From Biotechnology to Bioeconomy: A Review of Development Dynamics and Pathways

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper seems to be more of a review paper than an original research article. 

The paper does not follow the normal IMRAD flow.

There is not enough originality in the current manuscript to pass as an original research paper. 

On the other hand, as a review article, it has to be more systematic than the present states. 

Some suggestions to improve the organization of the paper is to add a methodology framework in the method section and produce a proper blueprint with flow chart and suggested timeline to "Accelerate the breakthrough of biotechnology and improve the supply quality of bio-economic factor" 

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

1. The paper seems to be more of a review paper than an original research article. The paper does not follow the normal IMRAD flow.There is not enough originality in the current manuscript to pass as an original research paper. On the other hand, as a review article, it has to be more systematic than the present states. 

Response: Thanks for the comments and accepted, it really hits the nail on the head.

Revision explanations: Based on a more systematic analysis, we change the type of the article to review, with 39 new publications included and analyzed.

2. Some suggestions to improve the organization of the paper is to add a methodology framework in the method section and produce a proper blueprint with flow chart and suggested timeline to "Accelerate the breakthrough of biotechnology and improve the supply quality of bio-economic factor" 

Response: Good suggestion and agreed.

Revision explanations: Firstly, we add a methodology framework in the end of introduction section (see Line 96-103). Secondly, in the last section, we produce a proper blueprint with flow a flow chart of the development of future bioeconomy (see Figure 2), and then provide two new insights, namely narrow the gap between the technology innovation and industrial need, and promote the theorization of bioeconomy.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is spot on understanding the equilibrium between biotech and bio economics and what are the evolutionary steps that took us thousands of years to reach today's optimum. The paper could benefit from a paragraph that could be inserted in the Introduction section with the purpose to present the methodology, the adopted scientific process and what is the big picture at the end of their research. Furthermore, the authors could bring to the conclusion a paragraph that presents an insight on the next steps from this tangentiality between biotech and bio-economics.  

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

The paper is spot on understanding the equilibrium between biotech and bio economics and what are the evolutionary steps that took us thousands of years to reach today's optimum.

1. The paper could benefit from a paragraph that could be inserted in the Introduction section with the purpose to present the methodology, the adopted scientific process and what is the big picture at the end of their research.

Response: Thanks for the suggestions and accepted.

Revision explanations: We add a methodology framework, and the purpose and expected outcome of the study in the end of introduction section (see Line 96-103).

2. Furthermore, the authors could bring to the conclusion a paragraph that presents an insight on the next steps from this tangentiality between biotech and bio-economics.

Response:Good suggestion and agreed.

Revision explanations: in the last section, we produce a proper blueprint with flow a flow chart of the development of future bioeconomy (see Figure 2), and then provide two new insights, especially promoting the theorization of bioeconomy (see Line 608-618).

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

The research chosen has a strong potential conceptually and holds the interest to read. The application of thought makes the research interesting. Overall the research is well explained with the work deserves appreciation. However the research needs many improvements in this work for the betterment of study. English language needs a minor improvement making sentences and paragraphs shorter in the complete research paper, which may enhance the quality of the work. The research requires to add some more research citations from the same area and recent work to strengthen the base for research. Current citations are very less for the justification of concept and the process. The most important is the structure, which is making the research of a poor quality of work. It must modify the complete structure of the paper with the modification or providing some or all of these missing sections as Methodology, Results, Evaluations, Discussion, Findings, Conclusion, Suggestions, and Future Research, which is very possible with this research.

(1)   Title

·       Title needs a correction to make it better in understanding.

·       It needs to add more words to make attractive.

·       It may have the specific problem rather or the scope of the study.

·       It is better to reform the title with more words and specific to be attractive.

 

(2)   Abstract and Keywords

·       Abstract is well articulated which is representing a good snapshot of the research.

·       Sentences need some improvement with vocabulary and grammar for English language.

·       Keywords need to recheck for their presentation as many words for keyword.

 

(3)   Introduction

·       Heading ‘introduction’ should be corrected as ‘Introduction’.

·       An interesting elaboration of the thought and conceptual scenario.

·       A good presentation of the work with the goal and requirements.

·       Paragraphs are well structured and evenly distributed.

·       Line No. 84 onwards should be section 2 as Literature Review, or Background study.

·       However, in this case, the section 1 will be comparative smaller to provide a clear idea, possibly can get expanded.

·       Figure 1. source must be provided, or who has developed this?

·       Line No. 102 to 133 must be divided in 3 or 2 paragraphs.

·       Line No. 102 to 133 must provide citations. Lack of citation is making this section weaker.

·       Table 1. source must be provided, or who has developed this?

·       Table 1. must be cited inside the text.

 

(4)   The dynamics and characteristics of biotechnology to bio-economy

·       This can be a sub-section of section 2.

·       It would be better to make this 2.2, following the sub section 2.1 Technological development and economic form succession.  

·       Or, this can be a sub-section of section 3, and Technological development and economic form succession can be Section 2.

·       The background study provides an extensive literature providing a good base for better understanding of the study.

·       Sub headings are well planned and presented.

·       Line No. 172 to 208 must be divided in 3 or 2 paragraphs.

(5)   National bio-economic development path

·       It should be a sub section under section 2 or section 3.

·       Line No. 297 framework should be non-bold.

·       Table 2 needs to have source.

·       Line No. 300 to 345 must be divided in 4 or 3 paragraphs.

 

(6)   Perspectives: Accelerate the breakthrough of biotechnology and improve the supply quality of bio economic factors.

·       This segment is well explained with the clarity of explanations for sections and subsections.

·       There is serious mistake in the framing of structure.

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

The research chosen has a strong potential conceptually and holds the interest to read. The application of thought makes the research interesting. Overall the research is well explained with the work deserves appreciation. However the research needs many improvements in this work for the betterment of study.

1. English language needs a minor improvement making sentences and paragraphs shorter in the complete research paper, which may enhance the quality of the work.

Response: Very important suggestions and accepted.

Revision explanations: As you suggested, we polished the English expression thoroughly, especially making sentences and paragraphs much shorter.

2. The research requires to add some more research citations from the same area and recent work to strengthen the base for research. Current citations are very less for the justification of concept and the process.

Response: Thanks for the comments and accepted, it really hits the nail on the head.

Revision explanations: We invited and analyzed 39 more publications, based on which we change the type of the article to review.

 

3. The most important is the structure, which is making the research of a poor quality of work. It must modify the complete structure of the paper with the modification or providing some or all of these missing sections as Methodology, Results, Evaluations, Discussion, Findings, Conclusion, Suggestions, and Future Research, which is very possible with this research.

Response: Good suggestion and accepted.

Revision explanations: Firstly, we change the ”National bio-economic development path” section to be a sub section under section 3 ”The dynamics and characteristics of biotechnology to bioeconomy”. Secondly, we produce a proper blueprint with flow a flow chart of the development of future bioeconomy (see Figure 2), and then adjust the frame of structure accordingly. Then, we provide two new insights, namely narrow the gap between the technology innovation and industrial need, and promote the theorization of bioeconomy.

Besides, thanks so much for the detailed comments and suggestions you have made in the reviewing report, all of which are accepted and the revisions are marked in red.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been sufficiently revised and improved