The Exploration of Skill Gaps and Ecosystem Potential among Estonian Creatives
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript “Exploration of Skill Gaps and Ecosystem Potential among Esto- 2 nian Creatives” is a good and informative study but had some minor corrections. Below are some comments/suggestion for the authors to improve its quality:
- No need to write same affiliation four times for the same affiliation.
- Language should be improvised.
- Abbreviation should write full form once in the manuscript like GDP, EU etc
- In Abstract section methodology of study should be included.
- In Abstract, authors should write at least two sentences about the materials and methods which have been used for this review article and sources that they did use to search for articles.
- Also abstract section should include some conclusive statements.
- Line no. 70-77; no need of this in the manuscript.
- Line 118-119; what author wants to write, what is the meaning of this line.
- Introduction section must include the need and significance of study.
- Conclusions: The conclusions are too general, format according to future aspects. Please make them more specific.
- Carefully read whole manuscript line by line and improve the sentence formation
- Please, add more updated references about the topic in different sections.
- Cross check all references and style of reference according to Journal format, use abbreviation of journal name in reference.
A good english editing is required in whole manuscript.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments. We have now studied all of them and added and removed items. 1. No need to write the same affiliation four times for the same affiliation.We removed the affiliations, but I left the emails. The formatting is the same as the template provides this. 2. Language should be improvised. (see proofreading and language below): Proofreading is provided by the journal, but we also negotiate a language check. We perform after we know if the manuscript is accepted, as if there are further changes, we would need to ask for a new language check. 3. Abbreviations should write in the full form once in the manuscript like GDP, EU etc.:
Abreviation have been opened through the document. 4. In Abstract section methodology of study should be included.
We highlighted the methodology more. 5. In the Abstract, authors should write at least two sentences about the materials and methods which have been used for this review article and sources that they did use to search for articles.: The article is not a literary review but a case study to understand how the creatives see their digital skills gaps and their sustainable values. However, we have added more similar case studies (recent ones) to make it more transparent. 6. The abstract section should include some conclusive statements: We have added two more sentences. 7. Line no. 70-77; no need of this in the manuscript.
These have been taken away, which is a good idea, so we have space to add descriptions suggested by reviewers. 8. Line 118-119; what author wants to write, what is the meaning of this line. This part is a direct quotation. We checked that it is appropriately formatted to represent a direct quotation. So I did not change it as I would modify a direct quotation. 9. Introduction section must include the need and significance of study. We also added a description of the gap we are addressing and why the Estonian case is attractive to others. Lines 57-95 and 108-122. 10. Conclusions: The conclusions are too general and format according to future aspects. Please make them more specific. We added more to the discussion, with future trajectories in lines 852-920. 11. Carefully read whole manuscript line by line and improve the sentence formation. We are working on getting a language check; however, the journal provides proofreading. 12. Please, add more updated references about the topic in different sections. More recent references have been added - they can be seen in the reference list, but if needed, I can list the sources separately for you. 13. Cross check all references and style of reference according to Journal format; use abbreviation of the journal name in reference. Thank you, these are sometimes hard to detect. We rechecked all references. We used Standard Journal Abbreviation (ISO4).
Reviewer 2 Report
First, I would like to say that this manuscript focuses on a very interesting research problem. The article covers the topics included in the main subjects of Sustainability journal and I recommend this to be considered for publication after revision.
TITLE
The article’s title is suitable with the content of the paper and in line with both the text body and the main findings of the research.
ABSTRACT
The abstract is well-designed and briefly expresses the present research, thus being of interest and readable thus capturing the reader’s attention. It presents in an appropriate manner the main research hypothesis, the problem statement, the methods, and the main findings.
KEY WORDS
The key words are appropriate to the present research and are clearly stated.
ORIGINALITY
The article meets a high level of originality argued by the main research theme and the research hypothesis. Furthermore, the originality of the paper is highlighted by the main results of the paper.
The authors construct a well-designed theoretical background closely related to the current specialised literature in the field. A short recommendation I would like to make is stated in the final part of this review form so that it is suitable for sustainability journal.
THE PAPER’S STRUCTURE
The structure of the paper is correct in line with the journal standards and meets the publication requirements considering the paper logic. The objectives seem to be clearly formulated as well as the investigation is drawn. The core argument of the paper illustrates the paper’s relevance and the research originality. The results are clearly expressed and well connected both to the theoretical framework and discussions.
However, the paper lacks information regarding sustainability. Please provide some explainations which parts need to be sustained in your study. Is it creative sustainability in a modern world or others…? This can be included in the early part of the paper.
THE METHODS
The methodological design is appropriate, and the methods fit well to the present investigation. The methods used in the study are well expressed both in the graphical form as well as in the main text of the manuscript.
THE MAIN ANALYSIS
The main research is well designed.
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions fit well summarising the main ideas of the present analysis.
THE GRAPHICAL SUPPORT
The graphical support is well formatted, appropriate illustrating the text content. However, an additional graphic map for the study area would be good as suggested in my recommendation below.
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
I think the English is ok as far as I could see. I enjoyed reading this paper in English and the language seems well, but I think that an opinion of a native English speaker is welcomed. In other words, if the authors used a specialised proofreading service and they could prove this aspect I trust the opinion and the work of this proofread service. On the other hand, I put my trust regarding the English language on the journal editors, but I repeat the language seems well.
RECOMMENDATIONS
I suggest that a short explaination regarding sustainability needs to be included. This is to identify which part of sustainability needs to be addressed in your study whether it is creative sustainability or knowledge ecosystem sustainability? This can be included in the early part of the paper. I also suggest adding a study area map that shows the location of Estonia. So that people will know where Estonia is.
Finally, I recommend the publication of this paper with some minor revision considering the above-mentioned aspects.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Many thanks for the highly constructive analysis. We thank you for the comments and have taken them seriously. Below are the answers to how and where we have improved the manuscript.
RECOMMENDATIONS
I suggest that a short explaination regarding sustainability needs to be included. This is to identify which part of sustainability needs to be addressed in your study whether it is creative sustainability or knowledge ecosystem sustainability? This can be included in the early part of the paper.
We added sustainability throughout the manuscript because we felt it is intertwined, even though it was not promoted by Estonian strategies when we did the data collection, but now it is. The creatives have it in their values and practices embedded already. The added parts are in the beginning, as you advised: lines 57-95,
And later: 768-773, 836-838, 1002-1004 added longer discussion lines 852-920.
I also suggest adding a study area map that shows the location of Estonia. So that people will know where Estonia is.
The suggestion is relevant; all European countries are only known to some readers. We placed the map of Europe and where Estonia in the appendix. We refer to it in the introduction in a footnote. We did not want to point out that some might not know where it is. We have learned that some readers do not like that it is assumed they do not know something.
Reviewer 3 Report
The research aims to explore what kind of skills and tools Estonian creatives are using and/or consider being worthy to obtain and focuses on collaboration manners and attitudes towards cross-sectoral ecosystems. The topic is relevant in the field, nevertheless, they are a number of improvements to be implemented:
- The research paper does provide some scientific literature analysis. However, the research gap needs to be more clearly formulated. Having said that, I encourage the authors to formulate the specific gap addressed by the current research and explain in detail how the two research questions are appropriate to close this gap. Moreover, I would inspire the authors to clarify the particularity of Estonia's case as being worth studying for others (researchers, business, etc.) outside Estonia.
- The authors try to provide an explanation of the background of the research. However, the selection of such countries as the UK, South Korea and the Netherlands as benchmarks for the Estonian case is less clear and appropriate due to cultural, language, economical, etc. differences. I doubt the necessity to include Table I in the research paper.
- The methodology chosen could be considered appropriate, and no further improvements are necessary. The research sample is limited so that one could question the results' significance. I encourage the authors to address this concern and to provide tests that the results gained and conclusions are not biased.
The conclusions are consistent with the evidence presented in the article; I would advise the authors to include the scientific discussion in the last part of the article, discussing if similar or different results were evident in the previous research; as well as adding the conclusions demonstrating the potential implications for researches, business, etc. outside Estonia.
The article is worth publishing as soon as the authors have revised it and implemented the comments mentioned above.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your relevant comments. We have tried to address these to the best of our abilities. Please find our answers below and the manuscript with the improvements in the attachment.
The research paper does provide some scientific literature analysis. However, the research gap needs to be more clearly formulated. Having said that, I encourage the authors to formulate the specific gap addressed by the current research and explain in detail how the two research questions are appropriate to close this gap. Moreover, I would inspire the authors to clarify the particularity of Estonia's case as being worth studying for others (researchers, business, etc.) outside Estonia.
Answer: The comment is relevant and a good suggestion. We added a better description of the gap to the introduction, a more specific description and more references to back it up. We thought we had explained why Estonia is interesting. However, we failed, so we also added a summary of what is interesting in Estonia as a case and why it can be seen to provide ideas for other countries in lines 57-95 and 108-122.
The authors try to provide an explanation of the background of the research. However, the selection of such countries as the UK, South Korea and the Netherlands as benchmarks for the Estonian case is less clear and appropriate due to cultural, language, economic, etc. differences. I doubt the necessity to include Table I in the research paper.
Answer: We added more cases to prove our point (see above), took the table away, and briefly summarised the table describing the similarities and differences. The topic is still challenging for most countries, so they struggle to define the concept.
The methodology chosen could be considered appropriate, and no further improvements are necessary. The research sample is limited, so one could question the results' significance. I encourage the authors to address this concern and to provide tests that the results gained and conclusions are not biased.
Answer: Thank you for a valid point, as qualitative research needs a more precise description. We have added a short description of participatory co-design and the aim of empowerment in it. We hope this clarifies it better – lines 411-418.
The bias is also mentioned now in limitation lines 930-936.
I would advise the authors to include the scientific discussion in the last part of the article, discussing if similar or different results were evident in the previous research, as well as adding the conclusions demonstrating the potential implications for research, business, etc., outside Estonia.
Answer: We also added a scientific discussion, in which new references (another reviewer requested to add more recent references). Previously we aimed to discuss this within an analysis, but we agree it is not a good solution. Thus we have now separated the discussion and limitations after the analysis. We also added our future direction of the study – lines 852-920.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accepted in current form. Minor editing of English language is required
Minor editing of English language required
