Evaluation of Technological Knowledge Transfer between Silicon Fen Firms and University of Cambridge Based on Patents Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this paper.

The article you present is interesting and gives a good overview of what is happening in Silicon Fen.

I have very little comment to offer, my only concern is that your paper is missing a real conclusion, you propose an extensive discussion, but the standard elements of a conclusion and what comes next are a bit missing.

Another surprise for me was that you don’t use the concept of ecosystem in your paper. I was expecting that, especially looking at those works who highlight the importance of ecosystems activities when it comes to patenting and university / private company interractions

Caviggioli, F., Colombelli, A., De Marco, A. et al. Co-evolution patterns of university patenting and technological specialization in European regions. J Technol Transf (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-021-09910-0

Or

Beaudry C., Burger-Helmchen T., Cohendet P. (2022) Innovation Policies and Practices within Innovation Ecosystems, Routledge

If you decide to write a conclusion may be you could incorporate those elements

Best

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Many thanks to the reviewer for the evaluation of our work and the valuable comments provided, based on which the article was revised.

Comment 1: I have very little comment to offer, my only concern is that your paper is missing a real conclusion, you propose an extensive discussion, but the standard elements of a conclusion and what comes next are a bit missing.

Response 1: Thank you for this comment. The conclusion section was revised to provide a more comprehensive overview of the work, and indicated future possible works. The revision can be seen through lines 567-607.

Comment 2: Another surprise for me was that you don’t use the concept of ecosystem in your paper. I was expecting that, especially looking at those works who highlight the importance of ecosystems activities when it comes to patenting and university / private company interractions.

Caviggioli, F., Colombelli, A., De Marco, A. et al. Co-evolution patterns of university patenting and technological specialization in European regions. J Technol Transf (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-021-09910-0

Or

Beaudry C., Burger-Helmchen T., Cohendet P. (2022) Innovation Policies and Practices within Innovation Ecosystems, Routledge

If you decide to write a conclusion may be you could incorporate those elements.

Response 2: Thank you for this comment. According to this valuable suggestion, the concept of innovation ecosystem was highlighted in the manuscript; lines 490-493 and 568, 569. Also, above mentioned references were cited”

Revisions can be found in lines 490-492; 576-607, and references [98] and [99].

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript title: Evaluation of technological knowledge transfer between Silicon Fen firms and the University of Cambridge based on patents analysis.

Special Issue of JOItmC "Open Innovation in Startups: Competitive Strategies for Differentiation"

Introduction

In the introduction, highlight the benefits of this research to the readers. Further, compare the research with some previous research of a similar kind.

Hypotheses:

Development of hypotheses can be still better. The deduction of hypotheses can be better by having appropriate arguments.

The Sampling of patents: - why this period? 1996-2021. Any reasons or support?  

There are a few spelling mistakes in the manuscript. Example “Tecnological field of Patents” at the beginning of page 8.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Many thanks to the reviewer for the evaluation of our work and the valuable comments provided, based on which the article was revised.

Comment 1: Introduction. In the introduction, highlight the benefits of this research to the readers. Further, compare the research with some previous research of a similar kind.

Response 1: Thank you for this comment. The introduction was revised accordingly. The addition can be found in lines 60-70 in the revised article.

Comment 2: Hypotheses: Development of hypotheses can be still better. The deduction of hypotheses can be better by having appropriate arguments.

Response 2: Thank you for this comment. The Hypothesis section was revised accordingly. The addition can be found in lines 171-174 in the revised article.

Comment 3: The Sampling of patents: - why this period? 1996-2021. Any reasons or support?  

 Response 3: Thank you for this comment. The article was revised to address this point, which can be found in lines 187-189:

“We considered a period of 15 years for our bibliographic study, since it provides a sufficiently long time period to indicate the collaborative and entrepreneurial behavior of firms [56-58].”

Comment 4: There are a few spelling mistakes in the manuscript. Example “Tecnological field of Patents” at the beginning of page 8.

 Response 4: Thank you for this comment. The above mentioned issue was corrected. Also, the article was checked to correct other possible errors/typos.