Evaluating Collaboration in a Translational Research Ecosystem
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to read and comment on your paper entitled " Evaluating Collaboration in a Translational Research Ecosystem". The study aims to evaluates collaboration in a large translational research project related to developing phytotherapy-based cancer treatments.
Introduction:
The introduction is well written and clearly explains the research gap and goals.
A suggestion is to add more recent studies.
Research Background:
Some parts of Research Background should be added in the introduction. It is more a justification of the study than research or theory.
Table 1 is very good. One concern is align the text with the Table 1.
Research Design:
It is necessary more information about how the data were collected and analyzed. It was mentioned Interviews. It is necessary more information about this and about quantitative step.
Please, review this sentence “Qualitative data was analyzed through an interpretative approach, and qualitative data was analyzed via descriptive analysis” (line 221-222)
Results and discussion:
How author(s) formulated, for example, Table 1. Assemble/formation stage at GAT? How were the evidences to formulate this table?
It is necessary more articulation with the different evidences sources. For example, Summary of phases insights is not connected with the previous presented.
Conclusions:
It is very important and interesting the study, but how this could be used by the researchers. For example, it is stated that “We identified several challenges affecting collaboration performance, such as governance, management, processes and operations, leadership, and social and human relationships”. It is very good and complete but how this could be used?
The research could advance more in the field with the results found.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Thank you for your valuable comments to our paper. We have updated our manuscript in order to include the following changes:
- Introduction: Two recent papers (11 and 4) about collaboration assessment were added.
- Research Background: We added a paragraph in the introduction with evaluation models and 3 paragraphs in Research background explaining table 1.
- Research Design: the section “Data collection and analysis” was added with details about how the data were collected and analyzed.
- Results and discussion: new section about data collection responds to how table 1 was developed. Also, we detailed methodological steps to analyze data.
- Conclusions: A paragraph was added on the usefulness of the findings for the design, implementation and adjourn of the ecosystem.
In general, we made several adjustments to deliver a better version of the paper.
Best regards, The Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
All acronyms and abbreviations should be provided with their long form at their first appearance within the text (e.g. Pis, GAT, so on ...)
If in this study is adopted an existing model, please argue on the added value and the novelty of the present study. Moreover, considering it is applied on a single project, please argue on the relevance of the results and the generalizability issues.
In the research design section, please make very clear that it is based on an existing framework, and which (if any) is the original part added in this research. Moreover, should be presented the methods of data collection and analysis.
Text between lines 209 and 225 should have a subtitle
Line 270, 363: it should be used the same referencing style in all the paper. Moreover, for citations, should be also provided the page.
Results and Discussion should be separate sections. In a research paper they have different proposes.
Implications, limitations and directions of future research should be added.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Thank you for your valuable comments to our paper. We have updated our manuscript in order to include the following changes:
- Acronyms were reviewed and adjusted.
- Two paragraphs were added to the conclusions specifying the novelty of the study and the terms of generalizability.
- In section 3 we make more clarity about the selection of the Woodland´s model and in both the introduction and conclusion sections we specified the added value of the study.
- The section “Data collection and analysis” was added with details about how the data were collected and analyzed.
- Section 3.1 “Research purpose and design” was added with text in lines 209 and 225.
- References were adjusted.
- We clarified that the individual development of each CEIF evaluation phase implies different research methods and produces different results, and the specific presentation by phase allows a particular or a general understanding of the process.
- Implications, contributions, limitations and future research was adjusted in introduction and conclusion sections.
In general, we made several adjustments to deliver a better version of the paper.
Best regards, The Authors
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is good prepared.
The research questions or hipothesis should be added.
The research aim should be proposed in abstract and the research Methodology with apropriet methids need to be presented.
The conclusions need to show the impact of the parameters of the research study and show the discussion based on previous studies.
Please correct some phrases (e.g. data center), and check the vocabulary.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Thank you for your valuable comments to our paper. We have updated our manuscript in order to include the following changes:
- Two questions were added to the introduction section.
- The research aim was included in the abstract.
- The section “Data collection and analysis” was added with details about methodology and method.
- Two paragraphs were added in the introduction and conclusion sections on the usefulness of the findings for the design, implementation and adjourn of an ecosystem.
- Implications, contributions, limitations and future research was adjusted in the introduction and conclusion sections.
- Sections 4.6 and 5, includes discussion of results based on previous studies
- In addition, we performed a detailed revision of the manuscript in terms of consistency, grammar, sentence structure, fluency, and typos.
We made several adjustments to deliver a better version of the paper.
Best regards, The Authors
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper was improved and accomplish all the requested suggestion.
Only this sentence should be reviewed "Qualitative data was analyzed through an interpretative approach, and qualitative 253 data was analyzed via descriptive analysis". Is it qualitative in the second sentence?
Reviewer 2 Report
Please review the referencing style according to the MDPI guide for authors
