European Funds at the Level of the Spanish Autonomous Communities: Is Administrative Communication Discouraging Open Innovation?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The paper describes an analysis of the communication aspects of European financing funds in the Spanish autonomous communities. In my opinion, the general approach of the paper is not correct. Apparently, there is an initial opinion raised (in the form of a starting hypothesis) and they are not the conclusions derived from the analyzes carried out. Initial hypotheses should not be raised in this way, but an objective analysis should be made to reach certain positive or negative conclusions. In the same sense, in the conclusions section of the study, this negative assessment is generalized for all the autonomous communities without indicating which aspects each of them should improve.

In the introduction section the objectives of the study are not stated, and they are not indicated until section 3. Perhaps it would be convenient to describe in the introduction section the general structure of the paper.

Nor should the objectives of the work be defined through the methods to carry them out, that is, the objectives cannot be "compile and review" or "compile and analyze" but the purpose that is intended to be achieved.

The contribution of the paper in terms of method of analysis of the administrative communication of European funds is not presented adequately. It is indicated that an analysis protocol is applied (Line 246) located in Annex 1 (or in Appendix A) but the design of that "protocol" or its validity for the stated objectives is not explained.

Other aspects to improve:

·       Explain in the introduction to the paper what the autonomous communities are in Spain (line 85) so that non-Spanish readers understand these administrative units. To avoid doubts, do not use different terms such as “autonomous regions”, “autonomous communities”, “devolved regions” or “regional administrations” but always the same denomination.

·       Lines 181-184: Put quotation marks around the fragment of Law 15/2014, as is done in other referenced texts.

·       Line 215: Translate the meaning of Grupo Español de Responsables en materia de Información y Publicidad (GERIP).

·       Line 291: Table 2 The meaning of the acronym CAAC is not indicated.

·       Line 357: An execution percentage in the Canary Islands region of 400% is indicated. Is it a typo?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your contributions which we have considered, and which we believe have greatly improved the text. Following your comments, we explain below the provided answers. We hope that they meet your requirements,

Sincerely

Marta Martin

The paper describes an analysis of the communication aspects of European financing funds in the Spanish autonomous communities. In my opinion, the general approach of the paper is not correct. Apparently, there is an initial opinion raised (in the form of a starting hypothesis) and they are not the conclusions derived from the analyzes carried out. Initial hypotheses should not be raised in this way, but an objective analysis should be made to reach certain positive or negative conclusions. In the same sense, in the conclusions section of the study, this negative assessment is generalized to all the autonomous communities without indicating which aspects each of them should improve.

In the introduction section the objectives of the study are not stated, and they are not indicated until section 3. Perhaps it would be convenient to describe in the introduction section the general structure of the paper.

The following paragraph has been added

This paper is structured as follows. In the “Literature review” section we explain the regulatory framework (both European and national) on transparency and dissemination that affects the communication of Structural Funds. In particular, some of the requirements of the Commission and the obligation to develop communication plans for regional operational programs are discussed. The “Objectives” section states goals and hypothesis of the study based on our general assumption that, despite detailed and concrete regulations, there are flaws in the institutional information management in Spain. The “Materials and Methods” section introduces the proposed methodology, with the analysis of some issues of regional operational communication plans and the revision of some communication requirements in official websites of Autonomous Communities. The “Results” section presents empirical findings, which are discussed in the” Conclusion” section.

 

 

Nor should the objectives of the work be defined through the methods to carry them out, that is, the objectives cannot be "compile and review" or "compile and analyze" but the purpose that is intended to be achieved.

DONE: We have redefined the wording of the objectives in a clearer way:

In a context in which Spain is expected to receive more than 34,692 million euros from the EU for ERDF and ESF+, this research focuses on the study of the communication of the Autonomous Communities in these programs. More specifically, the following objectives are proposed: 

A/ To assess levels of access and compliance (with special attention to the budget) of communication plans and strategies of the regional operational programs in the different Autonomous Communities.

 B/ To assess levels of compliance with some European information requirements of the online communication on ERDF and ESF carried out by the Autonomous Communities through their official websites.

The basic starting assumption is that, despite detailed and concrete EU regulations, there are flaws? in institutional information management. Specifically:

H1. There are no clear templates, formats, and access to EU-required Communication Plans and Strategies on European Funds.

H2. There is a disparity in the execution of budgets earmarked for communication so that although money is available for this purpose, not all Autonomous Communities use it consistently and effectively.

H3. Information on European funds is not well developed on some regional websites.

 

 

The contribution of the paper in terms of the method of analysis of the administrative communication of European funds is not presented adequately. It is indicated that an analysis protocol is applied (Line 246) located in Annex 1 (or in Appendix A) but the design of that "protocol" or its validity for the stated objectives is not explained.

Done. The methodology has been explained as follows

To meet our objectives and answer our hypotheses, we started from the website of the Ministry of Labor and Social Economy (https://www.mites.gob.es/uafse/es/comunicacion/index.htm) where the Communication Strategies of the regional Operational Programs are compiled. From this website, questions related to the communication plans were coded by applying an analysis protocol. After the protocol was developed, it was validated using the expert judgment method [45]. Specifically, four experts, two specialists in communication, and two specialists in public grants were asked to give their opinion on the suitability of the protocol. Annex I contain the final protocol.

 

Other aspects to improve:

• Explain in the introduction to the paper what the autonomous communities are in Spain (line 85) so that non-Spanish readers understand these administrative units. To avoid doubts, do not use different terms such as “autonomous regions”, “autonomous communities”, “devolved regions” or “regional administrations” but always the same denomination.

Done. “ Autonomous Communities” is used for all references and this foot not has been added:

In Spain, an Autonomous Community is a territorial entity that, within the current Spanish constitutional legal system, is endowed with autonomy, with its own institutions and representatives and certain legislative, executive, and administrative powers.

• Lines 181-184: Put quotation marks around the fragment of Law 15/2014, as is done in other referenced texts.

Done

• Line 215: Translate the meaning of Grupo Español de Responsables en materia de Información y Publicidad (GERIP).

Done

• Line 291: Table 2 The meaning of the acronym CAAC is not indicated.

Done

• Line 357: An execution percentage in the Canary Islands region of 400% is indicated. Is it a typo?

NO, it is not

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Please find my observations below:

State in the introduction which is the aim of the study and the gap that you fill in the literature.

When using “which”, you have to place a comma before it. Otherwise you should use “that” and no comma is needed.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your contributions which we have considered, and which we believe have greatly improved the text. Following your comments, we explain below the provided answers. We hope that they meet your requirements,

Sincerely

Marta Martin

Please find my observations below:

State in the introduction which is the aim of the study and the gap that you fill in the literature. Done. This paragraph has been added

Communication strategies are crucial to comply with the requirements established by the EU, indeed “Better regulation goals”, and to ensure that companies are aware of calls for proposals and tools and, therefore, that aid can be absorbed. Their analysis and implementation, however, has hardly been addressed. The study of the effectiveness of administrative communication seems essential in a context in which 200 billion euros (to be distributed and implemented between 2021-2027) are expected to reach Spain. The objective of this exploratory study is to review some dimensions related to communication about European Funds in Spanish Autonomous Communities[1] to fill this gap in the literature.

When using “which”, you have to place a comma before it. Otherwise you should use “that” and no comma is needed. Done (except when a preposition before)

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, 

Thank you very much for submitting a very relevant paper. Here are my comments:

1. At the end of the Introduction, please describe the research gap in the existing literature. 

2. Based on the research gap, please state your paper's primary objective. 

3. Please change the section's 2 title to "Literature review."

4.  Before 2.1 (line 100), please insert a short paragraph on the aim(s) of Section 2.

5. Why lines 181-184 are positioned as a new paragraph? The text continues directly from line 180.

6. On page 4, there are some different references, e.g.  "(p. 34)" in line 184; "41, p. 11" in line 191, "p. 9" in line 194,  and "43, p 73" in line 198. 

7. On page 5, I would replace "hypothesis" with "assumption." 

8. In section 4, please describe the analysis method(s) applied. 

Good luck with the publication process.

Best regards,

The Reviewer

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your contributions which we have considered, and which we believe have greatly improved the text. Following your comments, we explain below the provided answers. We hope that they meet your requirements,

Sincerely

Marta Martin

Dear Authors, 

Thank you very much for submitting a very relevant paper. Here are my comments:

1. At the end of the Introduction, please describe the research gap in the existing literature. 
2. Based on the research gap, please state your paper's primary objective. Done, this paragraph has been added:

This paragraph has been added

Communication strategies are crucial to comply with the requirements established by the EU, indeed “Better regulation goals”, and to ensure that companies are aware of calls for proposals and tools and, therefore, that aid can be absorbed. Their analysis and implementation, however, have hardly been addressed. The study of the effectiveness of administrative communication seems essential in a context in which 200 billion euros (to be distributed and implemented between 2021-2027) are expected to reach Spain. The objective of this exploratory study is to review some dimensions related to communication about European Funds in Spanish Autonomous Communities[1] to fill this gap in the literature.

 

3. Please change the section's 2 titles to "Literature review."Done
4. Before 2.1 (line 100), please insert a short paragraph on the aim(s) of Section 2. Done, but in the last paragraph of the introduction to reconcile with the requests also from another reviewer.

The following paragraph has been added

This paper is structured as follows. In the “Literature review” section we explain the regulatory framework (both European and national) on transparency and dissemination that affects the communication of Structural Funds. In particular, some of the requirements of the Commission and the obligation to develop communication plans for regional operational programs are discussed. The “Objectives” section states the goals and hypothesis of the study based on our general assumption that, despite detailed and concrete regulations, there are flaws in the institutional information management in Spain. The “Materials and Methods” section introduces the proposed methodology, with the analysis of some issues of regional operational communication plans and the revision of some communication requirements on the official websites of Autonomous Communities. The “Results” section presents empirical findings, which are discussed in the” Conclusion” section.

 

 

5. Why lines 181-184 are positioned as a new paragraph? The text continues directly from line 180. Corrected
6. On page 4, there are some different references, e.g.  "(p. 34)" in line 184; "41, p. 11" in line 191, "p. 9" in line 194,  and "43, p 73" in line 198.  Changed
7. On page 5, I would replace "hypothesis" with "assumption." Done
8. In section 4, please describe the analysis method(s) applied. Done. The paragraph has been rewritten to make it clearer as follows:

To meet our objectives and answer our hypotheses, we started from the website of the Ministry of Labor and Social Economy (https://www.mites.gob.es/uafse/es/comunicacion/index.htm) where the Communication Strategies of the regional Operational Programs are compiled. From this website, questions related to the communication plans were coded by applying an analysis protocol. After the protocol was developed, it was validated using the expert judgment method [45]. Specifically, four experts, two specialists in communication, and two specialists in public grants were asked to give their opinion on the suitability of the protocol. Annex I contain the final protocol.

In addition, and to respond to our second objective, between August and December 2021, the websites of each of the 17 Autonomous Communities and 2 Autonomous Cities in Spain (Table 1), where information on ERDF and ESF funds is collected, were located. These pages were coded according to the protocol, which includes variables relating to ease of access to content and information on the funds, with special attention to references on how Spain benefits from being part of the EU.

 

 

Good luck with the publication process.

Thanks a lot

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have significantly improved some aspects of the paper by incorporating the recommendations made in the initial review.

Author Response

Thanks a lot for your help.