The Global Design Ranking: A Case Study of Design Awards Phenomenon
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript addressed a interesting topic. Two aspects need to be improved. 1、The Measures are not sufficient and lack of details. In order to ensure the credibility of the results, I suggest a more detailed explanation of the measures here. 2、The emphasis of the discussion is to make the results convincing. Sufficient supporting materials (such as the views of others or research results) were not found in the discussion. The new findings should be ensure that they are credible and reasonable.
Author Response
Responses to the Reviewer #1
We are very grateful for the careful guidance of the reviewers, and your valuable suggestions have inspired us to think more thoroughly about the article. You can see the corrections in the manuscript, which have been tracked and revised. We have also responded to your suggestions by underlining them below.
----------------------------------
The manuscript addressed a interesting topic. Two aspects need to be improved. 1、The Measures are not sufficient and lack of details. In order to ensure the credibility of the results, I suggest a more detailed explanation of the measures here.
Thank you very much for your affirmation and valuable suggestions! We have supplemented Chapter 3 with references to the theoretical underpinnings of the methodology, and have broken down the original four steps into five. More detailed descriptions and illustrations are added on how to derive new evaluation framework, methods and criteria from literature discussion and expert interviews.
2、The emphasis of the discussion is to make the results convincing. Sufficient supporting materials (such as the views of others or research results) were not found in the discussion. The new findings should be ensure that they are credible and reasonable.
Thank you very much for your valuable advice! We added the chapter 2.3., and found a document of Design Competitiveness Ranking (DCR), which has been added to the chapter 2.4.3. The results of this study are also compared with DCR, and are supplemented in section 4.3. In addition, some scholars' opinions are added to Chapter 2 and Chapter 3.
Reviewer 2 Report
The global design ranking could be used a KPI for some design schools. I think this paper should include information who really cares about the design ranking and why design ranking is important ?
Just like University ranking system, number of Nobel prize winners cannot be the only index. It might be a good idea to rephrase the research question as comparison between the current design ranking systems e.g. Reddot design ranking and QS world University ranking such as those from line 268 to line 277. The same comparison can be applied to ranking of design cities.
Based on the above suggestion, I would like to see more literature review and discussion should be focus on the (1) pitfalls of any evaluation and ranking systems?
(2) how these six criteria including international activity, designers level, future trends, historical impact, lifestyle taste, and environmental standards are selected as the criteria ? (3) Do they match with definition of good designs ?
Also, I would like to see more literature review and discussion about the influence of how design award can change the education and learning style for the long term.
Author Response
Responses to the Reviewer #2
We are very grateful for the careful guidance of the reviewers, and your valuable suggestions have inspired us to think more thoroughly about the article. You can see the corrections in the manuscript, which have been tracked and revised. We have also responded to your suggestions by underlining them below.
----------------------------------
The global design ranking could be used a KPI for some design schools. I think this paper should include information who really cares about the design ranking and why design ranking is important ?
Thank you very much for your valuable advice! We have added to the chapter 2.4.1.
Just like University ranking system, number of Nobel prize winners cannot be the only index. It might be a good idea to rephrase the research question as comparison between the current design ranking systems e.g. Reddot design ranking and QS world University ranking such as those from line 268 to line 277. The same comparison can be applied to ranking of design cities.
Based on the above suggestion, I would like to see more literature review and discussion should be focus on the (1) pitfalls of any evaluation and ranking systems?
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion! We have added in the chapter 2.4.2 and 2.4.3.
(2) how these six criteria including international activity, designers level, future trends, historical impact, lifestyle taste, and environmental standards are selected as the criteria ?
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions! We break down the process into five steps. In addition, we have made more detailed supplements in sections 3.1 and 3.2.
(3) Do they match with definition of good designs ?
This is a very enlightening question, thank you very much! The current definition of "good design" is mostly in the description of the object or design itself, and has not yet been extended to people or units (e.g., schools, cities, countries, etc.). However, it seems that the current criteria of "design ranking" can only directly correspond to "good design" in terms of the object or design itself, while the applicability of people or units can perhaps be a topic for subsequent research.
Also, I would like to see more literature review and discussion about the influence of how design award can change the education and learning style for the long term.
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions! We have added section 2.3. to address the impact of the Design Award on business and education.
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall, a very interesting and compelling paper. I would like to see a bit more in terms of the historical aspects; i.e. are there any more 'academic' papers or studies around design competitions—or competitions in general—that the authors could identify to help support their argument? This would strengthen the paper significantly.
I would also strengthen the visuals; the MDS plot is fine, but somewhat confusing. A more simple, clearly articulated visual would be better.
Author Response
Responses to the Reviewer #3
We are very grateful for the careful guidance of the reviewers, and your valuable suggestions have inspired us to think more thoroughly about the article. You can see the corrections in the manuscript, which have been tracked and revised. We have also responded to your suggestions by underlining them below.
----------------------------------
Overall, a very interesting and compelling paper. I would like to see a bit more in terms of the historical aspects; i.e. are there any more 'academic' papers or studies around design competitions—or competitions in general—that the authors could identify to help support their argument? This would strengthen the paper significantly.
Thank you very much for your affirmation and valuable suggestions! We have added the chapter of 2.3. and supplemented the sub-sections of 2.4., especially 2.4.3. A Design Competitiveness Ranking (DCR) has been added. The third chapter also quotes the theoretical basis. The results of this study are also compared with DCR, and are supplemented in section 4.3.
I would also strengthen the visuals; the MDS plot is fine, but somewhat confusing. A more simple, clearly articulated visual would be better.
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions! For the content of MDS, we made a supplementary explanation of figure and text in section 4.2. In addition, we also found that the country order of Table 7. was misplaced, which may also lead to some confusion, and we corrected it.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The emphasis of the discussion is to make the results convincing. Sufficient supporting materials (such as the views of others or experimental results) were not found in the discussion, and comparisons with other research results were also lacking (such as the failure to explain whether the author's own research results were consistent with those of previous studies).
2. The literatures are not sufficient. According to the Grounded Theory, manuscripts should explain the process of coding, clarify which are core concepts and which are categories, and develop new theories.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript had answered all my concern
