Exploring Potential R&D Collaboration Partners Using Embedding of Patent Graph
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the paper titled "Exploring Potential R&D Collaboration Partners using Embedding of Patent Graph," address a crucial issue in today's rapidly changing technological landscape – the need for enterprises to identify potential research and development (R&D) collaboration partners to enhance their innovation capabilities. The paper presents a method for discovering such partners through the analysis of patent data, particularly co-owned patents, using a novel approach based on graph embedding and vector representation learning.
The paper begins by highlighting the importance of ambidextrous innovation and knowledge diffusion for enterprises in adapting to the fast-paced technological advancements. It emphasizes the significance of collaboration between enterprises, research institutions, and universities in achieving sustainable innovation, economic growth, and national competence. However, the authors also acknowledge that the effectiveness of such collaborations may diminish over time due to their continuous and iterative nature.
The paper offers several contributions to the field of R&D collaboration and innovation. However, I suggest authors also mention about importance of patent data. Following papers can be used to do this:
-A Durmuşoğlu, ZDU Durmuşoğlu, Remembering Medical Ventilators and Masks in the Days of COVID-19: Patenting in the Last Decade in Respiratory Technologies, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
-A Durmusoglu, ZDU Durmusoglu, Traffic Control System Technologies for Road Vehicles: A Patent Analysis, IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine
In addition to this, I suggest authors to write the assumptions about the timing of these patents considered. I see that the authors do not take the timing of the patent into consideration.
Author Response
Your advice improved our manuscript.
Please see part "Reviewer 1" of the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Need to explain figure B1.
abstract needs to be rewritten and clearly showing the merit of the approach used compared to other methods
conclusion needs extensive review and to be short and to the point, right now, it is vague and verbous
-
Author Response
Your advice improved our manuscript.
Please see part "Reviewer 2" of the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
REVIEW REPORT OF MANUSCRIPT ID: SUSTAINABILITY-2598531
“Exploring Potential R&D Collaboration Partners Using Embedding Of Patent Graph”
The paper focuses on exploring potential R&D collaboration partners through patents co-owned by different stakeholders using patent graph. The proposed method attempts to convert a co-applicant-based graph into a vector using representation learning.
The article may be considered for publication after addressing the following issues.
Major:
11) In Section 4.2, why the authors considered 16 dimension vector? What will be the effect on the results if a higher or lower dimension is used? How change of dimension affects the performance of link prediction?
22) How the value of normalizing constant will be decided in equation (2).
33) The authors claimed that performance of link function with weighted L2 is better than other operators. But results in Table 3 reflect that other operators are either almost same or even better in certain measures. This needs clarification and justified comments or obtained results.
44) The results given in Table 3 are for the proposed approach. These results should be compared with other existing approaches to show superiority of the proposed method.
55) The value of selection diversity in MMR is taken 0.8. What is the reason of using this particular value? What will be the impact if its value is higher and/or lower than this?
66) L439: A reference is needed for claim on this line i.e., “However, it has been pointed out that this practice may have 439 a negative impact on the development of organizations”.
77) L445-49: There are four limitations mentioned of existing research. References should be mentioned that which study has which limitation(s).
88) In Figure B1 of the Appendix, the comparison should be made for each performance measure for different operators. Such graph will be more meaningful.
Minor:
11) Line 172-73 needs to be rephrased to convey proper meanings.
22) L180 “Equation (1):” should be “Equation (1).”
33) L187 “can be calculated 186 through Equation (2):” should be “can be calculated using the following equation”
44) L213-14: “Let us assume that E is ………. Let us also assume that the label of edge between ……….” Can be simply “Let us assume that ………. And the label of edge between ………….”
55) L220: “….. coefficient is presented in Equation (4):” should be “coefficient is presented in the following equation.”
66) L224: “The Adamic–Adar score is presented in Equation (5):” should be “The Adamic–Adar score is presented in the following equation.”
77) L228: “……..link prediction is presented in Equation (6):” should be “…….link prediction is presented in the following equation.”
88) L271-72: “……..Thus, our approach samples neighbors of ? and ? to maintain the relationship with co-applicants.” Here both are ?. Is it justified?
99) L280: “……in Equation (8):” should be “…..in Equation (8).”
110) L307: “…….is as presented in Equation (10):” should be “……is as presented in Equation (10).”
111) The manuscript should be written in present or past. The current version of paper is a mixture of both that needs to be rectified.
As mentioned in my comments
Some sentences need to be rephrased for clear understanding.
The manuscript should be written in present or past. The current version of paper is a mixture of both that needs to be rectified.
Author Response
Your advice improved our manuscript.
Please see part "Reviewer 3" of the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have worked on improving the paper. The paper may be accepted for publication after the following corrections.
1- The authors said that they were unable to decide the number of dimensions and this is the limitation of their study. It should be mentioned in the paper in Section 5.2.
2- In Table 3, still the boldface best values are not justified. Actually boldface should be used for the best result with a particular method.
3- Regarding the justification of value of MMR, I can’t see the author’s stance on their mentioned lines that is L311-313.
Author Response
We agree with all of the reviewers' advice. Their advice improved our manuscript.
Response to Reviewer
- The authors said that they were unable to decide the number of dimensions and this is the limitation of their study. It should be mentioned in the paper in Section 5.2.
→ Our limitation was added to lines 490-491 of Section 5.2.
- In Table 3, still the boldface best values are not justified. Actually boldface should be used for the best result with a particular method.
→ In Table 3, the boldface content was justified.
- Regarding the justification of value of MMR, I can’t see the author’s stance on their mentioned lines that is L311-313.
→ In lines 313-315, the information about value of MMR has been modified.
Thank you for your consideration of our manuscript.
We look forward to hearing from you.
