Review of Korean Imitation and Innovation in the Last 60 Years
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper presents a history of the evolution of South Korea's domestic technological capabilities. The discussion is historically interesting and the facts presented, as far as I can tell, all contribute towards telling a coherent story. There are three main areas of improvement that I can see.
- There is already so much research on Korea's technological trajectory. See, for instance, the works of Keun Lee (Lee, K., & Lim, C. (2001). Technological regimes, catching-up and leapfrogging: findings from the Korean industries. Research policy, 30(3), 459-483 and Lee, K. (2013). How can Korea be a role model for catch-up development? A ‘capability-based’ view. Achieving development success: Strategies and lessons from the developing world, 25(34), 1-24.) and other authors. This then begs the question of what this paper adds to the body of literature. One potential niche area for this paper is to properly explain how the new timeline that it proposes offers new insight compared to what we already know.
- In discussing the technology policy of Korea, mention needs to be made of how the policies were institutionalised. For example, KISTEP has played an important role in technology policy and planning in the country. There must be some other institutional organisations like KISTEP that the authors can mention to highlight how Korea developed over time.
- R&D and other forms of STI related funding are critical for technological development at the national level. Although the authors already discuss these in different parts of the paper, a coherent section that discusses in detail how funding commitments also evolved would be a great addition to the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the opportunity of reading and reviewing your manuscript. It addresses the topic of the Korean model of innovation. The paper is not focused on any sustainability issue, therefore I am not convinced it fits the journal scope. Moreover, I am not convinced that the paper is really a ”review paper”, given the limited number of references, I suppose it is more a opinion paper. Anyway, I have the following suggestions for improving the manuscript:
1.include the issue of sustainability in your paper
2.add research questions/research topics in your investigation
3.try to create a conceptual model for your research
4.try to provide more applications for the model, including references to other countries and/or different times, so that the model can be used for wider contexts
5.make use of vizualisation tools to enhance the readability of your paper
6.make more reference to limitations, possible further directions for investigations etc.
Good luck!
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is very interesting and I enjoyed reading it, with a very acceptable historical and retrospective approach. However, I have some doubts that it is a scientific article since the contribution to the theory was not concretized. Basically, it is a report with little or no exploration of the conceptual aspects and theoretical conclusions that may be of interest to other researchers in other parts of the world.
In this sense, I would suggest the inclusion of a short theoretical approach summarising the theoretical framework on which the data analysis is based, as well as the inclusion of a section in the conclusions with the theoretical implications of the study carried out.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I thank the authors for taking the comments seriously and revising accordingly. A minor change is however required to Figure 1. It has a red legend marker for policy but there are no red markers on the figure itself.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for providing the revised version of your manuscript. The paper has been improved, but there are still revisions that can be performed. Actually my suggestions were only partially followed, so please take a look on them once again.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I'm not satisfied with the responses and changes. They are totally superficial and reveal a distance from the theory. I suggest that the author consult other articles to see the sections 'discussion' and 'theoretical contributions' to see what is necessary to do regarding the topics I wrote.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
.
