Knowledge Transfer in Higher Education Institutions Focused on Entrepreneurial Activities of Electronic Instrumentation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for the interesting manuscript. Some recommendations:

1. It will be beneficial for the readers if the research aims/questions are spelt out explicitly.

2. It is unclear how the findings support the research aims/questions. 

3. It will be useful to highlight the significance of this study by including the limitations of the study as well as the possible future study. 

4. It will be great if it could be more obvious to the readers to what extent this study is going to help enhancing teaching and learning experiences in terms of strengthening graduate outcomes (i.e., employability).

Look forward to the revised manuscript. 

Author Response

Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 1) attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is interesting. I suggest that in the abstract you indicate which methodology was used to carry out the study, it seems to me that a case study would be appropriate.

Since the study is very descriptive of the case study, I suggest reviewing and including literature that discusses the topics indicated in the title. Some literature you may want to consider is:

M. Portuguez Castro, C. Ross Scheede and M. Gómez Zermeño, "Entrepreneur profile and entrepreneurship skills: Expert’s analysis in the Mexican entrepreneurial ecosystem," 2020 International Conference on Technology and Entrepreneurship - Virtual (ICTE-V), 2020, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/ICTE-V50708.2020.9114372.

I think it is best to place section 2 of the context before the methodology.

Indicate under what methodological approach the study was conducted, I suggest proposing a case study. And indicate how the evidence was obtained.

Support the conclusions with the literature found.

Author Response

Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 2) attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I would like to share a great deal of appreciation for the coffers of the authors for taking up their pens for this unique topic. The authors have made a comprehensive analysis of the representation of the importance of knowledge management. Their treatment of the subject is meaningful, logical and comprehensive.

Along with the points of appreciation, the authors will heed the improvement of the article if carried out the suggestion.

1.     The title of the manuscript should be revised as it is very lengthy. It must be brief and easily understandable to the readers.

2.     The manuscript has to be thoroughly checked for punctuation errors, grammatical mistakes and sentence structure formation.

3.     In the abstract section, the authors must briefly note the study's aim, methodology adopted, and results obtained.

4.     A separate section for a literature review could help the readers understand the overall significance of the study and also aids in highlighting the novelty of the present study. Hence, the authors are asked to include a literature review.

5.     There are a lot of bulleted points in the manuscript, they can be paraphrased.

6.     The discussion section can be included prior to the conclusion section. The discussion section should discuss the present study's findings with existing studies' results.

7.     There are tables in the conclusion section. The tables can be removed, and the findings of the study can be summarized here.

8.     The authors may include the following references that are related to the present research.

·       Nawaz, N., Durst, S., Hariharasudan, A., & Shamugia, Z. (2020). Knowledge management practices in higher education institutions - A comparative study. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 22(2), 291-308. doi:10.17512/pjms.2020.22.2.20

·       Ingalagi, S. S., Nawaz, N., Rahiman, H. U., Hariharasudan, A., & Hundekar, V. (2021). Unveiling the crucial factors of women entrepreneurship in the 21st century. Social Sciences, 10(5) doi:10.3390/socsci10050153

·       Rahiman, H. U., Nawaz, N., Kodikal, R., & Hariharasudan, A. (2021). Effective information system and organisational efficiency. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 24(2), 398-413. doi:10.17512/pjms.2021.24.2.25

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 3) attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper is well written but I have noticed on several occasions statements that need academic support and references. The paper is the 30-year course of an academic unit which is quite interesting but according to my opinion lacks to support the argument of knowledge transfer. I align with the statement that the equipment acquired and the organization achieved, connect with Knowledge Τransfer, nevertheless a theoretical model of knowledge transfer could be used in this direction. The SARTI-UPC is a great paradigm that should be placed under a theoretical framework.

Please in cases noticed in the attached file, add the references, and also I would suggest galvanizing the scientific soundness of the paper with a theoretical model, to prove the extent of Knowledge Transfer.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 4) attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

General overview:

The manuscript entitled Thirty years of knowledge management in electronic instrumentation. An entrepreneurial agenda that combines: teaching, research and technology transfer towards society presents an interesting, less common approach to scientific research, based on the analysis of specific contexts and situations, more like a reporting.

The subject considered by the authors in the current research is one of increasing importance, the results obtained arousing the attention and interest of the audience.

The title attracts the reader’s attention and reflects the actual content of the article, while also comprising key terms that could be easily found during an intelligent search.

The obtained results are well presented, discussed in light of certain evidences, and credible. At the same time, the usage of tables is useful in presenting the analysis' main findings. 

Recommendations:

- A detailed description of the research methodology related to the current article is highly recommended. If considered suitable, the authors can mention and detail some aspects such as: the research question, the research hypotheses, etc..

- In the current format of the paper, a probably unintentional error could be observed, related to the title of table 13 (Table 13. PAR points SARTI, UPC and School for the period 1996-2019.), which is placed on a separate page from the table itself.

- It is recommended to verify the spacing between the rows, as this must be uniform throughout the entire paper. For example, the spacing seems different among the lines 785-797, but this aspect must be checked within the editable document.

- The section intended to present the conclusions could be improved. Also, the Conclusions section seems to end unexpectedly, which gives the audience the impression that it is not completed.

- If possible, the authors should also provide a concise viewpoint related to the limitations of the current study. Awareness of the limitations of research is a strong point of it, as it lays the foundations for any possible future work.

- Several discrepancies were observed between the present paper and required template of the journal. Therefore, it would be advisable for the author/s to review the structure and the design of the specific parts within the manuscript (e.g. some of the references format etc.).

Author Response

Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 5) attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for heeding the recommendations.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. 

Following your suggestions and the editor's comments here we attached the new version of the paper.

Thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have revised the manuscript well, as suggested. However, I recommend a slight change in the title as follows, 

Existing Title: Thirty years of knowledge management in electronic instrumentation. An entrepreneurial agenda for teaching, research and technology transfer.

Recommendation: Thirty years of knowledge management in electronic instrumentation – A  entrepreneurial agenda for teaching, research and technology transfer

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. 

Following your suggestions and the editor's comments here we attached the new version of the paper, where the title has been improved.

Thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The cover letter was quite explanatory. There are some methodological issues but overall, the paper was significantly improved. 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. 

Following your suggestions and the editor's comments here we attached the new version of the paper.

Thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf