arg_1
stringlengths 4
5.08k
| round_1
float64 2
8
⌀ | ann_1
float64 1
2
⌀ | arg_2
stringlengths 8
2.19k
| round_2
float64 1
7
⌀ | ann_2
float64 1
2
⌀ | annotation_name
stringclasses 131
values | is_attacks
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
This should change to “to manage the risk of human factors or to risk management of human factors”.
| null | null |
The paper is on the one hand quite verbose, but with respect to the peer review incomplete. Possible risks in peer review are many more than the ones listed in Table 3.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030125_boyarkin
| 0 |
I have tried to accomodate your comments to the best of my ability.
| null | null |
The paper can become stronger if it limits itself to the Peer Review Ring Incident and will look at the various aspects of that scenario including risk reducing measures.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030125_boyarkin
| 0 |
I have tried to accomodate your comments to the best of my ability.
| null | null |
It didn't become clear to me as a reader where the specific results of the 13 steps of the CIRA application are and where these are described. What are the conclusions about the root cause? Or are there multiple root causes? And what definition of root cause is used?
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030125_boyarkin
| 0 |
Kind regards, Gaute Wangen Second Round of Evaluation Round 2: Despite the article even became longer, the line of thought is now clear.
| null | null |
there is not enough explanation about the CIRA and the person(s) who developed this method. Also there is not enough clarification and elaboration on the differences of your work on CIRA and your customizations comparing to the original methodology.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030125_boyarkin
| 0 |
I believe you mistakenly have the caption of figure 1 in here.
| null | null |
There are some typos, punctuations and grammatical errors in the paper,
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030125_boyarkin
| 0 |
You brought up a very interesting topic/subject of research in this study/paper, which I believe it is of interest and use to many journals for their peer review process.
| null | null |
There are some consistency issues in your writing. This does not look professional in scientific papers.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030125_boyarkin
| 0 |
Round 2: Author Response to Reviewer 3 Dear reviewer, Thank you for the read-through of my manuscript.
| null | null |
There is a need for some editing; e.g. grammatical and punctuation corrections, elements in the text.
| 3 | 2 |
admsci5030125_boyarkin
| 0 |
The main contribution of the paper and its deliverable are described.
| null | null |
Given the authors stated goal of promoting the CIRA technique and approach to demonstrating its uses, I would recommend re-formatting the paper as a pedagogical tool. Rather than claiming to validate the method, focus on a detailed step by step examination of its implementation using a known outcome.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030125_makarova
| 0 |
As an editor I would think twice if a young scientist whom I don't know offers her./himself as a reviewer and I would certainly ask for recommendations.
| null | null |
The paper is on the one hand quite verbose, but with respect to the peer review incomplete.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030125_makarova
| 0 |
R5 Round 1: Author Response to Reviewer 3 Dear Reviewer 3, Thank you for taking the time to review my work and provide very good comments on my work.
| null | null |
The paper can become stronger if it limits itself to the Peer Review Ring Incident and will look at the various aspects of that scenario including risk reducing measures.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030125_makarova
| 0 |
I have included all your suggested changes together with a major spellcheck.
| null | null |
What are the conclusions about the root cause? Or are there multiple root causes? And what definition of root cause is used?
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030125_makarova
| 0 |
The three dots represent an incomplete sentence.
| null | null |
Also there is not enough clarification and elaboration on the differences of your work on CIRA and your customizations comparing to the original methodology.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030125_makarova
| 0 |
I believe you mistakenly have the caption of figure 1 in here.
| null | null |
There is a need for some editing; e.g. grammatical and punctuation corrections, elements in the text.
| 3 | 2 |
admsci5030125_makarova
| 0 |
In both cases, Principle-Agent assumptions apply, but not because both are based on for-profit assumptions.
| null | null |
the third sector, its definition and description is missing. I would not have thought of this as a major issue unless Evers and Laville (2004) The third sector in Europe, Edward Elgar, spesifically discuss whether cooperations are defined within or outside the third sector. Maybe taken for granted here? The least we should expect is a definition.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
Round 1: Author Response to Reviewer 3 I copied and pasted the reviewer commentary, below.
| null | null |
the case description and analysis is based only on media accounts - no actual first hand information to inform the analysis. I find this less than satisfying. It should be possible to interview a few key individuals about the case to make sure the medis picture is corrected where this is needed. Media does not always get it right. There is not enough evidence to prove anything about CEC.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
There is not enough evidence to prove anything about CEC.
| null | null |
I also have problems with the depth of the discussion, and I feel the conclusion does not match the promises of the abstract.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
I do not agree with the author for several reasons.
| null | null |
Figure 1 text overwrite part of the figure, and there should be comments on how this is different from a general structure for a private sector company (if you look at stakeholders as shareholders)
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
I do not expect the complete picture, but should have comments on limitations and to what degree the conclusions and learnings are possible to generalize.
| null | null |
Bottom of page 9: Missing reference to Co-operative principles by Rochdale Society.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
Your comments have made this paper significantly better.
| null | null |
USA context concerning cooperatives (upper half page 10) should be highlighted even more for readers to be able to compare to their own context (for instance in Europe)
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
The text itself is now almost finished, I only have a few minor comments: -
| null | null |
The cooperative firm removes adversarial aspects of market contracting (page 11) - what adversarial aspects?
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
Thanks so much for your thoughtful commentary!
| null | null |
are references 27 and 33 used in the text? (could not find them) Good luck in further research and writing on this subject.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
There is, however, some common practices, but not for the reasons described.
| null | null |
The literature part is improved by changing the headline, putting it in the right setting. The change illustrates how headlines can change the apperance of the text contents. However, I cannot see how chapter 2.2. is a sub-theme under the Ostrom Principles? If they are - the connection need explainnig. If they are not, the main headling Chapter 2 should be reformulated again.
| 3 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
Effective governance in nonprofit organizations: a literature based multiple stakeholder approach, European Management Journal, 32, 2: 223-243.
| null | null |
I still miss a source reference at the bottom of page 9 (Rochdale Society).
| 3 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
The style is more journalistic and free opinion than rigourous research.
| null | null |
On top of page 11 there is still no examples of adversarial effects removed by co-operative.
| 3 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
The basic premise of this article is good: the application of Ostrom's design principles as a way of analysing / evaluating governance in third sector organisations is quite innovative, particularly combined with a discussion of third sector / cooperative governance principles.
| null | null |
The comments added in the beginning of Chapter 3 on methodology are important and improves the text a lot. The author openly acknowledges that the basis for a complete picture is lacking. I do not expect the complete picture, but should have comments on limitations and to what degree the conclusions and learnings are possible to generalize.
| 3 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
), Nonprofit Governance: Innovative Perspectives and Approaches.
| null | null |
Conclusion: middle of page 16: "we cannot know the motivations behind.." Have you tried to talk to them? I believe it is possible to get to know.
| 3 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
To address these subtlies see: Turnbull (2002) A New Way to Govern Cornforth (2004) The Governance of Associations and Mutuals: A Paradox Perspective Ridley-Duff (2007) Communitarian Perspectives on Social Enterprise
| null | null |
Low on page 16: "The ownership becomes absentee, ..." This is in the case of co-operative?
| 3 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
Just as the wealthy entrepreneur seeks to control the private enterprise through shareholdings, so the wealthy philanthropist seeks to control the non-profit enterprise through trust law.
| null | null |
Furthermore, there is no discussion of principal-agent literature in a third sector context (see, for example, Jegers, 2009), which is quite surprising since the proposition to go beyond the traditional principal-agent literature is one of the main ideas of the manuscript.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
Given the case study, I would focus on the governance of co-operatives (Cornforth, 2004).
| null | null |
Furthermore, attempts have already been made to broaden the principal-agent approach in nonprofit organizations (Ben-Ner et al., 2012; Van Puyvelde et al., 2012, Coule, 2015), leading me to the question what this manuscript actually adds to the literature.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
R4 Good luck in further research and writing on this subject.
| null | null |
In the introduction, the author also mentions underdeveloped modes of stakeholder governance in the third sector. I do not agree with this view. Several stakeholder governance frameworks for third sector organizations have already been developed in the literature (Young, 2011; Van Puyvelde et al., 2012; Wellens and Jegers, 2014).
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
Certainly, some description of the process by which the case study was developed (sources used, data collection techniquies, analysis techniques) are needed to be publishable.
| null | null |
The author uses “stakeholder-controlled firm”, “third sector organizations”, “nonprofit organizations”, “social enterprise”, and “co-operative” without clearly defining these types and mentioning which nonprofit type is actually the focus of the study.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
The author openly acknowledges that the basis for a complete picture is lacking.
| null | null |
I am also not convinced by the definition of co-operatives mentioned in the paper.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
METHODOLOGY This is weak, perhaps too weak for an academic paper.
| null | null |
Furthermore, given that the world of third sector organizations is very rich and heterogeneous, one should be careful by discussing third sector organizations in general, especially since the case study seems to focus on co-operative enterprises. Instead of being vague and using a mixed terminology, the manuscript should clearly distinguish which nonprofit type is the subject of the paper, and be very careful in generalizing the findings of this study to third sector governance, which mistakenly happens in the conclusion (p. 15). Given the case study, I would focus on the governance of co-operatives
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
Furthermore, attempts have already been made to broaden the principal-agent approach in nonprofit organizations (Ben-Ner et al., 2012; Van Puyvelde et al., 2012, Coule, 2015), leading me to the question what this manuscript actually adds to the literature.
| null | null |
The literature review is completely missing.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
The governance of cooperatives and mutual associations: A paradox perspective.
| null | null |
The literature review is completely missing.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
COMMENT #1 This is a significantly improved version of the manuscript.
| null | null |
Given the aforementioned comments, I would advise the author to revise the paper by focusing on the governance of nonprofit associations / co-operatives.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
COMMENT #3: On top of page 11 there is still no examples of adversarial effects removed by co-operative.
| null | null |
I believe that Cornforth’s paper (2004) might be a good starting point.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
Given the aforementioned comments, I would advise the author to revise the paper by focusing on the governance of nonprofit associations / co-operatives.
| null | null |
In addition, a more extensive literature review and comparison with previous principal-agent literature and stakeholder governance models (especially Van Puyvelde et al., 2012 and Coule, 2015) may give the manuscript a more solid theoretical foundation. As such, applying the idea of the Ostrom design principles to nonprofit governance and illustrating this with a case study may more clearly show the contribution of the manuscript to the current literature.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
(2012) and the idea that is necessary to capture the broader stakeholder environment in a democratic way is also not new (Coule, 2015).
| null | null |
The basic premise of this article is good: the application of Ostrom's design principles as a way of analysing / evaluating governance in third sector organisations is quite innovative, particularly combined with a discussion of third sector / cooperative governance principles.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
I would not have thought of this as a major issue unless Evers and Laville (2004) The third sector in Europe, Edward Elgar, spesifically discuss whether cooperations are defined within or outside the third sector.
| null | null |
The characterisation of third sector governance is too crude. For example, the third sector itself can be seen as diverse with philanthropic, mutual, cooperative and association sub-sectors. The comments at the start of the literature review might apply to foundations and charities, but are less true of association and mutuals (let alone cooperatives). Also, where there are accounting regulations (like SORP), there are mechanism that keep associations and charities accountable to their donors.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
The abstract of the manuscript mentions that dominant modes of third sector organizational governance adhere to a narrow principal-agent orientation.
| null | null |
Given the inclusion of Coule's paper, I would have already expected more sensitivity to divisions unitary and pluralist theories of governance but by reviting this (and reading Turnbull's Cornforth's and Ridley-Duff's precursor to Coule's work), this should be adequately addressed.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 44(1): 75-97.
| null | null |
Secondly, I just can't agree that third sector governance is derived from for-profit principles. It is - mostly - derived from philanthropic principles (or mutual principles inside the social economy). There is, however, some common practices, but not for the reasons described. Just as the wealthy entrepreneur seeks to control the private enterprise through shareholdings, so the wealthy philanthropist seeks to control the non-profit enterprise through trust law. In both cases, Principle-Agent assumptions apply, but not because both are based on for-profit assumptions. These apply in both cases because funding is sought from wealthy providers with the power to frame laws that require their investees to use the money for the purposes stimpulated by them. In the social economy (associations, mutuals and cooperatives) the legal structures and accountabilities are different (and are captured well in the paper). Associations, mutuals and cooperatives, however, are not dependent on the patronage of the rich, but the patronage of the many, and their mass member legal structures and accountability mechanisms reflect this.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
The text itself is now almost finished, I only have a few minor comments: -
| null | null |
This is weak, perhaps too weak for an academic paper. Certainly, some description of the process by which the case study was developed (sources used, data collection techniquies, analysis techniques) are needed to be publishable. The use of media sources, while not ideal, might be adequate if the author(s) can show systematic and comprehensive collection of them. However, the credibility of the paper and findings would be enormously enhanced is some primary interview data could be collected and presented. Is there a way to interview members who participated in action (or access sources written by them)?
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
The governance of cooperatives and mutual associations: A paradox perspective.
| null | null |
The framework for this section exists but feels a bit superficial and under-developed. I think it needs linking back to the findings more clearly and to be elaborated and slightly more length (cut some literature if needed to stay within the word length limits).
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
COMMENT #6: Low on page 16: "The ownership becomes absentee, ..." This is in the case of co-operative?
| null | null |
Lastly, the discussion and conclusions need to stick to contributions to theory / research practice and refrain from commenting on wider issues without adequate justification. Stick to commenting on the usefulness and value of ODPs, and draw out any theoretical contributions regarding the design principles themselves, or their value as a theoretical perspective for governance research. Some well grounded comments on their use in other governance research are merited right at the end.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
Nonprofit governance research: Limitations of the focus on boards and suggestions for new directions.
| null | null |
I do not understand the purpose of the paper.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
In addition, a more extensive literature review and comparison with previous principal-agent literature and stakeholder governance models (especially Van Puyvelde et al., 2012 and Coule, 2015) may give the manuscript a more solid theoretical foundation.
| null | null |
The author is mixing up several concepts and ignore the abundant literature on governance in nonprofits not dealing with the agency theory.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 40(4): 608-633.
| null | null |
The style is more journalistic and free opinion than rigourous research.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
The author openly acknowledges that the basis for a complete picture is lacking.
| null | null |
Public enterprises, third sector cooperatives are all mixedup.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
Similarly, in the introduction, it is stated that governance research on third sector organizations predominantly fixates analysts on the board-management dynamic.
| null | null |
The conceptual framework is not clearly presented and I do not see what are the contributions except some free statements at the end not really related to the analysis.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_devetyaro
| 0 |
However, a solid foundation for this argument is missing.
| null | null |
the third sector, its definition and description is missing. The third sector in Europe, Edward Elgar, spesifically discuss whether cooperations are defined within or outside the third sector.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
Furthermore, attempts have already been made to broaden the principal-agent approach in nonprofit organizations (Ben-Ner et al., 2012; Van Puyvelde et al., 2012, Coule, 2015), leading me to the question what this manuscript actually adds to the literature.
| null | null |
the case description and analysis is based only on media accounts - no actual first hand information to inform the analysis.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
Is there a way to interview members who participated in action (or access sources written by them)?
| null | null |
I also have problems with the depth of the discussion, and I feel the conclusion does not match the promises of the abstract.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
R8 Note that the paper no longer claims this to be a case study, and instead positions itself as a discussion paper, performing a secondary archival analysis of media accounts.
| null | null |
Figure 1 text overwrite part of the figure, and there should be comments on how this is different from a general structure for a private sector company (if you look at stakeholders as shareholders)
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
Round 1: Author Response to Reviewer 1 I copied and pasted the reviewer commentary, below.
| null | null |
Bottom of page 9: Missing reference to Co-operative principles by Rochdale Society.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
Some well grounded comments on their use in other governance research are merited right at the end.
| null | null |
USA context concerning cooperatives (upper half page 10) should be highlighted even more for readers to be able to compare to their own context (for instance in Europe)
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
As such, applying the idea of the Ostrom design principles to nonprofit governance and illustrating this with a case study may more clearly show the contribution of the manuscript to the current literature.
| null | null |
The cooperative firm removes adversarial aspects of market contracting (page 11) - what adversarial aspects?
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
Introducing the Ostrom Design Principles: From Unitarist to More Pluralist Governance Arrangements 2.2.The Institutional Design of the Co-operative Institutional Model COMMENT #2: I still miss a source reference at the bottom of page 9 (Rochdale Society).
| null | null |
are references 27 and 33 used in the text? (could not find them) Good luck in further research and writing on this subject.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
Certainly, some description of the process by which the case study was developed (sources used, data collection techniquies, analysis techniques) are needed to be publishable.
| null | null |
However, I cannot see how chapter 2.2. is a sub-theme under the Ostrom Principles? If they are - the connection need explainnig. If they are not, the main headling Chapter 2 should be reformulated again.
| 3 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
Second, I note in the paper that I am not making the claim that the co-operative model is part of the third sector.
| null | null |
I still miss a source reference at the bottom of page 9 (Rochdale Society).
| 3 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
Effective governance in nonprofit organizations: a literature based multiple stakeholder approach, European Management Journal, 32, 2: 223-243.
| null | null |
On top of page 11 there is still no examples of adversarial effects removed by co-operative.
| 3 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
Young DR. (2011).The prospective role of economic stakeholders in the governance of nonprofit organizations.
| null | null |
The author openly acknowledges that the basis for a complete picture is lacking. I do not expect the complete picture, but should have comments on limitations and to what degree the conclusions and learnings are possible to generalize.
| 3 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
The style is more journalistic and free opinion than rigourous research.
| null | null |
Conclusion: middle of page 16: "we cannot know the motivations behind.." Have you tried to talk to them? I believe it is possible to get to know.
| 3 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
The two major issues are: - the third sector, its definition and description is missing.
| null | null |
Low on page 16: "The ownership becomes absentee, ..." This is in the case of co-operative?
| 3 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
The author uses “stakeholder-controlled firm”, “third sector organizations”, “nonprofit organizations”, “social enterprise”, and “co-operative” without clearly defining these types and mentioning which nonprofit type is actually the focus of the study.
| null | null |
The abstract of the manuscript mentions that dominant modes of third sector organizational governance adhere to a narrow principal-agent orientation. Similarly, in the introduction, it is stated that governance research on third sector organizations predominantly fixates analysts on the board-management dynamic.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
- Figure 1 text overwrite part of the figure, and there should be comments on how this is different from a general structure for a private sector company (if you look at stakeholders as shareholders).
| null | null |
In the abstract, the author also states that the over-reliance on the principal-agent model introduces two challenges. However, a solid foundation for this argument is missing.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
METHODOLOGY This is weak, perhaps too weak for an academic paper.
| null | null |
In the introduction, the author also mentions underdeveloped modes of stakeholder governance in the third sector. I do not agree with this view. Several stakeholder governance frameworks for third sector organizations have already been developed in the literature (Young, 2011; Van Puyvelde et al., 2012; Wellens and Jegers, 2014).
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
Associations, mutuals and cooperatives, however, are not dependent on the patronage of the rich, but the patronage of the many, and their mass member legal structures and accountability mechanisms reflect this.
| null | null |
The author uses “stakeholder-controlled firm”, “third sector organizations”, “nonprofit organizations”, “social enterprise”, and “co-operative” without clearly defining these types and mentioning which nonprofit type is actually the focus of the study.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
As such, applying the idea of the Ostrom design principles to nonprofit governance and illustrating this with a case study may more clearly show the contribution of the manuscript to the current literature.
| null | null |
I am also not convinced by the definition of co-operatives mentioned in the paper.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
For example, the third sector itself can be seen as diverse with philanthropic, mutual, cooperative and association sub-sectors.
| null | null |
Given the aforementioned comments, I would advise the author to revise the paper by focusing on the governance of nonprofit associations / co-operatives.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
Given the aforementioned comments, I would advise the author to revise the paper by focusing on the governance of nonprofit associations / co-operatives.
| null | null |
The characterisation of third sector governance is too crude.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
For example, the third sector itself can be seen as diverse with philanthropic, mutual, cooperative and association sub-sectors.
| null | null |
Given the inclusion of Coule's paper, I would have already expected more sensitivity to divisions unitary and pluralist theories of governance but by reviting this (and reading Turnbull's Cornforth's and Ridley-Duff's precursor to Coule's work), this should be adequately addressed.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
COMMENT #3: On top of page 11 there is still no examples of adversarial effects removed by co-operative.
| null | null |
I just can't agree that third sector governance is derived from for-profit principles.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
Instead of being vague and using a mixed terminology, the manuscript should clearly distinguish which nonprofit type is the subject of the paper, and be very careful in generalizing the findings of this study to third sector governance, which mistakenly happens in the conclusion (p. 15).
| null | null |
Certainly, some description of the process by which the case study was developed (sources used, data collection techniquies, analysis techniques) are needed to be publishable.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
Just as the wealthy entrepreneur seeks to control the private enterprise through shareholdings, so the wealthy philanthropist seeks to control the non-profit enterprise through trust law.
| null | null |
The framework for this section exists but feels a bit superficial and under-developed. I think it needs linking back to the findings more clearly and to be elaborated and slightly more length (cut some literature if needed to stay within the word length limits).
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
Thank you very much for your helpful commentary!
| null | null |
Lastly, the discussion and conclusions need to stick to contributions to theory / research practice and refrain from commenting on wider issues without adequate justification.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
- Bottom of page 9: Missing reference to Co-operative principles by Rochdale Society.
| null | null |
I do not understand the purpose of the paper.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
Round 1: Author Response to Reviewer 3 I copied and pasted the reviewer commentary, below.
| null | null |
The author is mixing up several concepts and ignore the abundant literature on governance in nonprofits not dealing with the agency theory.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 41(6): 1116-1135.
| null | null |
The style is more journalistic and free opinion than rigourous research.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
- The cooperative firm removes adversarial aspects of market contracting (page 11) - what adversarial aspects?
| null | null |
Public enterprises, third sector cooperatives are all mixedup.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
The text itself is now almost finished, I only have a few minor comments: - The literature part is improved by changing the headline, putting it in the right setting.
| null | null |
The conceptual framework is not clearly presented and I do not see what are the contributions except some free statements at the end not really related to the analysis.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5030148_makarova
| 0 |
It seems that the most prominent or successful cases have been selected, at least for Germany and France.
| null | null |
the analysis of the data is weak, and the paper remains largely descriptive. Would suggest to use these case studies as a source of ideas on how policies and cluster initative management migth relate to each other; that would make this a more interesting paper.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5040213_boyarkin
| 0 |
According to the definition on the top of page 4, the term denotes a R9 cluster led by a public research organisation, which is rather specific and I doubt it applies to the six case studies outlined in the paper.
| null | null |
The conceputal framework (figure 1) is very similar to the 'cluster initiative performance model' in the Cluster Initiative Greenbook (Solvell et al., 2003), adding the hypothesis that there might be an interaction between policy context and management and being somewhat more narrow on the elements included.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5040213_boyarkin
| 0 |
(…) A conceptual and/or theoretical perspective is needed to shed light at the differences found.
| null | null |
There are also existing reviews of cluster policies in Europe that should be considered (Clusters are Individuals, 2012, BMWi; VDI/VDE; Dasti). There is also a growing literature on cluster initiative management in Europe (see the EU's "Excellence Initiative' with the benchmarking of cluster initiatives) that should be considered.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5040213_boyarkin
| 0 |
P. 11: References on Japan and France should be added to the last two sentences of the first paragraph.
| null | null |
The language the authors use is here a bit imprecise - they seem to be talking about the management of cluster initiatives, not about the management of the policies themselves (which is more a question of how the program oversight is organized within government; also an interesting but different question).
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5040213_boyarkin
| 0 |
P. 18 (section 4.1, top paragraph): I would rather prefer “a series of national cluster programmes” as part of an evolving policy.
| null | null |
I would encourage you to have a native speaker look at it, mainly to clarify the language in some places.
| 3 | 2 |
admsci5040213_boyarkin
| 0 |
Remaining Comments Although the new section 3.1 helps situating the cases within their respective national contexts, it’s focus is on performance indicators.
| null | null |
Content-wise to me the key observation is the - potentially systematic - connection between the way cluster policies arestructure and the organization of cluster initiatives. This is not a big suprise, and it doesn't really answer the question asto which model is better (only that there are internally consistent models that are different). But it is still a usual observation to make.
| 3 | 2 |
admsci5040213_boyarkin
| 0 |
Round 2: Author Response to Reviewer 1 Thank you for your comments.
| null | null |
the conceptual framework appears simplistic, technocratic and static, and it is not sufficiently rooted in literature as evident from the scarcity of references in section 2.2. It is simplistic and technocratic because it views cluster performance as an outcome of initial conditions (i.e., the state of cluster development), cluster management and national polices. The paper thus rests on the untested presumption that cluster management and national policies actually impact the performance of clusters. As scholars, the authors should challenge this technocratic faith of policy-makers and practitioners, although evaluation is beyond this paper’s scope.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5040213_boyarkin
| 0 |
• Page 15, lines 22-23: ‘Large firms are on the whole not active in clusters’ – As a general statement, this is certainly not true.
| null | null |
the conceptual framework appears simplistic, technocratic and static, and it is not sufficiently rooted in literature as evident from the scarcity of references in section 2.2. It is simplistic and technocratic because it views cluster performance as an outcome of initial conditions (i.e., the state of cluster development), cluster management and national polices. The paper thus rests on the untested presumption that cluster management and national policies actually impact the performance of clusters. As scholars, the authors should challenge this technocratic faith of policy-makers and practitioners, although evaluation is beyond this paper’s scope.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5040213_boyarkin
| 0 |
‘Public research-led cluster’ might be more to the point, as it appears difficult to judge if these are more or less ‘intellectual’ than other forms of clusters.
| null | null |
‘initial conditions’ fail to capture the complexity of clusters if they are reduced to a dichotomy of private vs. public sector dominance. Even when the industry (biotechnology) is held constant, clusters differ in a number of ways, esp. regarding their specialisation within biotechnology, their maturity, size (number of firms and employee) and firm size structure.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5040213_boyarkin
| 0 |
KIESE, M., 2009: National styles of cluster promotion: Cluster policies between variety and convergence.
| null | null |
At present, the final section is merely a summary with the exception of the very last sentence briefly sketching the need for including evaluation in comparative cluster policy research.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5040213_boyarkin
| 0 |
In the following, we will reply to each of your comments, using blue letters for our responses.
| null | null |
A conceptual and/or theoretical perspective is needed to shed light at the differences found. in terms of the role of the state versus private initiative, governance traditions and philosophies, centralist vs. federal set-up. The authors should include a discussion on how these countries differ e.g.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5040213_boyarkin
| 0 |
There is also a growing literature on cluster initiative management in Europe (see the EU's "Excellence Initiative' with the benchmarking of cluster initiatives) that should be considered.
| null | null |
The authors focus on what they call ‘intellectual clusters’, a term that appears 21 times throughout the paper although I cannot recall having ever seen it in a decade or so of studying clusters and cluster policies. According to the definition on the top of page 4, the term denotes a cluster led by a public research organisation, which is rather specific and I doubt it applies to the six case studies outlined in the paper. Even so, the term ‘intellectual’ does not look fully appropriate here, which may be due to its translation from a Japanese original. ‘Public research-led cluster’ might be more to the point, as it appears difficult to judge if these are more or less ‘intellectual’ than other forms of clusters. At the least, it would appear sound to qualify these six cases as science-based clusters, but then this would apply to the biotech industry and all its clusters in general.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5040213_boyarkin
| 0 |
However, it remains rather descriptive and does not systematically attempt to explain the differences found between the three countries.
| null | null |
The choice of clusters is generally well explained on pp. 2-3. When elaborating on the choice of nations, one might wonder why the United States have not been included – possibly because there is no comparable national cluster policy?!
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5040213_boyarkin
| 0 |
Since this may be managed by the editorial office, I do not see the need for another review.
| null | null |
When explaining the choice of regional cases, the term ‘representative’ appears misleading. It seems that the most prominent or successful cases have been selected, at least for Germany and France. How can these be ‘representative’ for whatever population of biotech clusters in these countries?
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5040213_boyarkin
| 0 |
In: Journal of Economic Issues, 41(2): 391-398.
| null | null |
When outlining their research methodology, the authors should state precisely how many interviews they conducted. It looks as if one interview was done with the cluster manager in the six regions, but the authors also claim to have interviewed ‘the presidents of cluster firms’ (p. 8, line 20) without indicating the number. Given the conceptual framework outlined in figure 1, one might also wonder why national policymakers, i.e. representatives of the respective national cluster programmes, have not been surveyed as well.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5040213_boyarkin
| 0 |
Indeed, many INTERREG projects fail to overcome the differences in national languages, legislations and cultures, even though the regions are neighbours.
| null | null |
When outlining their research methodology, the authors should state precisely how many interviews they conducted. It looks as if one interview was done with the cluster manager in the six regions, but the authors also claim to have interviewed ‘the presidents of cluster firms’ (p. 8, line 20) without indicating the number. Given the conceptual framework outlined in figure 1, one might also wonder why national policymakers, i.e. representatives of the respective national cluster programmes, have not been surveyed as well.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5040213_boyarkin
| 0 |
Freeman, C., 1988: Japan: A new National System of Innovation?
| null | null |
some reflection on the adopted comparative case study research design with references would be desirable.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5040213_boyarkin
| 0 |
P. 11: References on Japan and France should be added to the last two sentences of the first paragraph.
| null | null |
sections 4.3 to 4.5 leave an impression that the assessment of these cases as ‘bottom-up’ is not completely justified. The authors seem to assume that cluster policies are either bottom-up or top-down, without any shades of grey in between. Compared to the Japanese cases, the French and German cases are clearly more bottom-up, but they still display clear – if not dominant – elements of top-down governance and public agency. This dichotomy should be refined and the classification of cases qualified as, e.g., ‘relatively bottom-up’.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5040213_boyarkin
| 0 |
• Finally, the paper is static as it does not account for cluster evolution and (policy) learning over time.
| null | null |
For the German cases, the authors may have underestimated public agency, since they did not investigate the role of state governments (Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg) within the country’s system of multilevel governance, which is key to understand cluster policies in Germany (cf. KIESE 2013). Furthermore, the state government of Bavaria may be a regional government, but it is certainly not a local authority (like the city of Munich; page 15, line 29) in Germany’s system of multilevel governance.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci5040213_boyarkin
| 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.