Digitalisation in Bioeconomy in the Baltic States and Poland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I). Revise the abstract section and try to focus on your main target instead of an irrelevant brief discussion.

II). I don’t see the full name of AHP in the abstract.

III). There is a need to enhance the level of zoom in the graphical structure of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).

IV). In line 151, kindly ensure the capitalization of the letter "T" in the term "table 3".  It is advisable to implement similar corrections in all other places.

V). In the literature, there are many different alternative solutions. Currently, the evaluation scope of the paper is not strong. It should be extended with more touch with the literature.

VI). The writing of the paper needs improvements in terms of grammar, spelling, and presentations. The whole text should be carefully examined and corrected. Lots of language error.

VII). What is the training and testing ratio in the discussed model?

VIII). The motivation is not clear. Please specify the importance of the proposed solution.

 

IX). Conclusion section is absent in the article.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your valuable time and thorough review of our article. Your comments have been extremely helpful to us, and we highly value your input. Please find a comprehensive response to your comments in the table below:

I). Revise the abstract section and try to focus on your main target instead of an irrelevant brief discussion.	Done
II). I don’t see the full name of AHP in the abstract.	Done
III). There is a need to enhance the level of zoom in the graphical structure of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).	Done
IV). In line 151, kindly ensure the capitalization of the letter "T" in the term "table 3".  It is advisable to implement similar corrections in all other places.	Done
V). In the literature, there are many different alternative solutions. Currently, the evaluation scope of the paper is not strong. It should be extended with more touch with the literature.	Improved
VI). The writing of the paper needs improvements in terms of grammar, spelling, and presentations. The whole text should be carefully examined and corrected. Lots of language error. – maybe we all can read it through carefully?	Done
VII). What is the training and testing ratio in the discussed model?	Added	regarding the consistency ratio
VIII). The motivation is not clear. Please specify the importance of the proposed solution.	Improved
IX). Conclusion section is absent in the article.	Added

Reviewer 2 Report

The study evaluated for publication in the journal assesses the barriers of the bioeconomy sector and avenues to support digital transformation within this sector. To accomplish this, the paper analyses bioeconomy in EU and the state of digitalization in the EU. Empiric analysis was conducted and focused on the digitalization and R&D indicators of the EU and the AHP analysis that allows us to determine digitalization scenarios in Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. From this background, the research has potential for publication it is important. Nevertheless, the following issues should be considered ad used to improve the manuscript.

1. In the abstract, the preamble (introduction) is too lengthy and should be reduced to only one sentence at most.

2. At the later part of the abstract, the contribution of the work could be inserted. The words saved from the excess introduction could be used for this purpose.

3. The preamble made was at the sacrifice of the “usefulness statement” of the work. Please add a sentence on the benefit of the work and to whom the work will benefit as the last statement in the abstract.

4. The contribution of the article should be stated at the end of section one. Novelty statement could also be stated here. The final part will then be the outline of succeeding sections as already stated.

5. In section 2, while stating that cluster analysis was used. The reasons for its choice and not another method should be made. Why are you using a classification based method at all?

6. The author is talking about industry 4.0 but authors are already writing about industry 5.0, do you have any justification for this?

7. The author mentioned the applications in a part of Europe. But Industry 4.0 is a global phenomenon. Please mention one or two literature sources on the subject in other parts of the world. This will make the work more robust.

8. No concrete journal sources of 2023 was mentioned. Please include about 5 of these that are relevant to this work.

9. Discuss the limitations of the work.

10. Elaborate on the future studies.

11. In the discussion part of the work, please compare your work with other studies.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your valuable time and thorough review of our article. Your comments have been extremely helpful to us, and we highly value your input. Please find a comprehensive response to your comments in the table below:

1. In the abstract, the preamble (introduction) is too lengthy and should be reduced to only one sentence at most.	Done
2. At the later part of the abstract, the contribution of the work could be inserted. The words saved from the excess introduction could be used for this purpose.	Done
3. The preamble made was at the sacrifice of the “usefulness statement” of the work. Please add a sentence on the benefit of the work and to whom the work will benefit as the last statement in the abstract.	Done
4. The contribution of the article should be stated at the end of section one. Novelty statement could also be stated here. The final part will then be the outline of succeeding sections as already stated.	Done
5. In section 2, while stating that cluster analysis was used. The reasons for its choice and not another method should be made. Why are you using a classification based method at all?	Improved
6. The author is talking about industry 4.0 but authors are already writing about industry 5.0, do you have any justification for this?	Removed references to Industry 4.0 and added newer references to Industry 5.0
7. The author mentioned the applications in a part of Europe. But Industry 4.0 is a global phenomenon. Please mention one or two literature sources on the subject in other parts of the world. This will make the work more robust.	Added about Industriy 5.0
8. No concrete journal sources of 2023 was mentioned. Please include about 5 of these that are relevant to this work.	Added
9. Discuss the limitations of the work.	Done
10. Elaborate on the future studies.	Done
11. In the discussion part of the work, please compare your work with other studies.	Done

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors!

Your research is focused on sustainable topic, bioeconomy. The research focus on in the Baltic states and Poland makes applicable and prospective. The paper analyses bioeconomy and the state of digitalization in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania Poland.

For the research authors used the method of cluster analyses, which is effective in this case study. The research comprises the results of the application of the cluster analysis aimed to 119 explore the clusters of digital performance and R&D in the EU member states. The cluster 120 analysis was carried out by grouping the data from Eurostat that characterizes drivers for 121 digitalization.

The research implemented on prospective topic with complex methodology, but it could be improved in the followings:

1.    Please explain sources of information in all Tables: starting from Table 1. “Barriers for digital transformation in bioeconomy” till the last one.

2.  In the literature review, please, add the publications which confirm (as Your conclude in the analyses), that there is the strong link between digitalization and R&D not only generally, but in the field of bioeconomy (the topic of the research).

3. The article structure should be improved: it is strongly recommended to add the “Conclusion” with main conclusion about the research topic and explanation how the research results could be applied in science or practice. Also, the beginning of the conclusion please explain main arguments presented and do they address the main question posed.

I wish you to improve your manuscript successfully!

Best regards,

 

Your Reviewer

The article should be better structured and improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your valuable time and thorough review of our article. Your comments have been extremely helpful to us, and we highly value your input. Please find a comprehensive response to your comments in the table below:

1. Please explain sources of information in all Tables: starting from Table 1. “Barriers for digital transformation in bioeconomy” till the last one.	Done
2.  In the literature review, please, add the publications which confirm (as Your conclude in the analyses), that there is the strong link between digitalization and R&D not only generally, but in the field of bioeconomy (the topic of the research).	Added
3. The article structure should be improved: it is strongly recommended to add the “Conclusion” with main conclusion about the research topic and explanation how the research results could be applied in science or practice. Also, the beginning of the conclusion please explain main arguments presented and do they address the main question posed.	Added

Reviewer 4 Report

Please read the attachment. Thank you.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your valuable time and thorough review of our article. Your comments have been extremely helpful to us, and we highly value your input. Please find a comprehensive response to your comments in the table below:

⎯ Figure 1: the figure quality is too poor. Please increase its resolution.	Done
⎯ Table 2: its title and table should be on the same page.	Check before submission
⎯ Lines 204-207: Please do not bold these sentences.	Done
⎯ Figure 5: the figure quality is too poor. Please increase its resolution.	Done
⎯ All figures cited in the main text should be Fig. X (with X as the number of that figure), not fig. X. Please revise all figures.	Done
⎯ All tables cited in the main text should be Table. X (with X being the number of that figure), not table. X. Please revise all tables.	Done
⎯ Citations in the main text. Please format following the journal template.	Done
⎯ Related works: please discuss the other missing methods in this literature review.	Done
The following works could be helpful for the authors to enrich the references. Adding the mentiouned works		Thank you for the suggested souces, unfortunately we found them not in line with our current study, but we will cite them in our future works
⎯ Please provide the flowchart of the study process.	Done
⎯ Conclusion: Please add a summary of the study process. Then, give brief findings, the limitations, and further studies too.	Added
⎯ References: they have a shortage. Please improve.	Done

Reviewer 5 Report

 

 

Several grammatical errors, the manuscript needs to be meticulously reviewed for grammar and spelling mistakes 

 

Is the paper focused on EU or Baltic states ? Is Poland considered a Baltic states? The authors should revised the title to capture the area of focused at present it seems confusing 

 

There is inconsistency in referencing 

 

Maybe provide a brief definition of bio economy and how it relates to sustainable development in the introduction 

 

What is digitalization and how does it contribute to bio economy advancement ? Are they any prior study ? This should be clarified in the introduction also. 

 

Is there any references for table 1 ?

 

Could the authors provide an overview of AHP method and how it differs from similar approaches 

 

Is there any evidence that bioeconomy contributed to the advancement of SDGs?

 

Conclusions should be provided and results and discussion should be supported by relevant literature. 

 

Needs improvement 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your valuable time and thorough review of our article. Your comments have been extremely helpful to us, and we highly value your input. Please find a comprehensive response to your comments in the table below:

Several grammatical errors, the manuscript needs to be meticulously reviewed for grammar and spelling mistakes	Done
Is the paper focused on EU or Baltic states ? Is Poland considered a Baltic states? The authors should revised the title to capture the area of focused at present it seems confusing		We added justification why Latvia, Lithuania and Poland (and not Estonia) were studied in the AHP analysis
There is inconsistency in referencing	Corrected
Maybe provide a brief definition of bio economy and how it relates to sustainable development in the introduction	Added
What is digitalization and how does it contribute to bio economy advancement ? Are they any prior study ? This should be clarified in the introduction also.	Improved
Is there any references for table 1 ?	Added
Could the authors provide an overview of AHP method and how it differs from similar approaches	Added
Is there any evidence that bioeconomy contributed to the advancement of SDGs?	Added
Conclusions should be provided and results and discussion should be supported by relevant literature.	Added

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have improved their article. I think it should be accepted now .

Reviewer 5 Report

All concerns have been addressed 

Improved