Datasets:
sash-ka
/
mdpi_arguments_relation

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
1
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
Referring to Kiese (2013) and Sternberg et al. (2010), but also other papers such as Crespy et al. (2007) for France, we added that, especially for Germany, we should not underestimate the roles of states and local authorities in the cluster policy. Finally, in the conclusion, we stressed the lack of multilevel governance approach as a limitation, which should be more explicitly considered in future research.
2
1
For the German cases, the authors may have underestimated public agency, since they did not investigate the role of state governments (Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg) within the country’s system of multilevel governance, which is key to understand cluster policies in Germany (cf. KIESE 2013). Furthermore, the state government of Bavaria may be a regional government, but it is certainly not a local authority (like the city of Munich; page 15, line 29) in Germany’s system of multilevel governance.
1
2
admsci5040213_boyarkin
1
We recognized that this section has several problems, but only this section describes and compares local cluster management based on our own interviews, so that this is the core part of our manuscript. Therefore, we fundamentally changed this section in the following way. First, we have some reference in the revised version, whereas this section is mainly based on our interviews. Second, at the beginning of this section, we explained the relevance of this section in our concept, especially with regard to our (new) hypotheses. Third, more importantly, we reorganized this section to a comparison of cluster management across three countries, focusing on the selection procedure of joint R&D R11 projects (and cutting other information such as monitoring process and support programs). In this way, we made it clear what we do in this section: to check the consistency of local cluster management (regarding project selection) with the cluster’s basic conditions and the national policy. We believe that we could clarify the relevance of the content of this section with the preceding part and the conclusion of this manuscript.
2
1
Section 5 does not include any reference and is purely descriptive and sometimes even superficial, lacking any comparison, explanation or assessment. This is probably the result of a rather weak empirical basis, provided it draws on interviews with a total of six cluster managers. Critical issues such as the cluster management organisation’s budget and finance have not been addressed. The relevance of the information presented here for the following discussion and conclusion remain far from clear. In my humble opinion, this is the weakest part of the paper that might well be omitted and replaced by a suitable conceptual frame for international comparison, as outlined above.
1
2
admsci5040213_boyarkin
1
Cluster Organization’s governance and financing, which was already described in another section in the previous version, is now explained even earlier, in Section 3.2.
2
1
Section 5 does not include any reference and is purely descriptive and sometimes even superficial, lacking any comparison, explanation or assessment. This is probably the result of a rather weak empirical basis, provided it draws on interviews with a total of six cluster managers. Critical issues such as the cluster management organisation’s budget and finance have not been addressed. The relevance of the information presented here for the following discussion and conclusion remain far from clear. In my humble opinion, this is the weakest part of the paper that might well be omitted and replaced by a suitable conceptual frame for international comparison, as outlined above.
1
2
admsci5040213_boyarkin
1
We cut the most part of the discussion in the conclusion (which was mostly redundant with the contents of preceding sections), and added policy implication and some limitations (lack of multilevel governance and dynamic perspectives, possible selection bias of target clusters, and the descriptive and qualitative nature of the study) combined with future research perspectives.
2
1
As also elaborated above, the conclusion should go beyond a mere summary to include methodological reflection, implications for policy (learning), as well as a more extensive discussion of further research perspectives.
1
2
admsci5040213_boyarkin
1
We cited this paper in footnote 4 in page 3.
2
1
Page 3, line 3: The authors might want to link to the literature on differentiated knowledge bases, which assigns an analytical (science-based) knowledge base to the biotech industry (cf. ASHEIM ET AL. 2011).
1
2
admsci5040213_boyarkin
1
We agree with the suggestion and changed “few” to “no”. We also checked all the other terms “few” in the manuscript and treated them in the suggested way.
2
1
Page 4, line 23: ‘few studies’ – If you mean ‘few’, please state the references. If ‘few’ means ‘no’, then please say so straightaway.
1
2
admsci5040213_boyarkin
1
We changed the sentence (now page 6, line 22) in the following way: “may enhance the incentives of member firms to succeed and partially prevent moral hazard and crowding out”.
2
1
Page 6, line 25: I would suggest softening the statement that matched funding ‘prevents moral hazard and crowding out’. It certainly helps preventing, partly prevents, or reduces the risk of these problems occurring.
1
2
admsci5040213_boyarkin
1
Based on the argument in Section 2.2, we presented three hypotheses in page 7, which are repeatedly addressed in later sections and the conclusion.
2
1
Section 2 contains a number of “expectations”, which could be flagged out and numbered as hypotheses. Taking these up in the empirical discussion could help the reader’s orientation.
1
2
admsci5040213_boyarkin
1
We found no evidence on policy learning between Germany and France.
2
1
Page 8, lines 1-2: This is interesting indeed. Is there comparable evidence on policy learning between Germany and France? Timing and content suggest that French national policies may well have been inspired by the German BioRegio contest.
1
2
admsci5040213_boyarkin
1
We changed the phrase to “a series of national cluster policy” (now page 18, line 5) at the beginning of Section 4.2.
2
1
Page 10, line 19 – ‘several cluster policies’: I would address this family of related programmes as one policy rather than many.
1
2
admsci5040213_boyarkin
1
We noticed in footnote 18 in page 18 that some cluster regions may have applied for this program twice or three times after failing in the previous competition.
2
1
Page 10, line 28: The number of 85 applicants contains some clusters who applied more than once in the three rounds of the contest.
1
2
admsci5040213_boyarkin
1
We cited these studies in Introduction and in Section 4.3 (page 18, footnotes 20 and 21).
2
1
Section 3.3: There is a little bit of literature on French national cluster policy that deserves a brief review or at least reference here
1
2
admsci5040213_boyarkin
1
We cut the previous Table 2 (on each target cluster and cluster management) in the revision and also the related sentence.
2
1
Page 12, lines 11-12: Table 2 provides a descriptive summary, but no ‘explanation’ – see major comments.
1
2
admsci5040213_boyarkin
1
We agree with you. However, according to the MEXT’s definition, clusters need not involve local high-tech ventures. R&D collaboration between local public research institute and private firms outside of the cluster area is also an important part of a cluster for MEXT. Regarding the aim of local authorities, which includes the development of a cluster around a research organization or hospital, indeed cluster policy has not produced any outcomes yet.
2
1
Page 14, line 21: How can this be a cluster if there are ‘only a few biotech ventures’? If the aim of public policy is to grow a cluster around a research organisation or hospital, this does not seem to produce any meaningful outcomes as yet.
1
2
admsci5040213_boyarkin
1
We used “prominent” and “excellent” instead of “famous”.
2
1
Page 15, line 24: Here and elsewhere, universities are attributed with the term ‘famous’. This should be backed up with evidence (data) and preferably rephrased, such as ‘recognised research universities’, or ‘elite’ with reference to the German federal government’s programme of university excellence (Exzellenzinitiative).
1
2
admsci5040213_boyarkin
1
We cut this sentence.
2
1
Page 15, line 27: Repetition – the IZB incubator was already mentioned on line 9.
1
2
admsci5040213_boyarkin
1
We cited this paper in footnote 14 in Section 3.2. (3) to mention that Trinational BioValley has hardly had any impact in terms of intensifying cross-border interaction.
2
1
Section 4.5: Unlike the regional cluster initiatives in Alsace and Baden, the trinational BioValley initiative has hardly had any impact in terms of intensifying cross-border interaction, confirming problems that KOSCHATZKY (2000) had identified long before. Indeed, many INTERREG projects fail to overcome the differences in national languages, legislations and cultures, even though the regions are neighbours.
1
2
admsci5040213_boyarkin
1
We changed the layout of the tables enlarging the font.
2
1
The layout of the tables may be improved, especially the spacing of the text.
1
2
admsci5040213_boyarkin
1
In the revision, we write the funding amount for Japan in Yen, but give the converged amount in Euro in parentheses. We use the most recent exchange rate for convenience, and explain it where it is first mentioned (note to Table 1 in page 16 and footnote 17 in page 17).
2
1
The paper contains funding information in Yen and Euros. This should be harmonised, or preferably conversions given in brackets or footnotes for the reader’s convenience.
1
2
admsci5040213_boyarkin
1
We added a discussion on the national systems of innovation in the first two paragraphs of Section 3.1 (p. 9) referring to the suggested seminal works. Moreover, in the remaining part of this section (pp. 10-11), we added some sentences with supporting references on the underlying institutional differences.
4
1
Although the new section 3.1 helps situating the cases within their respective national contexts, it’s focus is on performance indicators. If the underlying institutional differences would have been revealed as suggested, this section would be even more valuable for understanding the differences. This section now uses the term ‘innovation system’ at the national scale, but there is no discussion of or reference to the concept of national systems of innovation. A substantial body of literature has grown on the back of seminal contributions by Edquist (1997), Freeman (1987, 1988, 1995) with reference to Japan, Lundvall (1992), and Nelson (1993).
3
2
admsci5040213_boyarkin
1
At the beginning of Section 3.2, as well as at the end of the description of each cluster, we mitigated the dichotomist nature in the typology of cluster development by some qualification. For example, we changed the formulation from “characterized as public-driven clusters” to “characterized as more public-driven than private-driven clusters”.
4
1
Although ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ have been replaced by public-driven and ‘private-driven’, the dichotomist nature remains as the focus of my critique. I would still like to see a qualification stating that private and public initiative often interacts in cluster development, and that the degree of private and public sector involvement usually differs from case to case.
3
2
admsci5040213_boyarkin
1
We added a new reference on the development in Japan (Okubo and Tomiura 2010) but deleted the sentence about France because we could not show a reference in English.
4
1
P. 11: References on Japan and France should be added to the last two sentences of the first paragraph.
3
2
admsci5040213_boyarkin
1
According to this suggestion, we dropped footnote 14 with the related reference.
4
1
P. 14: On section 4.5 in the first draft, I commented that “Unlike the regional cluster initiatives in Alsace and Baden, the trinational BioValley initiative has hardly had any impact in terms of intensifying cross-border interaction, confirming problems that Koschatzky (2000) had identified long before. Indeed, many INTERREG projects fail to overcome the differences in national languages, legislations and cultures, even though the regions are neighbours.” In response, the authors now cite this paper in footnote 14 in Section 3.2. to support the view that BioValley has hardly had any impact in terms of intensifying cross-border interaction. This reformulation is incorrect as the Koschatzky (2000) paper pre-dated the BioValley initiative and does not look at INTERREG either. Unfortunately, my claim regarding the limited impact of BioValley on cross-border networking draws on conversations with practitioners and a field trip to the region, but cannot be supported by a reference as far as I know. I would therefore suggest to drop this footnote altogether.
3
2
admsci5040213_boyarkin
1
We added the information sources under the table.
4
1
P. 16: Sources should be stated underneath table 2.
3
2
admsci5040213_boyarkin
1
We replaced “policy” by “programs” in this sentence.
4
1
P. 18 (section 4.1, top paragraph): I would rather prefer “a series of national cluster programmes” as part of an evolving policy.
3
2
admsci5040213_boyarkin
1
In Conclusion, we presented again three hypotheses in a new paragraph in Conclusion after the first paragraph (p. 22). Then, in the following paragraph (p. 23) we added a discussion on how differences in cluster policies and cluster management are linked to those in national systems of innovation, with three sentences.
4
1
P. 22: “differences might be attributed to those in innovation systems as basic conditions of clusters.” This is central, so the discussion should be summarised in the conclusions, preferably taking up the three hypotheses: To what extent and how can differences in cluster policies and cluster management be linked to differences in national systems of innovation?
3
2
admsci5040213_boyarkin
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
But 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_devetyaro
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. 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_devetyaro
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
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. 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_devetyaro
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_devetyaro
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 isstill a usual observation to make.
3
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
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
However, 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.
1
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
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
As scholars, the authors should challenge this technocratic faith of policy-makers and practitioners, although evaluation is beyond this paper’s scope. The performance of clusters is also affected by many exogenous influences not captured in the simple model.
1
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
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.
2
1
Furthermore, ‘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_devetyaro
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_devetyaro
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
However, it remains rather descriptive and does not systematically attempt to explain the differences found between the three countries.
1
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
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
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_devetyaro
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
When explaining the choice of regional cases, the term ‘representative’ appears misleading.
1
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
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.
1
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
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.
1
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
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
Furthermore, some reflection on the adopted comparative case study research design with references would be desirable.
1
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
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
Furthermore, some reflection on the adopted comparative case study research design with references would be desirable.
1
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
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
However, 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.
1
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
1
Referring to Kiese (2013) and Sternberg et al. (2010), but also other papers such as Crespy et al. (2007) for France, we added that, especially for Germany, we should not underestimate the roles of states and local authorities in the cluster policy. Finally, in the conclusion, we stressed the lack of multilevel governance approach as a limitation, which should be more explicitly considered in future research.
2
1
However, 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.
1
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
1
We recognized that this section has several problems, but only this section describes and compares local cluster management based on our own interviews, so that this is the core part of our manuscript. Therefore, we fundamentally changed this section in the following way. First, we have some reference in the revised version, whereas this section is mainly based on our interviews. Second, at the beginning of this section, we explained the relevance of this section in our concept, especially with regard to our (new) hypotheses. Third, more importantly, we reorganized this section to a comparison of cluster management across three countries, focusing on the selection procedure of joint R&D R11 projects (and cutting other information such as monitoring process and support programs). In this way, we made it clear what we do in this section: to check the consistency of local cluster management (regarding project selection) with the cluster’s basic conditions and the national policy. We believe that we could clarify the relevance of the content of this section with the preceding part and the conclusion of this manuscript.
2
1
Section 5 does not include any reference and is purely descriptive and sometimes even superficial, lacking any comparison, explanation or assessment.
1
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
1
Cluster Organization’s governance and financing, which was already described in another section in the previous version, is now explained even earlier, in Section 3.2.
2
1
Section 5 does not include any reference and is purely descriptive and sometimes even superficial, lacking any comparison, explanation or assessment.
1
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
1
We cut the most part of the discussion in the conclusion (which was mostly redundant with the contents of preceding sections), and added policy implication and some limitations (lack of multilevel governance and dynamic perspectives, possible selection bias of target clusters, and the descriptive and qualitative nature of the study) combined with future research perspectives.
2
1
As also elaborated above, the conclusion should go beyond a mere summary to include methodological reflection, implications for policy (learning), as well as a more extensive discussion of further research perspectives.
1
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
1
We cited this paper in footnote 4 in page 3.
2
1
Page 3, line 3: The authors might want to link to the literature on differentiated knowledge bases, which assigns an analytical (science-based) knowledge base to the biotech industry (cf. ASHEIM ET AL. 2011).
1
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
1
We agree with the suggestion and changed “few” to “no”. We also checked all the other terms “few” in the manuscript and treated them in the suggested way.
2
1
Page 4, line 23: ‘few studies’ – If you mean ‘few’, please state the references. If ‘few’ means ‘no’, then please say so straightaway.
1
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
1
We changed the sentence (now page 6, line 22) in the following way: “may enhance the incentives of member firms to succeed and partially prevent moral hazard and crowding out”.
2
1
Page 6, line 25: I would suggest softening the statement that matched funding ‘prevents moral hazard and crowding out’. It certainly helps preventing, partly prevents, or reduces the risk of these problems occurring.
1
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
1
Based on the argument in Section 2.2, we presented three hypotheses in page 7, which are repeatedly addressed in later sections and the conclusion.
2
1
Section 2 contains a number of “expectations”, which could be flagged out and numbered as hypotheses. Taking these up in the empirical discussion could help the reader’s orientation.
1
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
1
We found no evidence on policy learning between Germany and France.
2
1
Page 8, lines 1-2: This is interesting indeed. Is there comparable evidence on policy learning between Germany and France? Timing and content suggest that French national policies may well have been inspired by the German BioRegio contest.
1
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
1
We changed the phrase to “a series of national cluster policy” (now page 18, line 5) at the beginning of Section 4.2.
2
1
Page 10, line 19 – ‘several cluster policies’: I would address this family of related programmes as one policy rather than many.
1
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
1
We noticed in footnote 18 in page 18 that some cluster regions may have applied for this program twice or three times after failing in the previous competition.
2
1
Page 10, line 28: The number of 85 applicants contains some clusters who applied more than once in the three rounds of the contest.
1
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
1
We cited these studies in Introduction and in Section 4.3 (page 18, footnotes 20 and 21).
2
1
Section 3.3: There is a little bit of literature on French national cluster policy that deserves a brief review or at least reference here (e.g., BRETTE/CHAPPOZ 2007, DURANTON ET AL. 2010, LONGHI/ROCHHIA 2013).
1
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
1
We cut the previous Table 2 (on each target cluster and cluster management) in the revision and also the related sentence.
2
1
Page 12, lines 11-12: Table 2 provides a descriptive summary, but no ‘explanation’ – see major comments.
1
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
1
We agree with you. However, according to the MEXT’s definition, clusters need not involve local high-tech ventures. R&D collaboration between local public research institute and private firms outside of the cluster area is also an important part of a cluster for MEXT. Regarding the aim of local authorities, which includes the development of a cluster around a research organization or hospital, indeed cluster policy has not produced any outcomes yet.
2
1
Page 14, line 21: How can this be a cluster if there are ‘only a few biotech ventures’? If the aim of public policy is to grow a cluster around a research organisation or hospital, this does not seem to produce any meaningful outcomes as yet.
1
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
1
We used “prominent” and “excellent” instead of “famous”.
2
1
Page 15, line 24: Here and elsewhere, universities are attributed with the term ‘famous’. This should be backed up with evidence (data) and preferably rephrased, such as ‘recognised research universities’, or ‘elite’ with reference to the German federal government’s programme of university excellence (Exzellenzinitiative).
1
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
1
We cut this sentence.
2
1
Page 15, line 27: Repetition – the IZB incubator was already mentioned on line 9.
1
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
1
We cited this paper in footnote 14 in Section 3.2. (3) to mention that Trinational BioValley has hardly had any impact in terms of intensifying cross-border interaction.
2
1
Section 4.5: Unlike the regional cluster initiatives in Alsace and Baden, the trinational BioValley initiative has hardly had any impact in terms of intensifying cross-border interaction, confirming problems that KOSCHATZKY (2000) had identified long before. Indeed, many INTERREG projects fail to overcome the differences in national languages, legislations and cultures, even though the regions are neighbours.
1
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
1
We changed the layout of the tables enlarging the font.
2
1
The layout of the tables may be improved, especially the spacing of the text.
1
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
1
In the revision, we write the funding amount for Japan in Yen, but give the converged amount in Euro in parentheses. We use the most recent exchange rate for convenience, and explain it where it is first mentioned (note to Table 1 in page 16 and footnote 17 in page 17).
2
1
The paper contains funding information in Yen and Euros. This should be harmonised, or preferably conversions given in brackets or footnotes for the reader’s convenience.
1
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
1
The revised version went through a professional, native English editing. Thank you for your recommendation. We provided minor corrections to our manuscript based on the following comments. The revised version went through a professional, native English editing.
4
1
I wish to congratulate the authors for their careful and thoughtful revision. All remarks have been considered, most have been fully incorporated and the paper has gained substantially from revision. As a consequence, I can now recommend the paper for publication with minor corrections, including some language editing. Since this may be managed by the editorial office, I do not see the need for another review.
3
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
1
We added a discussion on the national systems of innovation in the first two paragraphs of Section 3.1 (p. 9) referring to the suggested seminal works. Moreover, in the remaining part of this section (pp. 10-11), we added some sentences with supporting references on the underlying institutional differences.
4
1
Although the new section 3.1 helps situating the cases within their respective national contexts, it’s focus is on performance indicators. If the underlying institutional differences would have been revealed as suggested, this section would be even more valuable for understanding the differences. This section now uses the term ‘innovation system’ at the national scale, but there is no discussion of or reference to the concept of national systems of innovation. A substantial body of literature has grown on the back of seminal contributions by Edquist (1997), Freeman (1987, 1988, 1995) with reference to Japan, Lundvall (1992), and Nelson (1993).
3
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
1
At the beginning of Section 3.2, as well as at the end of the description of each cluster, we mitigated the dichotomist nature in the typology of cluster development by some qualification. For example, we changed the formulation from “characterized as public-driven clusters” to “characterized as more public-driven than private-driven clusters”.
4
1
Although ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ have been replaced by public-driven and ‘private-driven’, the dichotomist nature remains as the focus of my critique. I would still like to see a qualification stating that private and public initiative often interacts in cluster development, and that the degree of private and public sector involvement usually differs from case to case.
3
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
1
We added a new reference on the development in Japan (Okubo and Tomiura 2010) but deleted the sentence about France because we could not show a reference in English.
4
1
P. 11: References on Japan and France should be added to the last two sentences of the first paragraph.
3
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
1
According to this suggestion, we dropped footnote 14 with the related reference.
4
1
P. 14: On section 4.5 in the first draft, I commented that “Unlike the regional cluster initiatives in Alsace and Baden, the trinational BioValley initiative has hardly had any impact in terms of intensifying cross-border interaction, confirming problems that Koschatzky (2000) had identified long before. Indeed, many INTERREG projects fail to overcome the differences in national languages, legislations and cultures, even though the regions are neighbours.” In response, the authors now cite this paper in footnote 14 in Section 3.2. to support the view that BioValley has hardly had any impact in terms of intensifying cross-border interaction. This reformulation is incorrect as the Koschatzky (2000) paper pre-dated the BioValley initiative and does not look at INTERREG either. Unfortunately, my claim regarding the limited impact of BioValley on cross-border networking draws on conversations with practitioners and a field trip to the region, but cannot be supported by a reference as far as I know. I would therefore suggest to drop this footnote altogether.
3
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
1
We added the information sources under the table.
4
1
P. 16: Sources should be stated underneath table 2.
3
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
1
We replaced “policy” by “programs” in this sentence.
4
1
P. 18 (section 4.1, top paragraph): I would rather prefer “a series of national cluster programmes” as part of an evolving policy.
3
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
1
In Conclusion, we presented again three hypotheses in a new paragraph in Conclusion after the first paragraph (p. 22). Then, in the following paragraph (p. 23) we added a discussion on how differences in cluster policies and cluster management are linked to those in national systems of innovation, with three sentences.
4
1
P. 22: “differences might be attributed to those in innovation systems as basic conditions of clusters.” This is central, so the discussion should be summarised in the conclusions, preferably taking up the three hypotheses: To what extent and how can differences in cluster policies and cluster management be linked to differences in national systems of innovation?
3
2
admsci5040213_devetyaro
1
We added Freud’s heritage and contemporary research e.g. Jung’s contribution to the Big 5.
2
1
Why Jung? The authors have selected Jung’s archetypes as the theoretical foundation for the paper.
1
2
admsci6020005_makarova
1
We took great effort introducing above mentioned perspectives into our paper.
2
1
This paper’s potential impact will be enhanced if it can find a way to align itself with this growing branch of advertising research.
1
2
admsci6020005_makarova
1
We decided to call them both gurus because David obviously is the one but our paper refers to Jennifer.
2
1
The abstract states: “Aaker is seen by many as the branding guru” and refers to Aaker (1997) in the introductory paragraph. Are you referring to David Aaker (the father) or Jennifer Aaker (the daughter)?
1
2
admsci6020005_makarova
1
We added Allen & Olson and other limitations such as criticism on the conceptual, methodological and substantive level as well as confusing user profiles (e.g., upper class) with brand characteristics and weak discriminatory power.
2
1
Indeed, Aaker (1997) is a highly-cited work. Are there any other limitations or criticisms the reader should be informed of? However, you may want to tell readers how brands can convey aspects of personality via advertising (see: Allen and Olson 1995).
1
2
admsci6020005_makarova
1
We revised the statement in the sense that it is part and not different from it.
2
1
Page 2, line 62: I disagree with the claim that “above models can be seen as extensions of Aaker’s (1997) brand personality model.” The models you listed are variants of well-known hierarchy of effects models.
1
2
admsci6020005_makarova
1
We fully agree and deleted the claim to be Grounded Theory.
2
1
Though the paper is exploratory, I am not convinced that it aligns with the “grounded theory” tradition.
1
2
admsci6020005_makarova
1
We cited Roberts (2010) who, based on extensive research, found different leading archetypes depending on the product category. We added our thoughts as scope for further research in chapter 4.We added Matzler et al. (Personality, person-brand fit, and brand community: An investigation of individuals, brands, and brand communities. Journal Of Marketing Management) as research on customer-brand relationship.
2
1
The results would have been more compelling if the study measured the impact of ad campaigns (sets of related ads) in delivering a consistent (reliable) impression.
1
2
admsci6020005_makarova
1
The survey was conducted face-to-face in the classroom and students asked personally.
2
1
Evidence of claim? Page 4, line 124 states: “European students did not know these two hotel chains and therefore were not pre-conditioned in any way. In contrast the 55 Asian students knew the chains.” Was brand familiarity actually measured, or was it assumed?
1
2
admsci6020005_makarova
1
We added more screenshots and background on the commercials.
2
1
However, if you included a storyboard (set of screenshots) for each ad, that would help the reader (for examples, see: Mulvey and Medina 2003; Scott 1994).
1
2
admsci6020005_makarova
1
We added the questions that participants were asked. Everything was based on pencil and paper.
2
1
Clarity and elaboration of Page 5+: The methods section lacks clarity – it would be very difficult for a researcher to replicate the procedure. Please provide greater detail of the scales used, the anchor terms, and how the survey/rating task was administered (online? Paper and pencil?).
1
2
admsci6020005_makarova
1
Changed in the term ‘manifestation.’ Findings: Who rated the three personality traits?
2
1
“Archetype Articulate Charisma” (heading title in Table 3): This is not clear. Either define the term in the text or use phrasing that is clear to the reader.
1
2
admsci6020005_makarova
1
The students.
2
1
Findings: Who rated the three personality traits? The student/respondents? How many items were used? Why do you not report reliability measures for the items and scale?
1
2
admsci6020005_makarova
1
Principal Component with Varimax rotation.
2
1
Factor analysis: Have you reported principal components, or a rotated solution?
1
2
admsci6020005_makarova
1
We changed the wording. In fact, the cited Cinderalla is a prime example of blended archetype.
2
1
Interpretation: The interpretation of Archetypes seems to assume that the types are mutually-exclusive. However, this is not really the case.
1
2
admsci6020005_makarova
1
We cleaned up our description of the experimental design by adding the questions that we asked, the scale we used etc.
2
1
I think there are some ways in which you may tighten up the description of the experimental design.The comparisons between Jung and Aaker are always interesting - although the small sample size may be troubling to some.
1
2
admsci6020005_makarova
1
We tried our best to address this problem, see the revised version of our paper.
2
1
I think that the relevance of the research to practitioners as well as academics needs to include some current findings about ads, their placement and effectiveness.
1
2
admsci6020005_makarova
1
We added Freud’s heritage and contemporary research e.g. Jung’s contribution to the Big 5. We took the liberty to refer to Kant and Goethe re the origin of the term ‘archetype’ which may give it a more philosophical touch. We would have loved to substantiate the archetype concept by neurophysiological research but were not convinced about the reliability of claimed research findings so we added it under scope for further research (chapter: Implications).
2
1
Why Jung? The authors have selected Jung’s archetypes as the theoretical foundation for the paper. While Jungian approaches have been used by marketing and consumer researchers in the past (e.g., Hirschman), the reasons for this choice need to be justified in the context of other alternatives. Jungian approaches suffer from two core limitations: (a) the assertion of universality – which the authors note, and (b) the psychoanalytic heritage of the ideas (which presupposes a certain view of motivation) is disavowed by most contemporary psychologists.
1
2
admsci6020005_perova
1
We took great effort introducing above mentioned perspectives into our paper. It stretches across the whole paper. We also mentioned the difference between semiotic and formalist approach.
2
1
Literary archetypes: An alternative approach to studying the archetypal aspects of brand image can be found by scholars who adopt a literary or cultural view of archetypes, such as the ones advanced by Joseph Campbell or Northrop Frye (see, for example: Stern 1989). One could make the argument that using archetypes in advertising has greater affinities to mythology, literature and communications. Work on narrative theory and characterization in advertising also aligns with the archetype approach (see, for example: Mulvey and Medina 2003; Padgett and Allen 1997; Scott 1994; Stern 1988). This paper’s potential impact will be enhanced if it can find a way to align itself with this growing branch of advertising research.
1
2
admsci6020005_perova
1
We decided to call them both gurus because David obviously is the one but our paper refers to Jennifer.
2
1
The abstract states: “Aaker is seen by many as the branding guru” and refers to Aaker (1997) in the introductory paragraph. Are you referring to David Aaker (the father) or Jennifer Aaker (the daughter)?
1
2
admsci6020005_perova
1
We added Allen & Olson and other limitations such as criticism on the conceptual, methodological and substantive level as well as confusing user profiles (e.g., upper class) with brand characteristics and weak discriminatory power.
2
1
Indeed, Aaker (1997) is a highly-cited work. Are there any other limitations or criticisms the reader should be informed of? There has been some backlash to the application of brand personality to inanimate objects. This may be of concern, because the paper uses hotels as an example. Personally, I agree with you – brand personality is a key facet of brand identity. However, you may want to tell readers how brands can convey aspects of personality via advertising (see: Allen and Olson 1995). This is highly relevant to answering the “so what?” question that is addressed in the implications section.
1
2
admsci6020005_perova
1
We revised the statement in the sense that it is part and not different from it.
2
1
Page 2, line 62: I disagree with the claim that “above models can be seen as extensions of Aaker’s (1997) brand personality model.” The models you listed are variants of well-known hierarchy of effects models. Aaker’s approach is nested within these – it specifies a way brands can establish relevance in the eyes of consumers (via establishing a human identity or character).
1
2
admsci6020005_perova
1
We fully agree and deleted the claim to be Grounded Theory.
2
1
Though the paper is exploratory, I am not convinced that it aligns with the “grounded theory” tradition. Grounded theory is based on the idea of immersion in data to induct new conceptual categories. I see the present study as using existing typologies and categories – there are no new concepts that emerge from the research that can be applied directly to future research.
1
2
admsci6020005_perova
1
We cited Roberts (2010) who, based on extensive research, found different leading archetypes depending on the product category. We added our thoughts as scope for further research in chapter 4.We added Matzler et al. (Personality, person-brand fit, and brand community: An investigation of individuals, brands, and brand communities. Journal Of Marketing Management) as research on customer-brand relationship.
2
1
Sample size: A critical view would state that the present research relies on a very small sample of advertisements (n=2) to make its claims. After all, the research focuses on the capacity of an ad to convey archetypal and personality-based aspects of brand identity. The results would have been more compelling if the study measured the impact of ad campaigns (sets of related ads) in delivering a consistent (reliable) impression. Though such studies are rare, good interpretive and quantitative examples can be found in the literature. At a minimum, this exploratory paper should set a more specific and ambitious plan for systematic future research on the topic. For example, Padgett and Mulvey (2007) illustrate a method to identify personal values conveyed by 16 ad campaigns (another complementary dimension of personified brands) and Padgett and Mulvey (2009) demonstrate a novel way to characterize customer-brand relationship archetypes. Imagine a conversation with these authors: what do you contribute to the ongoing conversation?
1
2
admsci6020005_perova
1
The survey was conducted face-to-face in the classroom and students asked personally. The two Asian hotel chains are globally not very prominent. Most Western executives stay at well-known global hotel chains (e.g., Accor, Hilton) because they have a corporate contract. Shangri-La and Banyan Tree are not that visible in Western countries. This stays in contrast to Asian executives.
2
1
Evidence of claim? Page 4, line 124 states: “European students did not know these two hotel chains and therefore were not pre-conditioned in any way. In contrast the 55 Asian students knew the chains.” Was brand familiarity actually measured, or was it assumed? The claim is very absolute – I wonder if any of them ever travelled internationally – presumably EMBAs would be more worldly or cosmopolitan than this… (d)
1
2
admsci6020005_perova
1
We added more screenshots and background on the commercials. Whereas the BT commercials features beautiful pictures that are sequence-wise interchangeable, the BT commercial unfolds and has it climax at the end with the wolves warming the traveler.
2
1
Figure 3: Because you are studying commercials (which unfold over time), I don’t think the single screenshots really add much value to the paper. However, if you included a storyboard (set of screenshots) for each ad, that would help the reader (for examples, see: Mulvey and Medina 2003; Scott 1994).
1
2
admsci6020005_perova
1
We added the questions that participants were asked. Everything was based on pencil and paper.
2
1
Clarity and elaboration of Page 5+: The methods section lacks clarity – it would be very difficult for a researcher to replicate the procedure. Please provide greater detail of the scales used, the anchor terms, and how the survey/rating task was administered (online? Paper and pencil?).
1
2
admsci6020005_perova
1
Changed in the term ‘manifestation.’ Findings: Who rated the three personality traits?
2
1
“Archetype Articulate Charisma” (heading title in Table 3): This is not clear. Either define the term in the text or use phrasing that is clear to the reader. Please don’t expect them to consult original sources by Jung!
1
2
admsci6020005_perova
1
The students. We added that part.
2
1
Findings: Who rated the three personality traits? The student/respondents? How many items were used? Why do you not report reliability measures for the items and scale?
1
2
admsci6020005_perova
1
Principal Component with Varimax rotation. We added in the text.
2
1
Factor analysis: Have you reported principal components, or a rotated solution? More details are required.
1
2
admsci6020005_perova
1
We changed the wording. In fact, the cited Cinderalla is a prime example of blended archetype.
2
1
Interpretation: The interpretation of Archetypes seems to assume that the types are mutually-exclusive. However, this is not really the case. A close reading of some of the cited work (i.e., Mark and Pearson 1991) recognizes that archetypes can be blended.
1
2
admsci6020005_perova
1