions on top-down and bottom-up clusters.

2

1

sections 4.3 to 4.5 leave an impression that the assessment of these cases as ‘bottom-up’ is not completely justified. The authors seem to assume that cluster policies are either bottom-up or top-down, without any shades of grey in between. Compared to the Japanese cases, the French and German cases are clearly more bottom-up, but they still display clear – if not dominant – elements of top-down governance and public agency. This dichotomy should be refined and the classification of cases qualified as, e.g., ‘relatively bottom-up’.

1

2

admsci5040213_boyarkin

1