Performance Analysis of University Collaborative Innovation Center Based on BPNN-Dominated K-Means–Random Forest Unsupervised Factor Importance Analysis Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this manuscript, authors aims to construct performance evaluation indicators, and proposes an unsupervised factor importance analysis model based on BPNN dominated K-means and random forest for performance analysis which based on the second-phase construction of collaborative innovation centers in 76 colleges and universities in Jiangsu Province, this  paper constructs. However, I have few observations:

1.       The overall layout of the manuscript need improvement. Sections and subsections are not properly framed for example “heading is missing in section 3.1.2”. If possible fit section 2, 3 and 4 into new sections named material and methods and results and discussion.

2.       Authors are required to elaborate more clearly on the purpose and novelty of their work and add the future scope in the conclusion section.

3.       Performance analysis based on various multi-criteria decision-making techniques and metaheuristics are quite popular nowadays. Authors are required to go through recent references related to various recently developed metaheuristics and their applications in performance analysis to make the reference list exhaustive. For example:

(i)                 Kumar, A., & Pant, S. (2022). Analytical hierarchy process for sustainable agriculture: An overview. MethodsX, 101954.

(ii)               Rawat, S. S., et al. (2022). A State-of-the-Art Survey on Analytical Hierarchy Process Applications in Sustainable Development. Int. J. Math. Eng. Manag. Serv, 7, 883-917.

4.       Please add a subsection clearly articulating the main limitations and wider applicability of your model.

5.       Conclusion must be rewritten to make it more understandable.

6.       Recheck all the captions of figures, equations and tables.

7.       However, the English of the manuscript is readable though I suggest proofreading of the manuscript carefully for grammatical errors.

  However, the English of the manuscript is readable though I suggest proofreading of the manuscript carefully for grammatical errors.

Author Response

see the attached file for the detailed response.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. What is the main question addressed by the research? The research question focuses on the issue of setting performance indicators for mutual cooperation between research centres and universities. The research questions should be clearly specified by the author of the paper.

2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? This is a relevant topic that will certainly have benefits for the management and innovation of the research sector and universities.

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? The use of Neural Network and BPNN tools.

4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered? This is a clear description of the research methodology and its application. The research methodology is not described in the paper and should be completed.

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? Since the research question is not clearly formulated, then it is difficult to look for clear answers in the conclusion.

6. Are the references appropriate? Yes.

7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures. Figures that are difficult to read need to be improved. In particular Figure 4.

Author Response

see the attached file for the detailed response.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

suggested corrections implemented