Knowledge Network for Sustainable Local Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to congratulate you on your initiative to tackle this topic. In my opinion, it has some correctable limitations. I hope you will these comments helpful to overhaul the current manuscript in your revision efforts. Good luck!

I will briefly consider some suggestions for amendment:

First, there is a fuzzy focus to this paper that dulls the points being made. I had to read it several times trying to understand where you wanted to go. After doing that, I am not clear if the focus relates to social capital, knowledge, sustainability, networks, or competitiveness.

Second there are too many sonorous terms without clear meaning that distract the reader from the flow of the ideas. An example is representative symbolic forms, isomorphic definitions, redial dynamics, systemic emergence of the intersectoral space, cross-sector  cognitive  spaces, adaptive logic and cumulative gradual.

Third, the paper abounds with generalizations that need elaboration and examples to make them relevant, interesting, and supportive of the arguments/assertions being made. In general, the statements would benefit from added detail, elaboration, support, and real examples. Additionally, regardless the Journal prevents to include concrete references, it is very hard to see explicit references to concepts or theories followed by a number. You need to spend some time rereading their paper to enhance the way in which this material is presented.

Fourth, the headings do not match with the content of the section. For example, section 2 that theoretically includes materials and methods seems like a literature revision.

Fifth, use and misuse of different theories. Throughout the paper you tap into different literatures and theories: social capital, competitiveness, networks, knowledge. I found it not only to be distracting but, in many cases, not relevant to promote the arguments. Clearly there are implications to these theories, but it is really beside the point as they are not helping in this case to promote the ideas.

Finally, Figures seem to be missed. I do not know if it is a mistake, or an additional proof of underdevelopment of the paper.

 

• INTRODUCTION
• On page 1 you say “(…) that implies the structural and functional in a given territory”. It seems you missed a word in this phrase.
• Also, in this page, ‘(…) they project a relational field called intersectorality’. Who project this relational field?
• The expression of the two worlds of knowledge exposed by the authors refers to explicit and tacit knowledge; these arise as a product of participatory configuration and in turn produce transdisciplinary knowledge. Do you mean that Scientifics provide explicit knowledge while society relates to tacit one? I feel that this is not correct. Please, clarify because both groups can have these two kinds of knowledge.
• ‘constructs (inter / transdisciplinary knowledge, intersectorality and social capital)’. I am not sure that you can refer intersectorality as a construct.
• ‘science and politics as two worlds that follow conflicting logics’, why?

 

• MATERIALS AND METHOD
• Abductive or inductive method?
• Therefore, it belongs to another class of approximate pathways other than those mentioned. Approximate pathways to where and which ones are mentioned?
• Research route. It is a non-orthodox term within scientific papers, please clarify.
• Point 2 on page 3 is too long. Also, in my view it is absolutely illegible and non-sense. Please, rewrite.
• Where is Figure 1? And 2? And 4? Why there is not figure 3?
• You say that there are three types or classes of capital, but you only refer the structural one after saying “namely”. Please, clarify.
• ‘strongly interconnected  and  interconnected systems’. What do you mean?

Author Response

A cordial greeting.

Each of the observations and adjustments suggested by the evaluator were applied to the document, which led to the manuscript being restructured in almost its entirety, as evidenced in the attached file. The observations attended are indicated below:

A review of the style and the English language was made.

The introduction was improved and new antecedents were integrated.

Adjusted Materials and Methods section.

The presentation of the results was improved.

Voiced terminology has been removed.

The concept of social capital was expanded.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The analyzed topic is very interesting and very up to date. 

In my opinion, neither aims nor hypothesis were described. It is hard to refer to an article when one does not know the purpose and assumed research hypothesis. 

In my opinion the title is adequate to the research problem being undertaken. The article has been correctly divided into relevant sections, and their content coincides with their titles. However, there is no separate section devoted to the literature review. 

The paper has an overview character.

No quantitative data was presented, which is not obligatory in itself. It seems, however, that supplementing the article with quantitative data would increase its value. 

The article uses a unsatisfactory number of references from international literature (46 items only). This is a particularly low number considering that the abductive method was used. The references seems to be appropriate and adequate to the topic and to related and previous work. I don't detect inappropriate self-citations by authors. This part must be strengthening with more references.

 

I can't find any figures in the paper, although there are references to them in the text. It is difficult to judge something that is not included in the paper, and which is a significant part of it.
All figures must be included in the text.

 

The discussion of the social capital concept has been treated very briefly.  

 The correct terminology was used. The language of the article is mature, correct, adequate.

 

There should be a comma between the name Alexa Senior Naveda and the name Mercy Narváez Castro

 

Footnotes and references are generally correctly formulated.

Author Response

A cordial greeting.

The observations and adjustments indicated were fully addressed, which led to the restructuring of the article in most of its structure.
The evaluator requested that substantial improvements be made in the different sections. These enhancements are listed below:

Introction has been improved.

A background section with specific examples was incorporated, as the document was very general; for this mainstream literature was incorporated.
The number of references was brought to 66 according to their request, as initially only 46 documents were referred.

The four figures were incorporated into the text.

Findings improved

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you very much to the authors for their effort to meet previous recommendations. However, despite their work I still feel the article is not at the level to be published in the journal. Thus, there are important points that are elemental for a journal of first level. For example,

1. In my view, the abstract has to be entirely reviewed:

This article aims to build a network of knowledge for sustainable local development, to achieve this it was based on the concepts of sustainable local development, social capital, the relationship between activity sectors, also known as intersectorality, networks, interdisciplinary and trans disciplinary knowledge. Regarding the methodology, the abductive method was used, under a documentary design, the research techniques were the content analysis of theoretical documents and the abductive inference technique. The results are the characterization of intersectoral or sector relationships, the analysis of social capital, interdisciplinary knowledge, analysis of trans disciplinary knowledge and finally the graphic representation of the knowledge network for local development. The work concludes that knowledge networks for sustainable local development have positive implications in the establishment of alliances and links between the sectors that make up society.

• to build a network of knowledge for sustainable local development. Among whom? Where? What does ‘network of knowledge’ mean?
• A relationship is not a concept
• Methodology: abductive, documentary design, content analysis, documentary design, abductive inference. Too many concepts for such an objective. I recommend to clearly expand on this methodology.
• The results are the characterization of intersectoral or sector relationships, the analysis of social capital, interdisciplinary knowledge, analysis of trans disciplinary knowledge and finally the graphic representation of the knowledge network for local development. A characterization cannot be a result, neither an analysis can be so. Additionally, interdisciplinary knowledge and graphic representation are not results.

1. The introduction section has to follow a clear structure, including the main issue that the paper is going to address and a brief description of the structure of the paper.
2. As aforementioned, the methodology is unclear for me. This is a major concern when taking into account that in the second section the authors include another method: In this research, interdisciplinary methodological techniques were put into practice: called Knowledge and Action System Analysis Framework (KASA), which integrates concepts of social network analysis and knowledge co-production (this framework has interdisciplinary epistemological, cultural and conceptual components).
3. The background research section has to refer to relevant literature of the main concern of the paper. In my view, it is not the best place to explain the context of the research.
4. The source of the Tables and Figures has to be underneath them, not within the main text (e.g. The figure represents characteristics and properties of the sectors that are related to each other in the context of local development. Source: self made. Pg 6).
5. You must be clear when explaining the Figures. For example, on Figure 1, “These relationships between the sectors establish links of different characteristics; some links are strong as well as lasting and are supported by trust and the mutual exchange of goods and services. Other links will be weaker and less durable, depending on the common objectives between the sectors of activity”. Which relationships? Which sectors? What are the differences between links?

Overall, I feel that the paper seems to be written on two differente ways. Thus, if the first section needs re ellaboration, the second one (namely, from discussion) is much better. I encourage you to follow this style. Also, please review your english (again, more noticeable on the first part of the paper) and the format requirements.

Good luck!

Author Response

A cordial greeting.

The following is a report on the adjustments made to the article according to the reviewer's recommendations. The document is also attached with the corrections incorporated.

 

Evaluator Suggested Settings:

Article: Knowledge network for sustainable local development.

To facilitate the verification of corrections, the following tables are presented containing the comments of each reviewer in the order in which they appear on the journal platform: Sustainability.

It is important to note that the document attached as a corrected version of the article, is the version that was received from the journal, where we were told that in the same document the corrections that we should make as authors based on the evaluation of each one of the reviewers.

Reviewer 1:

Reviewer's suggestions 1	Corrections applied in accordance with the evaluator's indications	Number of the page where the change is evident	Observations
Extensive editing of the required English language and style	Language was checked and adjusted	All text of the work	The language was adjusted and revised, and if necessary, for the final version the language will be edited with the service offered by the MDPI publisher.
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? (must be improved)	Other citations from relevant sources were incorporated into the introduction; more argumentation is generated	Page 2
Is the research design appropriate? (must be improved)	The entire wording of the methodology was improved; emphasis was placed on the method and design in correspondence with the objectives of the article	Page 5
Are the methods adequately described? (must be improved)	The method is precisely described with the intention of achieving a better understanding of the research approach	Page 5
Are the results clearly presented? (must be improved)	Section 5.1 was improved and the results are clearly presented in correspondence with the objectives of the article and the methodology	Page 11
Are the conclusions supported by the results? (must be improved)	The wording of the conclusions was improved; likewise the conclusions are supported by the exposed results.	Page 15 and page 16
In my opinion, the summary should be completely revised: to build a knowledge network for sustainable local development. Between whom? Where? What does "knowledge network" mean? A relationship is not a concept.             Methodology: abductive, documentary design, content analysis, documentary design, abductive inference. Demasiados conceptos para tal objetivo.   I recommend clearly expanding this methodology.                                                                 The results are the characterization of intersectoral or sectoral relationships, the analysis of social capital, interdisciplinary knowledge, the analysis of transdisciplinary knowledge and, finally, the graphic representation of the knowledge network for local development.   A characterization cannot be a result, nor can an analysis be like that. Furthermore, interdisciplinary knowledge and graphic representation are not results.	The abstract was restructured. The objective of the article was incorporated into the abstract as indicated: This article aims to build a network for the exchange of knowledge between the government, productive, organized community and university sectors, for sustainable local development.       The methodology in the summary was improved according to the guidelines: Regarding the methodology, the abductive method was used, under a documentary design, the research techniques were the content analysis of theoretical documents and the deductive inference technique                                                               The results are: The construction of the structure of the knowledge exchange network for sustainable local development that is presented in the sections:5.1, Design of  a Knowledge network for sustainable local development.  5.2. The Network components  5.3. Network operability All these explanations are offered from a perspective of logical reasoning based on processes of abduction and analysis.	Page 1                                 Page 5                                                                                         Page 11	The methodology on the case study recommended by evaluator 1 is not applicable to the study presented, since the case study refers to the collection of qualitative and quantitative empirical data. Yin (1989), one of the most important authors of texts on the methodology of the case study, states that it is “a field investigation about a contemporary phenomenon in its real context, where the limits between the phenomenon and the context are not clearly shown precise form” The method used in the article presented is abduction, which is of a formal logical nature; In it, forms of logical reasoning are privileged, and explanations of reality are built based on concepts and theories from concepts. In this article, through abduction, a better understanding of the subject studied is achieved.
The introductory section has to follow a clear structure, including the main issue that the document is going to address and a brief description of the structure of the document.	In the introduction, both the objective of the article and the structure of the document are explicitly included.	Page 1 and page 2
As mentioned above, the methodology is not clear to me. This is a great concern while taking into account that in the second section the authors include another method: In this research, interdisciplinary methodological techniques were put into practice: called the Knowledge and Action System Analysis Framework (KASA), that integrates concepts of social network analysis and knowledge co-production (this framework has interdisciplinary epistemological, cultural and conceptual components).	The only method that is declared part of the methodology is abduction. Regarding the KASA methodology, it is included only as a reference to the antecedent specifically of the methodology used by Muñoz-Erickson T. (2012). In his doctoral thesis How Cities Think: Knowledge-Action Systems Analysis for Urban Sustainability in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy. Arizona State University.   In other words, the contributions of the KASA methodology are only referred to as part of an antecedent, but not as the method used in this article; We think that it may be an error in understanding the message. At no time is it proposed to use the same methodology, which is why we consider this statement to be an error.	Page 2
The vetting section has to refer to the relevant literature of the main concern of the document. In my opinion, it is not the best place to explain the context of the investigation.	In the Background of the study section, references to mainstream information sources are included, where issues associated with sustainable premises, intersectorality, networks, social capital in the form of links, bridges, values, interdisciplinarity and generation of knowledge are addressed for sustainable development among others, which constitute contributions from the existing literature on the object of study. These antecedents are mostly published in the journal Sustainability and in other sources of high scientific impact.	Page 2 to page 5
The source of the Tables and Figures has to be below them, not within the main text (for example, the figure represents characteristics and properties of the sectors that are related to each other in the context of local development. Source: self-made . Page 6).	The figures were modified according to the indications of the reviewer 1	Pages 6, 8,9 and 12
You must be clear when explaining the figures. For example, in Figure 1, "These relationships between sectors establish links of different characteristics; some links are strong and lasting and are supported by trust and mutual exchange of goods and services. Other links will be weaker and less durable, depending on the common objectives between the sectors of activity ". What relationships? What sectors? What are the differences between the links?	The corresponding explanation was made in each of the figures that are part of the document	Pages 6, 8, 9 and 12

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for making corrections.

I appreciate taking into account some of the comments from the previous review. For example, the number of references is better now. There is "research background" section (I understand it means it is a literature section). All figures are in the paper now.

 

However,  in my opinion, still neither aims nor hypothesis were described.  

 

There should be a comma between the name Alicia Inciarte González ⁴ and the name Castro Ana Judith Paredes-Chacín ⁵ 

 

Author Response

A cordial greeting.

The following is a report on the adjustments made to the article according to the reviewer's recommendations. The document is also attached with the corrections incorporated.

Evaluator Suggested Settings:

Article: Knowledge network for sustainable local development.

To facilitate the verification of corrections, the following tables are presented containing the comments of each reviewer in the order in which they appear on the journal platform: Sustainability.

It is important to note that the document attached as a corrected version of the article, is the version that was received from the journal, where we were told that in the same document the corrections that we should make as authors based on the evaluation of each one of the reviewers.

 

Reviewer 2:

Reviewer's suggestions 2	Corrections applied in accordance with the evaluator's indications	Number of the page where the change is evident
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	The relevant references regarding the object of study are presented in the introduction, which constitute research antecedents; the references are derived from mainstream articles published in journals of high scientific impact.	Pages 2, 3, 4 and 5
Are the methods adequately described?	The research method is adequately described in the section corresponding to the methodology	Page 5
No objectives or hypotheses are described	The abstract and the introduction present the objective of the article. Hypotheses are not included as the research is not experimental, results of the construction of a knowledge exchange network for local development are offered, its components are defined and explained, as well as the way in which it is considered to operate , depending on the concepts and theories of sustainable local development, social capital, intersectorality, among other concepts.	Pages 1 and 2

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you very much for considering my previous comments. I feel this version is clearly improved, and also that you made a great effort to reinfonrce your arguments. For further reports, I suggest to review the way on that you answer reviewers' amendments. Good luck.