Innovation Ecosystems in Hydrocarbon-Based Economies: Opportunities and Challenges

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Ms. Sustainability MDPI

   Title: Innovation Ecosystem in Hydrocarbon-Based Economies: Opportunities and Challenges

   I found the paper to be overall well written and much of it to be well described. Therefore, I am sure that the current review is on a topic of relevance and general interest to the readers of the journal. However, I still recommend a minor revision is warranted. I explain my concerns in detail below

   1. The author needs to review more additional literature related to the topic; more in-depth interpretation and discussion are required.
   2. Figure 1 is better prepared in portrait orientation to attract the reader and make it easy to understand.
   3. When the author discusses Figure 1, it is necessary to add the exact image name according to the destination country's name, for example, Figure (1.a). Norway...,   Figure (1.b) Singapore…, etc.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

1.  

 

Author Response

Dear Our Distinguised Reviewer.

Greetings,

We are very thankful to the reviewer comments and suggestions. We already included all his suggestions and comments in the revised version.

Warmest regards, Hamouda

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is an overview. There is no deep research in it.

The introduction does not present conclusions that take into account the specifics of an innovative economy based on hydrocarbons.

The theoretical analysis is not complete enough. The literature used is common to innovations and innovation systems and does not reflect the specifics of an innovative economy based on hydrocarbons.

Author Response

Dear Our Distinguished Reviewer:

Greetings,

Thank you for these comments designed to improve our paper. We greatly appreciate the time and effort put forth to improve our paper. If any responses are unclear or you wish additional changes, please let us know.

Warmest regards, Hamouda

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper cannot be accepted in the current form and requires a major revision.

1. The required structure is not followed by the authors.

2. The methodology is not sufficiently described. In the abstract over 100 studies are mentioned while in the paper only search result of 10,000 studies is mentioned. There is no mention how many studies were actually used for the preparation of the paper. The references include only 40 positions. The methodology must be described in details.

3. The abstract does not correspond with the title and the whole paper. In the abstract it is not mentioned that hydro-carbon based economies arestudied. In the abstract the only reference to hydrocarbons is "including hydrocarbon processing".

4. There is no point in putting point 1.1.

5. Points 2.2 and 2.3 are too short as separate sections and should be included in 2.1. 

6. Detailed comments are to be found in the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Quality of English is high. I put only one comment in the manuscript relating to language quality.

Author Response

Dear Our Distinguished Reviewer:

Greetings,

Thank you for these comments designed to improve our paper. We greatly appreciate the time and effort put forth to improve our paper. If any responses are unclear or you wish additional changes, please let us know.

Warmest regards, Hamouda

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

 It is clear that the authors have done a great job. The study turned out
 to be interesting. But it is desirable to approach the presentation of
 its results more carefully.
 I recommend the authors to state the purpose of the article more clearly
 so that it is consistent with the title.
 The authors mainly focused on the literary review. This is good, but not
 enough to identify the opportunities and problems of a specific
 innovation ecosystem based on hydrocarbons. The Global Innovation Index
 showed only differences in innovative development between countries.
 I ask the authors to provide detailed explanations about the
 opportunities and challenges facing innovative ecosystems based on
 hydrocarbons in the conclusions section. To make recommendations for
 Qatar and other countries whose economic structure is dominated by the
 hydrocarbon sector.

Author Response

Dear Distinguished Reviewer,

Greetings,

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. We already incorporated all comments and suggestions in the revised manuscript.

Warmest regard, Hamouda

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The new version shows significant improvement of the manuscript. However, I still have to remarks. One is minor but the other relates to an important question of the used material:

1. Line 77: I still wonder if "transactions" is a correct word here. In my opinion it should be "transition" or "transitions".

2. Inconsistency - line 97 you stated that you examined 40 studies but in line 108 it is written "around 40". Such deviation is not scientifically sound.

Author Response

Dear Distinguished Reviewer,

Greetings,

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. We already incorporated all comments and suggestions in the revised manuscript.

Warmest regard, Hamouda

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf