Empirical Evaluation of the Impact of Informal Communication Space Quality on Innovation in Innovation Districts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the article is valuable, I have a few comments. I think making the following corrections will raise the scientific value of the article.
Comments:
- I suggest the authors consider changing the set of keywords. A significant proportion of these are included in the title. Changing them will make the article more "visible" to readers,
- My doubts are raised by the main research tool used. The authors' research is about spatial relationships. Failure to take into account the phenomenon of spatial autocorrelation reduces the cognitive value of the analyses conducted. It seems more reasonable to use spatial regression. The occurrence of spatial dependencies contributes to changes in the properties of structural parameters of models estimated by the least squares method. Spatial modelling is intended to improve the specification of the econometric model. I propose to either use spatial regression or explain why it was not used (e.g. due to lack of appropriate data),
- given the topic of the journal, there is a lack of reference to sustainability theory,
- in the conclusion, it is worth relating the results obtained to the results of other authors (similar studies).
- line 208-210 lacks information on how many universities/institutes the experts came from (2?...19?),

Minor:
- spaces are missing before some footnotes (e.g. line 33, 39, 156, 169),
- some figure titles are centred, others aligned to the left,
- in Table 2, standardise the number of decimals (sometimes there are 2, other times 3),
- in lines 267-275 the spaces before the '%' should be removed,
- footnotes do not comply with MDPI publishing requirements. References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text.

Good luck

Author Response

Thank the experts for giving me valuable advice.It has been modified according to the opinions of experts

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, I suggest major changes with several exact recommendations

1) please define Aim in Introduction more clarified

2) improve resolution of Figures

3) Improve literature analysis, suggestions: Vincevica-Gaile et al 2023, Case Study Based Integrated...in sustainability

4) Too long Conclusions

 

Additional:

1. What is the main question addressed by the research? the role of communication for promoting development of innovative districts
2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it
address a specific gap in the field? topic is original, I would say a bit humanitarian, however it adds statistical analysis and therefore is relevant
3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published
material? philosophical part and more holistic outlook
4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the
methodology? What further controls should be considered? it is ok
5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented
and do they address the main question posed? yes, but should be consolidated
6. Are the references appropriate? some amendments from international scientists are encouraged. Suggestions in original review (not personally involved)
7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures. some resolution features might be improved

 

Author Response

Thank the experts for giving me valuable advice.It has been modified according to the opinions of experts

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript has been carefully reviewed, innovation is an important part of urban development. Sustainable development is concerned with the concerns of all stakeholders. Authors should pay more attention to the motivation of the research and the context of the development of new innovation districts. The future of urban development has risks and opportunities for the co-prosperity of manpower, resources, environment and society, which may be neglected by the authors. In addition, this paper shows good application and planning possibilities of space technology, which is worthy of recognition.

Author Response

Thank the experts for giving me valuable advice.It has been modified according to the opinions of experts

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The reviewed article addresses the research of mechanisms concerning the impact of informal communication spaces of different spatial types on innovation and its diffusion. The authors point out that in the modern world, the environment/space in which these innovations are created is increasingly important on innovation.

The article, as a result of the adopted research method, evaluates the impact of different spatial types on innovation and its diffusion.

However, the following points are polemical:

- the lack of a well-defined purpose of the article,

- the not entirely convincing embedding of the studied scientific problem in the literature on the subject (the literature review is multifaceted and rather chaotic),

- reliance in its method on the subjective assessments of those surveyed,

- overinterpretation of some statements, e.g., equating the answers of the surveyed with the impact of the indicated elements of the space on innovation (the fact that the surveyed claimed that a particular space is conducive to communication and the spread of innovation does not at all mean that this is the case),

- lack of a well-developed Discussion, especially in the context of juxtaposing the obtained research results with other similar research results,

- the overly empirical nature of the article, the lack of information on how the presented research affects existing theories relating to the issue under study.

The reviewed article has significant cognitive potential. However, it requires far-reaching improvements.

Author Response

Thank the experts for giving me valuable advice.It has been modified according to the opinions of experts

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I accept the explanations and appraciate the changes. I think the paper is much better in its present form.

Reviewer 2 Report

dear authors

changes are appropriate and paper is ready to be published

Reviewer 4 Report

As a result of the improvements made by the authors, the article has gained clarity and transparency. The authors have taken into account most of the reviewer's comments, highlighted the indicated issues. In its current form, the article is suitable for publication.