Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy for Sustainable Development: A Systematic Literature Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents a literature review on Mission Oriented policies (MOIP) with the aim of identifying the drivers for MOIP and sustainability in the Gulf Context.
The paper addresses an intriguing topic by examining the issue of MOIP in an unconventional context. However, it falls short of meeting the necessary standards for publication in a scientific journal.
The paper fails to discuss the connection between the MENA Region, the overall objective, and the literature review. It does not clarify why the authors conducted a literature review or how it informs the specificities of MENA and the Gulf.
The paper neglects to explain the methodology employed by the authors to obtain and isolate their results from the literature review (i.e., drivers...). Furthermore, it does not delve into the obtained results in relation to existing literature or the needs of practitioners. The implications of the results are notably absent from the discussion.
In general, I struggle to comprehend the added value of the paper, which could potentially lie in the linkage and adaptability of MOIP drivers in the MENA region. Unfortunately, beyond the introduction, the paper becomes excessively generic in its content.
The quality of English language is adequate.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your time, careful reading and useful comments that have improved the paper. The paper has been amended accordingly and the parts that have been changed are highlighted in yellow. Please also find below a response to each point.
Comment: The paper addresses an intriguing topic by examining the issue of MOIP in an unconventional context. However, it falls short of meeting the necessary standards for publication in a scientific journal.
Response: The paper outlines two case studies of unfulfilled MOIP in Egypt and Sudan from past MENA experiences. As the GCC is undergoing socioeconomic transformation, we are using hindsight to inform new policy for GCC to apply MOIP with the necessary and sufficient conditions for success (Based on global experience – literature review and real case studies in the 20th century.
Comment: The paper neglects to explain the methodology employed by the authors to obtain and isolate their results from the literature review (i.e., drivers...).
Response: Thank you for this point. More details have now been added in the method section about how the specific results were obtained.
Comment: Furthermore, it does not delve into the obtained results in relation to existing literature or the needs of practitioners. The implications of the results are notably absent from the discussion.
Response: Implications for this study may inform innovation policy in the GCC and even inspire the wider Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region in terms of innovation metrics, energy transitions, innovation ecosystem, public participation, and policy implementation and evaluation. Based on the systematic review and current innovation ecosystems and practices in the GCC, policy recommendations and strategic options are outlined.
Comment: In general, I struggle to comprehend the added value of the paper, which could potentially lie in the linkage and adaptability of MOIP drivers in the MENA region. Unfortunately, beyond the introduction, the paper becomes excessively generic in its content.
Response: This paper seeks to delineate the necessary and sufficient conditions for the successful implementation of MOIP in the MENA region and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), drawing lessons from the best global practices and historical evidence.
Given the ongoing transition of the economic model in the GCC and the MENA region from a welfare state to a market economy, this review contributes to the policy discourse regarding the necessity of developing transformative and agile public policies.
Reviewer 2 Report
I think that the article contributes very well to the theme and offers valuable insight for the further usage. Some minor issues to be considered for correcting/improving:
page 2: "policies as in the case of the US project to land a man on the moon [6]; France [3], the UK 46 [7], and Germany [8]. " It is not clear how France, UK and Germany contribute to the MOIP -theme; what are the cases of these countries?
page 14: Discussion? I would not call this chapter as a discussion. It could be summary as a sub-chapter?
Page 16: GII rankings. The conclusion that these countries have improved a lot in rankings is quite strong. What is interesting is that why in 20 and 21 rankings have lowered but then again raised in 22? Some explanation maybe?
Page 17: "Hitherto, one of the strengths of the GCC has been its lack of community involvement, which allows the government to implement changes relatively quickly..." More like an opinion or question: considering community involvement as weakness (as an opposite to strength), sounds a bit undemocratic (which might be naturally true in these areas). Maybe rephrasing?
Quality is good!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your time, careful reading and useful comments that have improved the paper. The paper has been amended accordingly and the parts that have been changed are highlighted in yellow. Please also find below a response to each point.
Comment: page 2: "policies as in the case of the US project to land a man on the moon [6]; France [3], the UK 46 [7], and Germany [8]. " It is not clear how France, UK and Germany contribute to the MOIP -theme; what are the cases of these countries?
Response: This sentence has been amended and shortened to keep inside word count.
Comment: page 14: Discussion? I would not call this chapter as a discussion. It could be summary as a sub-chapter?
Response: Thank you for this point. The titles have been amended to reflect the paragraphs better.
Comment: Page 16: GII rankings. The conclusion that these countries have improved a lot in rankings is quite strong. What is interesting is that why in 20 and 21 rankings have lowered but then again raised in 22? Some explanation maybe?
Response: Thank you for noticing this point. A note about the impact of the recent covid-19 pandemic has been added by way of explanation.
Comment: Page 17: "Hitherto, one of the strengths of the GCC has been its lack of community involvement, which allows the government to implement changes relatively quickly..." More like an opinion or question: considering community involvement as weakness (as an opposite to strength), sounds a bit undemocratic (which might be naturally true in these areas). Maybe rephrasing?
Response: Thank you for this important point. This has been clarified that this is the opinion of one report.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In the abstract, the authors indicate the purpose of the study. But they emphasize the analysis of literary sources. At the end, the authors note "Based on the systematic review and current innovation ecosystems and practices in the GCC countries, policy recommendations and strategic options are outlined.". In the opinion of the reviewer, it is necessary to pay more attention to the annotations specifically on the practical component research, as well as on the strategies proposed by the authors. It is also necessary to indicate the methodological basis of the research in the abstract. What methods were used, for example, as monographic, analytical, etc. And also justify the need for research, which is clearly stated in the introduction of the article.
In the section "2. Materials and methods" the authors finally describe the technical points of information search, which are known. It is necessary to describe the methodology in more detail from the point of view of non-technical selection of information, from the scientific point of view of the research methodology.
In their conclusion, the authors note, "The GCC region is currently undergoing tremendous social and economic change as it attempts to make the 'leap' from a pre-industrial society to a knowledge-based economy [100]." In this regard, the question arises why countries "jump" from a pre-industrial economy to a knowledge economy, and that there was no industrial economy, what is meant by a pre-industrial economy. Also, it is not clear that in the conclusions there are quotes, or summaries of the authors?
In all the conclusions of the authors, quotations are given, a question arises in this regard. Are these conclusions or statements of fact?
Fully agreeing with the noted authors of directions for making efforts to achieve the goals of sustainable development based on innovative development, human capital, public-private partnership, etc., the main question continues: what is the contribution of the authors? Only in the systematization of various literary sources, which was really thorough and thorough?
What is the scientific novelty of the research? This should be noted in the conclusions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your time, careful reading and useful comments that have improved the paper. The paper has been amended accordingly and the parts that have been changed are highlighted in yellow. Please also find below a response to each point.
Comment: In the abstract, the authors indicate the purpose of the study. But they emphasize the analysis of literary sources. At the end, the authors note "Based on the systematic review and current innovation ecosystems and practices in the GCC countries, policy recommendations and strategic options are outlined.". In the opinion of the reviewer, it is necessary to pay more attention to the annotations specifically on the practical component research, as well as on the strategies proposed by the authors. It is also necessary to indicate the methodological basis of the research in the abstract.
Response: We added two cases of failed MOIP projects in the MENA region as examples from past experiences. Then made Policy recommendations to overcome the historical constraints by applying MOIP in the MENA region to benefit from acknowledging and addressing these identified challenges in future MOIP plans in KSA and other GCC and MENA countries.
We added the following in the abstract to cover the comment on the methodological basis: It does so through a systematic literature review of current studies related to MOIP, according to the PRISMA protocol, extracting the key drivers, enablers, and governance models for innovation policies with directionality. Besides, two historical case studies were analyzed to inform future policies.
Comment: What methods were used, for example, as monographic, analytical, etc. And also justify the need for research, which is clearly stated in the introduction of the article.
Response: Thank you for this point. The abstract has been expanded to elaborate these points. Also, more details have now been added in the methods section about how the specific results were obtained.
Comment: In the section "2. Materials and methods" the authors finally describe the technical points of information search, which are known. It is necessary to describe the methodology in more detail from the point of view of non-technical selection of information, from the scientific point of view of the research methodology.
Response: Thank you for this point. More details have now been added in the method section about how the specific results were obtained.
Comment: In their conclusion, the authors note, "The GCC region is currently undergoing tremendous social and economic change as it attempts to make the 'leap' from a pre-industrial society to a knowledge-based economy [100]." In this regard, the question arises why countries "jump" from a pre-industrial economy to a knowledge economy, and that there was no industrial economy, what is meant by a pre-industrial economy.
Response: This statement was revised and edited to address this comment. We meant hydrocarbon economy not preindustrial. So as to enhance competitiveness and productivity.
Comment: Also, it is not clear that in the conclusions there are quotes, or summaries of the authors? In all the conclusions of the authors, quotations are given, a question arises in this regard. Are these conclusions or statements of fact?
Response: These paragraphs were edited to address this comment.
Comment: Fully agreeing with the noted authors of directions for making efforts to achieve the goals of sustainable development based on innovative development, human capital, public-private partnership, etc., the main question continues: what is the contribution of the authors? Only in the systematization of various literary sources, which was really thorough and thorough?
What is the scientific novelty of the research? This should be noted in the conclusions.
Response: This paper seeks to delineate the necessary and sufficient conditions for the successful implementation of MOIP in the MENA region and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), drawing lessons from the best global practices and historical evidence. We used Hindsight/ foresight and the two case studies and to harness knowledge and lessons learned from unfulfilled MOIP experiences.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors are fruitfully working on these studies in the direction of its improvement.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you very much for your kind feedback and critical reading of our paper. As per your comments, we have added a section in the introduction called “Aims and importance of this research” that clearly outlines what this paper does and why it is important. The discussion has been amended to reflect this section with a conclusion to summarise and bring together the salient points. This has now strengthened the paper making it more cohesive.
As per your second comment, the paper is not part of any special issue.
We hope that the changes are satisfactory and are looking forward to moving to the next stage.
