University Knowledge Transfer Offices and Social Responsibility
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see the attached document
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting paper and if presented to a higher standard has the potential to make an interesting contribution to the research and practitioner understanding of the management and governance of knowledge transfer. However in its current form it lacks a number of key elements.
1 The main contribution of the article is not clear - whilst it is clearly stated in the abstract that the contribution is an integrative framework, it is not easy to relate this to the content of the article. This is for three reasons. The first is the lack of narrative, other than a short navigation at the end of the introduction. The purpose of the narrative is to lead the reader through the arguments, in this case collecting reference material and perspective from knowledge transfer research and policy and then from CSR research, before presenting the framework, discussing its validity, application and fit with the extant literature. This should then substantiate the conclusions. In its current form I was unable to follow this progression. Secondly if the contribution of the article is based entirely on the research finding and/or the empirical work of others, then whilst there is no requirement to present a methodological justification to substantiate the results, it is required to substantiate the process of literature selection and interpretation. Finally there is little discussion presented. The discussion should inform the conclusions and should also lead to suggestions for limitations of the framework, potential improvement that could be made and specific contexts where it may not be reliable or pertinent.
2 The literature work is of differing quality. The reference material presented for CSR is current (with the addition of formative authors from the past) and therefore appears more comprehensive than the knowledge transfer content. For example many of the references from the knowledge transfer sections are more than 15 years old, and whilst this is acceptable if the statements relate to formative frameworks or concepts, it is not acceptable if the statements reflect the immaturity of the field or comment on gaps or identify absence of research - there are many recent articles that look at the particular aspects of the knowledge transfer landscape, many published in the past 5 years. (For example a set of core capabilities for KTOs is suggested by Martin & Pujol, 2008 and built on by Alexander & Martin, 2013 (TF&SC). Miller et al (2015) bring forward a framework for absorptive capacity in the KTO context (R&D Mgmt), Hewitt-Dundas comments on methods to evaluate KT in respect to impact (2012 - Res. Policy) and Sharifi & Liu (2010) on the management of KTOs in general. In more detail, modes of knowledge transfer are also set out by Alexander & Martin, 2012 (PP&C) and then further developed to relate to new offerings for innovation by Alexander et al, 2015 (IJIM). Finally a reasonably up to date literature piece on academic entrepreneurship, motivations for KT and business engagement is presented by Perkmann et al in 2015 (Res.Pol). These works must be systematically incorporated and I think will bring a very different bias toward any integrative framework developed accordingly.
3 The respective bias of the paper is also not clear. Is this a paper reviewing two fields and contributing to one and if so which one, or is it trying to make contribution to both fields. The two fields are only related in the work of a few authors. For example, if you consider the work of Alexander et al 2016 (R&D Mgmt.) who tries to create a spectrum of knowledge transfer, spanning from CSR type activities across knowledge transfer to technology transfer style activities, then if this argument is brought forward, it is possible to claim a contribution to both fields but then this must be established with a foundation in their work accordingly - work which provides knowledge transfer channels and tries to provide channel rankings accordingly etc. It may be more straightforward to bring forward this paper with a clearly explained focus on one field or the other.
The above comments are aimed at strengthening the paper for publication to a high standard.
Author Response
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The objective of the paper is stated on lines 119 to 125. I suggest you begin the paper with this section starting with "This paper aims..."
You mention the 'Darwinian Sea' on lines 253 and 405. This term is not clearly explained. I suggest that you change it to 'innovation gap' which is more likely to be understood by the reader. You will need to rewrite the sentence beginning on line 404.
Author Response
We have considered your suggestions. Thank your very much.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I find the addition of the literature in Knowledge Transfer balance the paper accordingly and the reference to the different approaches to exploring the triple helix and other macro level studies will now create a paper that speaks to two audiences, the knowledge transfer audience and the SR audience.
Therefore the final job for the authors is to give the paper a comprehensive language edit, to iron out the final, minor issues in the use of language.
I am happy that the paper may now go forward for final editing.
Author Response
We have considered your suggestions. Thank you very much.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
