A Research Agenda for Collaborative Roadmapping Supported by Blockchain Technology
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this paper, the authors are providing SLR for collaborative roadmapping with blockchain technology. I went through all sections of the paper and feel this paper needs to address following comments:
1. Introduction needs to be restructured. You write "extensive research pointed out" but support it with only [2-3]. You come on one para for collaborative roadmapping and another on Blockchain technology. Then Section 2 and Section 3 again given to collaborative roadmapping and blockchain.
In my opinion, good SLRs given complete flow of paper in the introduction section. You must raise areas that you study revealed and come with the contributions of this article. End your introduction with organization.
2. Authors can merge section 2 and section 3 into one single section as "Theoretical Background" with sub-headings. This will make flow proper.
3. Section 4 is weak and not clear. Authors must add inclusion and exclusion criteria here for choosing or discarding works from Scopus and WoS. Addition of PRISMA diagram will be an added advantage.
4. Open issues and challenges must be there for researchers who will be interested in these technologies.
Author Response
Point 1 -
. Introduction needs to be restructured. You write "extensive research pointed out" but support it with only [2-3]. You come on one para for collaborative roadmapping and another on Blockchain technology. Then Section 2 and Section 3 again given to collaborative roadmapping and blockchain.
In my opinion, good SLRs given complete flow of paper in the introduction section. You must raise areas that you study revealed and come with the contributions of this article. End your introduction with organization.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your feedback. We rewrite the phase to avoid problems like this. We tried to be more precise and direct in the message. In addition, we also revised the entire intro, trying to make it more fluid and restructuring the flow of the objective of the article, the explanation of the problem and the contributions. We reinforced the description at the end of the introduction. Change is in yellow.
Point 2 - Authors can merge section 2 and section 3 into one single section as "Theoretical Background" with sub-headings. This will make flow proper.
Response 2: We merged section 2 and section 3 into a single section. In addition, we removed subsection 2.1. and 3.1. Changes are in red.
Point 3 - Section 4 is weak and not clear. Authors must add inclusion and exclusion criteria here for choosing or discarding works from Scopus and WoS. Addition of PRISMA diagram will be an added advantage.
Response 3: Thanks for the suggestion. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were already in both Figure 1 and the text (page 5). To make it more visible, we changed Figure 1 and we wrote the inclusion and exclusion criteria in a single paragraph. Maybe it wasn't clear, but we were following the PRISMA statement, PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1 shows the PRISMA steps) and PRISMA checklist as Supplementary Material. Now, we are reinforce the PRISMA during the method. Changes are in green.
Point 4 - Open issues and challenges must be there for researchers who will be interested in these technologies.
Response 4: The objtective of Section 7 (research opportunities) is exactly to have open issues and challenges for researchers interested in exploring the topic. To make it clearer, we changed it to research agenda and put the meaning (opportunities, issues and challenges by proposing a research agenda) in the introduction.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
First of all, in the introduction chapter by describing the various departments in the work of innovation interaction leads to the importance of collaborative roadmap, and the deficiency existing in current collaborative roadmap were briefly introduced, then introduces the function and characteristics of block chain, points out that combining block chain and collaborative roadmap for innovation management, but in the end of this chapter's contribution to the article description is not clear, suggest equinoctial detailed narration. Secondly, the overall structure of this paper is complex and the chapters are redundant. For example, there is only one section in the results chapter of Chapter 5. It is good to take this section as the whole chapter, and there is no need to divide it into sections.
Third, the fifth chapter only makes statistics on the quantity and distribution of the investigated literature, without elaborating and summarizing the content.
Fourth, the structure of the picture in the article can not express the content clearly, which makes people confused, such as Figure 1.
Fifth, for a review paper, the second chapter of the paper does not have a standard, clear and reasonable summary of the related technology of collaboration roadmap.
Author Response
Point 1: First of all, in the introduction chapter by describing the various departments in the work of innovation interaction leads to the importance of collaborative roadmap, and the deficiency existing in current collaborative roadmap were briefly introduced, then introduces the function and characteristics of block chain, points out that combining block chain and collaborative roadmap for innovation management, but in the end of this chapter's contribution to the article description is not clear, suggest equinoctial detailed narration.
Response 1: Thank you so much for the great suggestion. We tried to make the objective and contribution of our article clearer: we removed the research question and turned it into an objective. We also add an explanation of the method applied. Changes are in yellow.
Point 2: Secondly, the overall structure of this paper is complex and the chapters are redundant. For example, there is only one section in the results chapter of Chapter 5. It is good to take this section as the whole chapter, and there is no need to divide it into sections.
Response 2:Thanks for your guidance. Your suggestion made us notice that section 6 was not a discussion but a result. In this way, the first change was to add the subsection 5.2. Following the suggestion, we also made changes in the Literature Review section (we put the collaborative roadmap gaps and blockchain as subsections). Changes are in red.
Point 3: Third, the fifth chapter only makes statistics on the quantity and distribution of the investigated literature, without elaborating and summarizing the content.
Response 3: Thanks for your suggestin! It made us notice that section 6 was not a discussion but a result. In this way, the first change was to add the subsection 5.2. Our main focus with "Potentials of Blockchain technology applications" is exactly to explore qualitative analysis. We also added a Table 3 (appendix) to summarize the selected papers. Changes are in purple and red.
Point 4: Fourth, the structure of the picture in the article can not express the content clearly, which makes people confused, such as Figure 1.
Response 4: We appreciate your suggestion. We review the Figure 1 to clarify the method steps according to the PRISMA framework. Changes are in green.
Point 5: Fifth, for a review paper, the second chapter of the paper does not have a standard, clear and reasonable summary of the related technology of collaboration roadmap.
Response 5: We added the Table 1 with a summary of the collaborative roadmap gaps. Changes are in orange.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
It is very good systematic review paper. I enjoyed reading it. Like any scientific study, the article presented for review may be subject to discussion as to the distribution of focus points, the choice of perspective, etc. However, I believe that introducing changes that result from the subjective feelings of the reviewer is a kind of scientific egoism. Therefore, I try to avoid such an approach and propose adopting the article in its present form.
Author Response
Point 1 - It is very good systematic review paper. I enjoyed reading it. Like any scientific study, the article presented for review may be subject to discussion as to the distribution of focus points, the choice of perspective, etc. However, I believe that introducing changes that result from the subjective feelings of the reviewer is a kind of scientific egoism. Therefore, I try to avoid such an approach and propose adopting the article in its present form.
Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for reading and enjoying our manuscript. Kind regards, the authors.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
No more comments for authors. They have done well
