Abstract

Purpose Strengthening and improving Scientific and Technical Information (S&Ti;) flow in all nations require an effective national S&Ti; policy (NS&TiP;). The very first step in developing an integrated NS&TiP; is clarifying its scope and dimensions. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the dimensions of NS&TiP;, in the form of an analytical framework, and to show how to apply it. Design/methodology/approach The current study adopted a qualitative method, called the framework approach, and proposed HeLICAM, a comprehensive framework including different dimensions for NS&TiP.; Afterward, Iran's science and technology documents were analyzed based on the proposed framework. Findings HeLICAM framework includes (1) human resources, (2) laws and regulations, (3) ICT infrastructure, (4) connections, (5) activities and (6) information market. The results obtained from the application of HeLICAM in the analysis of Iran's science and technology policy documents indicated that the various dimensions of NS&TiP; have mostly been overlooked. Although several policies have been developed for science and technology in Iran, the efforts have not been comprehensive and effective enough. Originality/value This study proposes the normative analytical framework called HeLICAM. The purpose of HeLICAM is to provide a draft of NS&TiP; dimensions to policymakers that will be useful in NS&Ti; policymaking because this framework helps to answer questions like "what dimensions have been considered in writing the policy document?" and "What it lacks?", "What are its strengths and weaknesses?", and "How can it be improved?" Peer review The peer review history for this article is available at:


Authors

Namdarian, Leila;  Alidousti, Sirous;  Rasuli, Behrooz

Publons users who've claimed - I am an author
Contributors on Publons
  • 1 author
  • 1 reviewer
  • pre-publication peer review (FINAL ROUND)
    Decision Letter
    2021/04/02

    02-Apr-2021

    Dear Namdarian, leila; Alidousti, Sirous; Rasuli, Behrooz

    It is a pleasure to accept your manuscript OIR-11-2020-0493.R1, entitled "Developing a Comprehensive Framework for Analyzing National Scientific and Technical Information Policy: Application of HeLICAM in Iran" in its current form for publication in Online Information Review. Please note, no further changes can be made to your manuscript.

    Please go to your Author Centre at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/oir (Manuscripts with Decisions for the submitting author or Manuscripts I have co-authored for all listed co-authors) to complete the Copyright Transfer Agreement form (CTA). We cannot publish your paper without this.

    All authors are requested to complete the form and to input their full contact details. If any of the contact information is incorrect you can update it by clicking on your name at the top right of the screen. Please note that this must be done prior to you submitting your CTA.

    If you have an ORCID please check your account details to ensure that your ORCID is validated.

    By publishing in this journal your work will benefit from Emerald EarlyCite. As soon as your CTA is completed your manuscript will pass to Emerald’s Content Management department and be processed for EarlyCite publication. EarlyCite is the author proofed, typeset version of record, fully citable by DOI. The EarlyCite article sits outside of a journal issue and is paginated in isolation. The EarlyCite article will be collated into a journal issue according to the journals’ publication schedule.

    FOR OPEN ACCESS AUTHORS: Please note if you have indicated that you would like to publish your article as Open Access via Emerald’s Gold Open Access route, you are required to complete a Creative Commons Attribution Licence - CCBY 4.0 (in place of the standard copyright assignment form referenced above). You will receive a follow up email within the next 30 days with a link to the CCBY licence and information regarding payment of the Article Processing Charge. If you have indicated that you might be eligible for a prepaid APC voucher, you will also be informed at this point if a voucher is available to you (for more information on APC vouchers please see http://www.emeraldpublishing.com/oapartnerships

    Thank you for your contribution. On behalf of the Editors of Online Information Review, we look forward to your continued contributions to the Journal.

    Sincerely,

    Prof. Kalpana Shankar
    Co-Editor
    kalpana.shankar@ucd.ie


    Tell us how we're doing! We’d love to hear your feedback on the submission and review process to help us to continue to support your needs on the publishing journey.

    Simply click this link https://eu.surveymonkey.com/r/F8GZ2XW to complete a short survey and as a thank you for taking part you have the option to be entered into a prize draw to win £100 in Amazon vouchers. To enter the prize draw you will need to provide your email address.

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2021/03/27

    Thank you for revising the paper. I am glad you have found the comments useful and helpful to improve your manuscript. No further comments from my side.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2021/02/26

    Dear Editor and Reviewers,

    Your comments, suggestions and criticism were highly useful to further improve the manuscript flow of arguments, logic and overall structure. Fortunately, we could agree to all the issues raised, which are meticulously studied and integrated into the new version. Furthermore, the revised version of the manuscript has been subjected to a final editorial review by a professional editor. Also, the authors have reviewed the final version of the manuscript to ensure that there are no grammar issues left. Please note that based on the reviewers' comments, we revised the jargons, and accordingly, the name of dimensions in our proposed framework. The acronym for the revised framework is "HeLICAM". All Changes in the revised text highlighted with yellow color.

    Kind regards,
    The authors

    Reviewer #1
    major comments/concerns
    Why does the paper need to introduce a completely new framework, i.e. "HULINIM" when well-established analysis frameworks are doing the job, for e.g.:
    - Compare with PESTLE or STEEPLE analysis:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEST_analysis
    - ... and with SWOT analysis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysis

    According to Table 1, NS&TiP; covers different dimensions. Some framework (such as Pajaro and Betancourt 2007) insisted on the broad aspects, without any details, and others (such as Harvey 1982) counted narrow aspects in their proposed frameworks, without providing a holistic view. The main problem here is that it is not easy to develop/analyze a policy document on NS&TiP; according the previous frameworks. This is the problem we had in practice, when we decided to analyze Iran's policy documents. Therefore, we decided to develop a holistic framework covering the dimensions and issues required for NS&TiP;, in the first step.
    On the other hand, frameworks such as PESTLE and STEEPLE help to develop strategies and policies through monitoring, identifying and analyzing of the macro-environmental factors (e.g. Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal, Environmental, Demographic, and Regulatory). SWOT is also used for creating organizational or personal strategies by identifying internal capabilities (strengths and weaknesses) and external events and situations (opportunities and threats). Strategists study the macro environment to learn about facts and trends that may present organizational opportunities or threats. Then, usually STEEPLE analysis elements are incorporated into the SWOT analysis process to provide a company with a comprehensive analysis of its external environment to complete the SWOT analysis. It can be argued that these three frameworks are generic. Since the environment has a unique meaning for each organization/area, they cannot be appropriate frameworks for a general NS&TiP; for a country.
    The HeLICAM framework is specific for policy making, which can be used especially in the field of S&Ti.; HeLICAM can be used to setting out the thematic areas that policymakers should consider during developing S&Ti; policies. The main dimensions of HeLICAM are thematic areas related to S&TiP;, which are: Human Resources (HU); Laws and Regulations (L); ICT Infrastructure (I); Connections (N); Activities (I); Information Market (M). In the following table, PESTLE, STEEPLE, SWOT, and HeLICAM are compared from different aspects.

    Framework

    criteria SWOT STEEPLE PESTLE HeLICAM
    Type(Generic or Specific) Generic Generic Generic Specific
    SCOPE Internal and external environments analysis External environment analysis External environment analysis S&Ti; policy themes analysis
    Dimensions Internal capabilities (strengths and weaknesses) and external events and situations (opportunities and threats) a firm is facing. External Macro environmental factors included (Social, Technological, Environment, Economic, Political, Legal, and Ethical) factors. External macro environmental factors included (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal, Environmental) factors. Thematic areas related to scientific and technical information policy (Human Resources , Laws and Regulations, ICT Infrastructure, Connection, Activities, Information Market)
     Functions  Identifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats related to business competition or project planning;
     Evaluation of the strategic position of organizations of many kinds;
     Building organizational or personal strategy;
     Alongside PEST/PESTLE can be used as a basis for the analysis of business and environmental factors.
      Scanning the External macro environment;
     Anticipating future trends by considering the macro environment;
     Developing commercial and military strategy  Scanning the External macro environment;
     Anticipating future trends by considering the macro environment;
     Developing commercial and military strategy  Setting out the thematic areas those policymakers should consider when writing S&Ti; policy documents;
     Analyzing the S&Ti; policy documents.
    Level of analysis (Mostly) Micro/ Meso level:
    Individual / Organization/Industry Meso level:
    Organization/Industry Meso level:
    Organization/Industry Macro level:
    Nation
    Application in the policy-making stages Helping to determine the issues and priorities in the initial stages of policy-making process Helping to determine the visions and priorities in the initial stages of policy-making process Helping to determine the visions and priorities in the initial stages of policy-making process Helping to formulate policies and programs in the middle stages of policy-making process

    I understand the Author(s) may be willing to work in the new tailored-made framework, but they should be thinking also the potential reader - the flow of the manuscript would improve if the framework of analysis is following a common jargon with the reader.
    As the reviewer has commented correctly, in the previous version we had used some terms that were not 'jargons' in S&Ti; policy making domain (perhaps because the authors' native language is Persian), yet in the new version of the paper all terms were controlled again and replaced with the common jargons.
    In order to use common jargon in the analytical framework, most of the words and phrases in the 'Table 2' were revised. Also, the names of some themes such as Research on information sciences, Data protection and privacy, Information access, Global access, Public-private partnership were modified in the 'Table 3' and all the document. In addition, the names of some dimensions of the analytical framework were edited (See page #5). Based on these changes, the name of the analytical framework has changed to HeLICAM. HeLICAM stands for Human Resource; Laws and Regulations; ICT Infrastructure; Connections; Activities; Information Market.
    The contribution/impact is an issue: in my opinion, the paper does not identify clearly the implications for research and society. Indeed, what is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Please clarify & revise. The discussion section has been rewritten. In the new edition it's clarified that the proposed framework helps the general public to know what's important in a NS&TiP; document and what are their rights and roles. (See pages 8 to 10). Clearly, NS&TiP; will impact the life of the general public and different interested groups in the information society, so that they should understand what is subjected to a NS&TiP.;
    Minor comments:
    Some further papers could be added:
     García‐Peñalvo, F.J., García de Figuerola, C. and Merlo, J.A. (2010), "Open knowledge: challenges and facts", Online Information Review, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 520-539.
     Lundvall, B. Å., & Borrás, S. (2005). Science, technology and innovation policy. The Oxford handbook of innovation, 599-631.
     Bates, J. (2014). The strategic importance of information policy for the contemporary neoliberal state: The case of Open Government Data in the United Kingdom. Government Information Quarterly, 31(3), 388-395.
    We are immensely grateful to the reviewer for introducing these valuable resources. All these studies were related to our work and were cited properly in the several sections, in particular, in discussion section.

    Minor language issues were identified (both linguistic + typos) - please correct.
    We are thankful to the reviewer for his/her sharp grammar/editorial check on the manuscript. All the grammar/typo issues are one by one addressed in the new version.
    References need revision: all the OECD part (page 11) is not in the proper format - at the least, they should start with "OECD". Same for Harvey (1982) where the journal & the volume/issue are not appearing (in page 12). All citations and the reference list were check and revised in the new version.
    Additional Questions:

    Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: Yes, it does.
    Thank you. The reviewer’s presumption about the originality of the paper is absolutely correct. There is a limited body of knowledge on S&TiP; and the current study can contribute to this domain.
    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited? Moderately OK. For e.g. the following could be added: García‐Peñalvo, F.J., García de Figuerola, C. and Merlo, J.A. (2010), "Open knowledge: challenges and facts", Online Information Review, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 520-539.
    Lundvall, B. Å., & Borrás, S. (2005). Science, technology and innovation policy. The Oxford handbook of innovation, 599-631.
    Bates, J. (2014). The strategic importance of information policy for the contemporary neoliberal state: The case of Open Government Data in the United Kingdom. Government Information Quarterly, 31(3), 388-395.
    We are immensely grateful to the reviewer for introducing these valuable resources. All these studies were related to our work and were cited properly in the several sections, in particular, in discussion section.

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: Qualitative analysis is applied - it looks fine.
    Thank you.
    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analyzed appropriately?: OK.
    Thank you.
    Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: There is room for improvement, possibly by including some further past studies on S&T; policy.
    We are working on this study for almost one year, so that perhaps there are some new related studies we have neglected during the early searches (as the reviewer commented correctly). However, we have explored the global databases to find and cite the possible related work. Some references have been added to the text (for example, see pages 13 to 14).
    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: Not crystal clear. The discussion section of the article has been rewritten. In the discussion section, the social and political impact and consequences of the HeLICAM framework have been discussed (See pages 8 to 9).

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Overall OK; some minor language issues can improve.
    We are thankful to the reviewer for his/her sharp grammar/editorial check on the manuscript. All the grammar/typo issues are one by one addressed in the new version.

    Reviewer #2
    The title should include the place of application of the proposal: Iran, since it conditions all the work. Thank you for this suggestion; Iran was added to the title of the new version.
    The objective of the work: to identify the dimensions of S&TiP;, in the form of an analytical framework, and to show how to apply it". It is fulfilled. Thank you.
    Perhaps it is a prejudice of the reviewer, but I believe that the characteristic socio-cultural aspects of Iran, which directly affect general aspects such as freedom of the press, freedom of expression, autonomy of universities and research centers, etc., must have some significant characteristic in the context of scientific and technical information. These characteristics must be reflected, because the reader of this journal does not have to know the Iranian reality. Obviously, the reviewer's comment is correct. The socio-cultural context in a country (perhaps) affecting NS&Ti; policy making and other policies in that country/region. Iran, as many of other countries in the world, has its own political, social, and cultural context and (for sure) this context will affect specific policies, including NS&TiP.; This matter is added to the end of Discussion section in the new version.
    However, it should be noted that in the current study we focused on the analysis of the developed policies and have not aimed to propose a new NS&TiP; for Iran. Absolutely, for developing NS&TiP; for a certain country it is critical to study the socio-cultural context. We highlighted this matter in the new version (see page 11).
    This is the general objective, but not a good definition: “Baruah (2002) believes that NS&TiP; encourages publishing research findings, promotes the (inter)national coordination among information centers, ensures the availability of information, and helps economic/ scientific/ social developments.”

    The most correct and comprehensive definition that fits all scenarios is the Weingarten definition from 1996.

    "The first step in developing an integrated S&TiP; is to clarify its scope and dimensions." It should be added that the ultimate objectives (teleological objectives) of the S&TiP.;

    "NS&TiP; is a vast and interpenetrating subject and is related to information, communication, and culture". It would be necessary to specify more, the scientific culture, the technological development and the political structures that regulate the creative processes.  According to the reviewer suggestion, the definition proposed by Baruah (2002) is removed.
     The definition by Weingarten is added to the new version (See page #2). "According to Weingarten (1989), NS&TiP; is the set of all laws, regulations, and policies that encourage, discourage, or regulate the creation, use, storage, and communication of S&Ti.;"
     "The ultimate objectives of NS&TiP;" were added (See page #2).
    The first step in developing an integrated NS&TiP; is to clarify its scope and dimensions. Then, NS&TiP; should be developed based on certain dimensions to realize the objectives like improving the links of the S&Ti; transfer chain (namely, the libraries and repositories, the abstracting, indexing, and translating services, and S&Ti; analysis centers); developing the human resources in the field of S&Ti; strengthening the knowledge sharing among governmental, national, and international organizations and information services (Saraf 2010; Rubin 2017); providing the robust S&Ti; requirements/infrastructure in a country; ensuring local/national/global access to S&Ti; and sustaining the information market (Ayoo and Otike 2002).
     It was tried to illustrate the role of NS&TiP; in the culture, technological development and legal and political structures in the Review of Literature section (See page #3).

    There are many phrases that are repeated in the introduction and in the literature review, such as the phrases that define the NS&TiP.; For example: This phrase appears in the text repeated twice. Rewrite both sections.

    "Pajaro and Betancourt (2007) referred to the NS&TiP; as practical guidelines for guaranteeing the global access to information for realizing different social, economic, and political objectives contributing to the development of a country" Betancourt no --> Betancourt. The same happens with the texts of Wingarten, Baruah, Jaeger or Megnibeto...

    It is recommended in the introduction to give a complete definition and in the review of the literature to qualify that definition with the contributions of other authors.. Based on the reviewer’s comment, the definition by Weingarten is added to the Introduction section, and the literature review section is rewritten (see pages #1 to #3). In addition, the several definitions, which were not (exactly) related to S&TiP; are removed from the new version.
    PC2 Intellectual Property Rights y PC22. Copyright are the same. 'Table 2' displays primary codes. Primary codes are concepts related to S&Ti; which were presented in previous studies (Table 1). In primary coding, each relevant concept which was mentioned in the literature was marked by a code. Then, in secondary coding (Table 3), a set of primary codes which referred to the same concept was presented in the form of a more extensive and abstract concept. For instance, in Table 3, PC22; PC21; PC2 were presented in the form of T4, that is 'intellectual property rights'.
    Table outlines are welcome. In table 8 the different macro strategies appear, but nevertheless, several are missing, such as Macro Strategy 3, 5 and 6. It would be interesting to name and indicate their content, so that the reader knows that they are not related.
    It was stated in a footnote in page #6" In analyzing the Iranian S&T; policy documents, authors are focused only on the policies related to S&Ti; in the documents."
    Iran’s comprehensive scientific map covers 13 macro strategies. In Table 8, those macro strategies which are related to themes of HeLICAM framework were analyzed and the irrelevant ones (e.g. 3, 5, 6) were not presented in the table.
    Since providing the content of unrelated strategies would increase the length of the article, only key words and phrases related to themes of HeLICAM framework were presented in Table 8. The same is done in Tables 4-7. Nevertheless, taking into account the respected reviewer’s valuable insight, the content of strategies and policies which were analyzed in the article, were presented in the appendices (See appendices 1-5).
    The conclusions indicate that Iran would benefit from an independent NST&P;, is this possible in a country like Iran?
    There is not independent NS&TiP; in Iran, as stated clearly in the Introduction section of the new version. Therefore, Iran's S&TiP; documents were analyzed based on the HeLICAM framework to determine whether themes related to S&Ti; have received the attention of S&T; policy makers (See page #2):" For example, in Iran, as a developing country, there is no standalone NS&TiP; document to determine the main strategies for managing information. Although there are several documents containing general policies related to S&Ti; in Iran, it is not clear whether all key relevant issues are addressed in these documents or not
    For more clarifications, the conclusion section was rewritten.
    The recommendations that are made are generic and superficial, not up to the task of such complex work.
    The recommendations were rewritten based on the research findings (See pages #13 to #14).
    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: It does not make a significant contribution but makes an interesting model of analysis based on the methodology of the frameworks.
    The purpose of HeLICAM is to provide a draft of NS&TiP; dimensions for policymakers. Current framework helps to answer questions like “what dimensions have been considered in writing the policy document?” and “What have not?”, “What are the strengths and weaknesses?”, and “How can it be improved?

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: In principle the theoretical contribution that supports the introduction is correct, a deeper discussion in the results is missing.
    In order to enrich the discussion, Sections 6 and 7 of the article were rewritten (See pages #8 to #13).

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: The methodology is clear and the results allow to identify the steps that have been taken to carry out the analysis.
    Thank you.

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: This work is not clearly empirical.
    Correct.
    Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: The work is "deflated" in the conclusions and discussion section. The most interesting part is the proposal of analysis.
    In order to improve the discussion, Sections 6 and 7 of the article were rewritten (See pages #8 to #13).

    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: This work can be useful for science policy makers as a model for complex science policy analysis,
    Thank you.
    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Yes, without English being my first language I was able to read the article without any further complications? Thank you.
    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?: No, because it has a qualitative approach. Correct.



    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 1)
    Decision Letter
    2021/01/09

    &PHPSESSID09-Jan-2021;

    Dear Dr. Namdarian,

    Manuscript ID OIR-11-2020-0493 entitled "Developing a Comprehensive Framework for Analyzing National Scientific and Technical Information Policy: Application of HULINIM" which you submitted to Online Information Review has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.

    The reviewers have recommended that you make major revisions to your manuscript prior to it being considered for publication.

    Please read their suggestions and if you choose to prepare a revised manuscript ensure that any changes that you make to your manuscript are highlighted, as well as described in your response to reviewers.

    Please also ensure that in doing so your paper does not exceed the maximum word length of 10000 words and that it meets all the requirements of the author guidelines at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=oir=ubl727mru90lg3hc8sa5p5qrt2."

    To revise your manuscript log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/oir and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions". Under "Actions" click on "Create a Revision". Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.

    You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.

    Once the revised manuscript is prepared you can upload it and submit it through your Author Centre.

    When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).

    IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.

    Because we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submitted to Online Information Review, your revised manuscript should be uploaded as soon as possible. If it is not possible for you to submit your revision in a reasonable amount of time, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.

    To help support you on your publishing journey we have partnered with Editage, a leading global science communication platform, to offer expert editorial support including language editing and translation.
    If your article has been rejected or revisions have been requested, you may benefit from Editage’s services. For a full list of services, visit: authorservices.emeraldpublishing.com/
    Please note that there is no obligation to use Editage and using this service does not guarantee publication.

    Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Online Information Review. I look forward to receiving your revision.

    Yours sincerely,

    Prof. Kalpana Shankar
    kalpana.shankar@ucd.ie

    Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
    Reviewer: 1

    Recommendation: Major Revision

    Comments:
    Thank you for the submission of your manuscript. I have two major comments/concerns:
    1. Why does the paper need to introduce a completely new framework, i.e. "HULINIM" when well-established analysis frameworks are doing the job, for e.g.:
    - Compare with PESTLE or STEEPLE analysis:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEST_analysis
    - ... and with SWOT analysis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysis
    I understand the Author(s) may be willing to work in the new tailored-made framework, but they should be thinking also the potential reader - the flow of the manuscript would improve if the framework of analysis is following a common jargon with the reader.
    2. The contribution/impact is an issue: in my opinion, the paper does not identify clearly the implications for research and society. Indeed, what is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Please clarify & revise.

    Minor comments:
    i) Some further papers could be added:
    García‐Peñalvo, F.J., García de Figuerola, C. and Merlo, J.A. (2010), "Open knowledge: challenges and facts", Online Information Review, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 520-539.
    Lundvall, B. Å., & Borrás, S. (2005). Science, technology and innovation policy. The Oxford handbook of innovation, 599-631.
    Bates, J. (2014). The strategic importance of information policy for the contemporary neoliberal state: The case of Open Government Data in the United Kingdom. Government Information Quarterly, 31(3), 388-395.
    ii) Minor language issues were identified (both linguistic + typos) - please correct.
    iii) References, need revision: all the OECD part (page 11) is not in the proper format - at the least, they should start with "OECD". Same for Harvey (1982) where the journal & the volume/issue are not appearing (in page 12).

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: Yes, it does.

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: Moderately OK. For e.g. the following could be added: García‐Peñalvo, F.J., García de Figuerola, C. and Merlo, J.A. (2010), "Open knowledge: challenges and facts", Online Information Review, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 520-539.
    Lundvall, B. Å., & Borrás, S. (2005). Science, technology and innovation policy. The Oxford handbook of innovation, 599-631.
    Bates, J. (2014). The strategic importance of information policy for the contemporary neoliberal state: The case of Open Government Data in the United Kingdom. Government Information Quarterly, 31(3), 388-395.

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: Qualitative analysis is applied - it looks fine.

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: OK.

    Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: There is room for improvement, possibly by including some further past studies on S&T; policy.

    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: Not crystal clear.

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Overall OK; some minor language issues can improve.

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?:

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no.All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Reviewer: 2

    Recommendation: Major Revision

    Comments:
    This is a work of reflection on what are the dimensions involved in a S&TiP; project applied to a very specific geographical context, Iran. Therefore, it could be considered that there is not a contribution of pure results, although the originality of it is present both in the revision of the literature, and in the composition of the dimensions and the relation that the authors make of them contextualized to Iran.
    The title should include the place of application of the proposal: Iran, since it conditions all the work.
    The objective of the work: to identify the dimensions of S&TiP;, in the form of an analytical framework, and to show how to apply it". It is fulfilled.
    Perhaps it is a prejudice of the reviewer, but I believe that the characteristic socio-cultural aspects of Iran, which directly affect general aspects such as freedom of the press, freedom of expression, autonomy of universities and research centers, etc., must have some significant characteristic in the context of scientific and technical information. These characteristics must be reflected, because the reader of this journal does not have to know the Iranian reality.

    This is the general objective, but not a good definition: “Baruah (2002) believes that NS&TiP; encourages publishing research findings, promotes the (inter)national coordination among information centers, ensures the availability of information, and helps economic/ scientific/ social developments.” The most correct and comprehensive definition that fits all scenarios is the Weingarten definition from 1996.
    "The first step in developing an integrated S&TiP; is to clarify its scope and dimensions. " It should be added that the ultimate objectives (teleological objectives) of the S&TiP.;
    "NS&TiP; is a vast and interpenetrating subject and is related to information, communication, and culture". It would be necessary to specify more, the scientific culture, the technological development and the political structures that regulate the creative processes.

    There are many phrases that are repeated in the introduction and in the literature review, such as the phrases that define the NS&TiP.; For example: This phrase appears in the text repeated twice. Rewrite both sections.
    "Pajaro and Betncourt (2007) referred to the NS&TiP; as practical guidelines for guaranteeing the global access to information for realizing different social, economic, and political objectives contributing to the development of a country" Betncourt no --> Betancourt.

    The same happens with the texts of Wingarten, Baruah, Jaeger or Megnibeto... It is recommended in the introduction to give a complete definition and in the review of the literature to qualify that definition with the contributions of other authors..

    It should speak more deeply to Harvey's work as the clear precedent to this work.

    Personally I like to see the construction of the codes and their subsequent categorization, you could say that it is an unnecessary element, but it provides interesting information about the construction of the frame. I would join T4 and T5.

    PC2 Intellectual Property Rights y PC22. Copyright are the same.

    Table outlines are welcome.

    In table 8 the different macro strategies appear, but nevertheless, several are missing, such as Macro Strategy 3, 5 and 6. It would be interesting to name and indicate their content, so that the reader knows that they are not related.

    The conclusions indicate that Iran would benefit from an independent NST&P;, is this possible in a country like Iran?
    The recommendations that are made are generic and superficial, not up to the task of such complex work.

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: It does not make a significant contribution but makes an interesting model of analysis based on the methodology of the frameworks.

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: In principle the theoretical contribution that supports the introduction is correct, a deeper discussion in the results is missing.

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: The methodology is clear and the results allow to identify the steps that have been taken to carry out the analysis.

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: This work is not clearly empirical.

    Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: The work is "deflated" in the conclusions and discussion section. The most interesting part is the proposal of analysis.

    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: This work can be useful for science policy makers as a model for complex science policy analysis,

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Yes, without English being my first language I was able to read the article without any further complications.

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?: No, because it has a qualitative approach.

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no.All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2021/01/06

    This is a work of reflection on what are the dimensions involved in a S&TiP; project applied to a very specific geographical context, Iran. Therefore, it could be considered that there is not a contribution of pure results, although the originality of it is present both in the revision of the literature, and in the composition of the dimensions and the relation that the authors make of them contextualized to Iran.
    The title should include the place of application of the proposal: Iran, since it conditions all the work.
    The objective of the work: to identify the dimensions of S&TiP;, in the form of an analytical framework, and to show how to apply it". It is fulfilled.
    Perhaps it is a prejudice of the reviewer, but I believe that the characteristic socio-cultural aspects of Iran, which directly affect general aspects such as freedom of the press, freedom of expression, autonomy of universities and research centers, etc., must have some significant characteristic in the context of scientific and technical information. These characteristics must be reflected, because the reader of this journal does not have to know the Iranian reality.

    This is the general objective, but not a good definition: “Baruah (2002) believes that NS&TiP; encourages publishing research findings, promotes the (inter)national coordination among information centers, ensures the availability of information, and helps economic/ scientific/ social developments.” The most correct and comprehensive definition that fits all scenarios is the Weingarten definition from 1996.
    "The first step in developing an integrated S&TiP; is to clarify its scope and dimensions. " It should be added that the ultimate objectives (teleological objectives) of the S&TiP.;
    "NS&TiP; is a vast and interpenetrating subject and is related to information, communication, and culture". It would be necessary to specify more, the scientific culture, the technological development and the political structures that regulate the creative processes.

    There are many phrases that are repeated in the introduction and in the literature review, such as the phrases that define the NS&TiP.; For example: This phrase appears in the text repeated twice. Rewrite both sections.
    "Pajaro and Betncourt (2007) referred to the NS&TiP; as practical guidelines for guaranteeing the global access to information for realizing different social, economic, and political objectives contributing to the development of a country" Betncourt no --> Betancourt.

    The same happens with the texts of Wingarten, Baruah, Jaeger or Megnibeto... It is recommended in the introduction to give a complete definition and in the review of the literature to qualify that definition with the contributions of other authors..

    It should speak more deeply to Harvey's work as the clear precedent to this work.

    Personally I like to see the construction of the codes and their subsequent categorization, you could say that it is an unnecessary element, but it provides interesting information about the construction of the frame. I would join T4 and T5.

    PC2 Intellectual Property Rights y PC22. Copyright are the same.

    Table outlines are welcome.

    In table 8 the different macro strategies appear, but nevertheless, several are missing, such as Macro Strategy 3, 5 and 6. It would be interesting to name and indicate their content, so that the reader knows that they are not related.

    The conclusions indicate that Iran would benefit from an independent NST&P;, is this possible in a country like Iran?
    The recommendations that are made are generic and superficial, not up to the task of such complex work.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2021/01/03

    Thank you for the submission of your manuscript. I have two major comments/concerns:
    1. Why does the paper need to introduce a completely new framework, i.e. "HULINIM" when well-established analysis frameworks are doing the job, for e.g.:
    - Compare with PESTLE or STEEPLE analysis:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEST_analysis
    - ... and with SWOT analysis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysis
    I understand the Author(s) may be willing to work in the new tailored-made framework, but they should be thinking also the potential reader - the flow of the manuscript would improve if the framework of analysis is following a common jargon with the reader.
    2. The contribution/impact is an issue: in my opinion, the paper does not identify clearly the implications for research and society. Indeed, what is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Please clarify & revise.

    Minor comments:
    i) Some further papers could be added:
    García‐Peñalvo, F.J., García de Figuerola, C. and Merlo, J.A. (2010), "Open knowledge: challenges and facts", Online Information Review, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 520-539.
    Lundvall, B. Å., & Borrás, S. (2005). Science, technology and innovation policy. The Oxford handbook of innovation, 599-631.
    Bates, J. (2014). The strategic importance of information policy for the contemporary neoliberal state: The case of Open Government Data in the United Kingdom. Government Information Quarterly, 31(3), 388-395.
    ii) Minor language issues were identified (both linguistic + typos) - please correct.
    iii) References, need revision: all the OECD part (page 11) is not in the proper format - at the least, they should start with "OECD". Same for Harvey (1982) where the journal & the volume/issue are not appearing (in page 12).

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
All peer review content displayed here is covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.