The Role of the Climate Technology Centre and Network as a Climate Technology and Innovation Matchmaker for Developing Countries
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Are there any another Possible matchmaker that can be used by commersialisation?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer1 Comments
Reviewer 1
Point 1 : Are there any another Possible matchmaker that can be used by commercialization?
Response 1: Thank you for your time and effort on enriching our work. In regard to your point, I have heard about several technology transfer matchmakers between businesses and investors for commercialization. However, it appears to me that the CTCN is different in the following features in technology transfer processes.
- CTCN being UNFCCC’s technology mechanism has a strong convening power amongst the stakeholders who are responsible for climate actions in their country
- CTCN is interfaced with correct entry points in the countries (NDE) to trigger the best optimal climate technology solution
- CTCN has the ability to leverage the experience and knowledge on climate technology solution through its network members
- CTCN with established linkages with bodies under FM has the ability to enable leveraging of finance to support the scale up stage
All in all, contrary to other matchmakers, CTCN could enable a complete ecosystem to support the research, development, financing and scale up of the climate technology in a collaborative manner.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Major problems:
The paper seems to be a report of the CTCN's activity, rather than a scientific research paper.
The objective of the paper (as formulated) is to make a report of the activity of CTCN, rather than an objective of scientific research. What is the research component of the paper? What is innovative about this work? What is the research methodology?
As conclusions, the author proposes directions for the future development of CTCN, as in a business plan, and not as a model for future research and development.
In fact, even the author calls the paper "a report" (in the Conclusions section), and not a scientific research material.
As a suggestion of a research material and methodology, I think the author need to identify in the scientific literature the state of the art in the field (the actual models and actual approaches related to the roles of matchmaker in climate technology transfer), integrate the CTCN model in this state of the art, propose his new research starting from this point, compare his modeling approach with other approaches and discuss potential weaknesses or advantages etc.;
Minor problems:
The Reference section and the text citations need to be reviewed: the authors need to respect the publication guide (the Sustainability template);
Author Response
Response to Reviewer2 Comments
Point 1 : What is the research component of the paper? What is innovative about this work? What is the research methodology? As a suggestion of a research material and methodology, I think the author need to identify in the scientific literature the state of the art in the field (the actual models and actual approaches related to the roles of matchmaker in climate technology transfer), integrate the CTCN model in this state of the art, propose his new research starting from this point, compare his modeling approach with other approaches and discuss potential weaknesses or advantages etc.;
Response 1: Thank you for your time and effort on enriching our work. According to your comments, I re-organized the old manuscript by inserting the objective of ‘scientific research component’ through the analysis of our empirical TA data, based on research methodology in the literature. You can see the details in the following.
- I put the research component of the paper by inserting the ‘new innovation model’ for climate technology transfer’ part as Section 4. Here, I employed the previous empirical TA data and network management theory as ‘research methodology’. As a new open innovation model, I considered the CTCN matchmaker’s activities with key stakeholders (innovation networks) during climate technology transfer processes.
- According to re-organized concept, I revised the abstract, introduction, and conclusion as requested.
- The Results and Discussions parts were changed in the following three main sections by further discussion on Fig.2 and Fig.3 in old manuscript (Now Fig.4 and Fig.5).
3.1 Innovation during climate technology transfer : 4 openness
: Identification of the CTCN’s roles on open innovation during the previous TA activities
3.2 New innovation model for climate technology transfer
: Analysis of the CTCN matchmaker’s activities with key stakeholders (innovation networks) during the three technology transfer processes of 1st Stage of technology outsourcing, 2nd Stage of technology RD&D and finance, and the 3rd Stage of technology diffusion, based on empirical TA statistical data and innovation theory.
3.3 Future innovation for climate technology transfer
: Further matchmaker’s approaches for supporting developing countries to establish a conducive and sustainable innovation system were suggested based on new model proposed during the CTCN TA.
Point 2 : The Reference section and the text citations need to be reviewed: the authors need to respect the publication guide (the Sustainability template);
Response 2: Reference section was changed to the publication guide.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The abstract and introduction should be enriched by evidencing the objectives of the analysis.
The literature review should consider reecent contributions concerning the climate change effects (Aldieri and Vinci, 2020).
Figure 2 and Figure 3 require further discussion.
Conclusions are too short. The relative section should consider the policy implications of the investigation.
References.
Aldieri L. and Vinci C. P. (2020). Climate change and knowledge spillovers for cleaner production: New insights. Journal of Cleaner Production, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122729.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer3 Comments
Point 1 : The abstract and introduction should be enriched by evidencing the objectives of the analysis.
Response 1: Thank you for your time and effort on enriching our work. According to your comments, I re-organized the old manuscript by inserting the objective of ‘scientific research component’ through the analysis of our empirical TA data, based on research methodology in the literature. You can see the details in the following.
- I put the research component of the paper by inserting the ‘new innovation model’ for climate technology transfer’ part as Section 4. Here, I employed the previous empirical TA data and network management theory as ‘research methodology’. As a new open innovation model, I considered the CTCN matchmaker’s activities with key stakeholders (innovation networks) during climate technology transfer processes.
- According to re-organized concept, I revised the abstract, introduction, and conclusion as requested.
Point 2 : The literature review should consider recent contributions concerning the climate change effects (Aldieri and Vinci, 2020).
Response 2: I inserted the recent contribution you recommended in the Theoretical Background for enriching my manuscript. Thank you for your time and effort on enriching our work. According to your comments, I re-organized the old manuscript
Point 3 : Figure 2 and Figure 3 require further discussion.
Response 3: According to your comments, I revised the Results and Discussions parts by further discussion on Fig.2 and Fig.3 in old manuscript (Now Fig.4 and Fig.5).
3.1 Innovation during climate technology transfer : 4 openness
: Identification of the CTCN’s roles on open innovation during the previous TA activities
3.2 New innovation model for climate technology transfer
: Analysis of the CTCN matchmaker’s activities with key stakeholders (innovation networks) during the three technology transfer processes of 1st Stage of technology outsourcing, 2nd Stage of technology RD&D and finance, and the 3rd Stage of technology diffusion, based on empirical TA statistical data and innovation theory.
3.3 Future innovation for climate technology transfer
: Further matchmaker’s approaches for supporting developing countries to establish a conducive and sustainable innovation system were suggested based on new model proposed during the CTCN TA.
Point 4 : Conclusions are too short. The relative section should consider the policy implications of the investigation.
Response 4: I revised the conclusions according to your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
This is a good paper on CTCN's open innovation.
The following minor modifications are required.
- In order to increase the readability of Figure 2, it is necessary to give it a number like the attached file.
- It is necessary to present the examples described in Sections 3-1~3-4 in sessions 3-5.
- It is not clear whether the interfaces illustrated in Figures 7 and 8 are the same or different.
It needs to be clearly defined.
If they are the same, it is necessary to organize Figures 7 and 8 into one picture.(see
attached file). - Please refer to the following paper.
a) The Effect of Open Innovation on Technology Value and Technology Transfer: A Comparative Analysis of the Automotive, Robotics, and Aviation Industries of Korea
by Jinhyo Joseph Yun ,EuiSeob Jeong ,YoungKyu Lee andKyungHun Kim
Sustainability 2018, 10(7), 2459; https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072459 - 13 Jul 2018
b) Multiple Security Certification System between Blockchain Based Terminal and Internet of
Things Device: Implication for Open Innovation
by Bong-Gyeol Choi ,EuiSeob Jeong andSang-Woo Kim
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019, 5(4), 87; https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc5040087 -
17 Oct 2019
c) Network Analysis of Open Innovation
by JinHyo Joseph Yun ,EuiSeob Jeong andJinSeu Park
Sustainability 2016, 8(8), 729; https://doi.org/10.3390/su8080729 - 30 Jul 2016
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer4 Comments
Point 1 : In order to increase the readability of Figure 2, it is necessary to give it a number like the attached file.
Response 1: Thank you for your time and effort on enriching our work. According to your comments, I re-organized the old manuscript by inserting the objective of ‘scientific research component’ through the analysis of our empirical TA data, based on research methodology in the literature. I gave a number in Figure.2 (Now, Fig. 5 in revised manuscript) as requested. So, the Results and Discussions parts were changed in the following three main sections by further discussion on Fig.2 and Fig.3 in old manuscript (Now Fig.4 and Fig.5).
3.1 Innovation during climate technology transfer : 4 openness
: Identification of the CTCN’s roles on open innovation during the previous TA activities
3.2 New innovation model for climate technology transfer
: Analysis of the CTCN matchmaker’s activities with key stakeholders (innovation networks) during the three technology transfer processes of 1st Stage of technology outsourcing, 2nd Stage of technology RD&D and finance, and the 3rd Stage of technology diffusion, based on empirical TA statistical data and innovation theory.
3.3 Future innovation for climate technology transfer
: Further matchmaker’s approaches for supporting developing countries to establish a conducive and sustainable innovation system were suggested based on new model proposed during the CTCN TA.
Point 2 : It is necessary to present the examples described in Sections 3-1~3-4 in sessions 3-5.
Response 2: I put Table. 2 as example of Section 3-1~3-4, instead of separation into sessions 3-5.
Point 3 : It is not clear whether the interfaces illustrated in Figures 7 and 8 are the same or different. It needs to be clearly defined. If they are the same, it is necessary to organize Figures 7 and 8 into one picture.(see attached file).
Response 3: According to the reviewer’s comments, we changed the interface into the three stages during the technology transfer. Thus, the stage in the Fig.7 is now only for 2nd stage.
Point 4 : Please refer to the following papers.
Response 4: According to reviewer’s comment, I referred the papers to enrich my old manuscript especially, analysis of open innovation and IT incorporation part.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
There is just one reference on the research methodology in the paper (line 67), without any explanation about "network management methodology". In my opinion, there has to be a linkage between the actual technology transfer models, the research methods used to evaluate them, the CTCNs' results and the new technology transfer model proposed as an innovative result. I think this red thread is still missing.
Author Response
Second response to Reviewer2 Comments
Point 1 : There is just one reference on the research methodology in the paper (line 67), without any explanation about In my opinion, there has to be a linkage between the actual technology transfer models, the research methods used to evaluate them, the CTCNs' results and the new technology transfer model proposed as an innovative result. I think this red thread is still missing.
Response 1: Thank you for your brilliant insight on our work. According to your valuable comment, we revised the manuscript by inserting the explanation of "network management methodology" in the new manuscript (line 319). And also, we mentioned some representative TAs for management of actor networks in detail as (1) collaboration among Japanese government agency, Japan Iron & Steel Federation and Iron & Steel Institute of Thailand for CO2 reduction & reuse technology, (2) joint R&D activities among World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Tanzania Renewable Energy Association (TAREA) and Tanzania regional governments for scaling up wood fuel, and incubating Chile’s SMEs for building new business model in agricultural sector. Then, based on the above CTCN’s empirical data, we tried to link the previous methodology with our new model in three different stages of technology transfer. This may be a plausible linkage between the research methods used to evaluate the CTCN’s empirical results and the new technology transfer model proposed as an innovative result as you indicated.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
New version of the paper is OK
Author Response
Second response to Reviewer3 Comments
Point 1 : New version of the paper is OK
Response 1: Thank you for your review on our work. For more information, we revised our work by mentioning some representative TAs for management of actor networks as (1) collaboration among Japanese government agency, Japan Iron & Steel Federation and Iron & Steel Institute of Thailand for CO2 reduction & reuse technology, (2) joint R&D activities among World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Tanzania Renewable Energy Association (TAREA) and Tanzania regional governments for scaling up wood fuel, and incubating Chile’s SMEs for building new business model in agricultural sector. (line 318~325)
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
