Abstract, title and references

● The aim of the paper seems to be clear for the reader ● Although it seems to be clear what the study have found in terms of contributions achieved, it’s not quite clear how they did it (if we read only the abstract). However, given the type of the paper and its main goal, the abstract gives a reasonable understanding about the study’s goals.

● The title seems to perfectly fit the scopus of the paper, by being informative as well as relevant to the reader. ● With regards to the references used, they are cited correctly. Given the time, when the paper was published, the key studies used, are appropriated.

Introduction/ background

● The author gives a clear understanding of the problem involved in this study, by starting to perform a brief context of the work, followed by a set of studies, which allows to describe what is known around this field of knowledge and what it needs to be explored; ● The research question it’s not quite clear, although it could be understood, through the paper’s main contribution, which is analysing the role, behavior, and potential impact of collaborative networks in a knowledge-driven society; ● By starting to present what has been done around this research topic, the author shows the existence of a gap, which is tackled through the main contribution of the paper. Therefore, the correspondent research question is justified, given what is already known about the topic.

Methods

● The subject’s selection it’s clear. ● The main purpose of the paper could be divided in two different parts, although related to each other. The first one, tries to perform a taxonomy of the collaborative network, not only by defining its different components (actors involved, interconnections between them, etc) but its behaviour as well, by finishing with an holistic approach. The second part tried to study the collaborative network in terms of its benefits. In the second part, the variables are better defined, and its clear the way of measuring each one of them. ● Given the aim of this paper, these criteria it’s not applicable in this case;

Results

● Given the main purpose of this paper, the data are presented in an appropriated way. All the relevant tables and figures are clearly presented. ● Given the aim of this paper, as well as its presented results, i’m clear about what is a practically meaningful result. The paper clearly presents a breakthrough in science, by leading to a new knowledge field, not only by systematizing the collaborative networks, as well as by defining ways to study and measure the benefits around each collaborative network created

Discussion and Conclusions

● The author supports the discussion of the results by reviewing the existing literature around the subject covered in this paper. Therefore, the discussion of the obtained results, are preformed from multiple angles and placed into context without being overinterpreted ● The conclusions answer the aims of the study ● Given the purpose of the paper, the conclusions are not only supported by the paper’s results, but also by other works, existing on literature. ● One of contributes given by this paper is precisely the future work that could be preformed around the collaborative networks. Therefore, the limitations identified in this work, are opportunities to inform future research.

OVERALL

● The study design was appropriate to answer the aim of the work ● In general, this study as contributed to establish a new scientific research field ● The major flaw of this article was the existence of some lack of information regarding the methodology followed.

OVERALL STATEMENT

This is an engaging paper with a robust review that purposefully questions our knowledge of the subject. Furthermore, this paper also gives important contributions, which could be synthetized into a new scientific discipline, created around the collaborative networks. However, the method used to achieve such results, could be improved, namely in terms of its discussion. Addressing this issue will make this paper more impactful.

OVERALL STRENGTHS OF THE ARTICLE

● The taxonomy of collaborative networks, by defining its different components, which includes the actors and the interconnections involved their behaviour as well, the type of collaborative networks, among other issues. ● The presentation of a set of indicators to measure the possible benefits resulted from a collaborative network ● Identification of the advantages (regarding the different actors involved) of developing holistic models to better characterize the collaborative networks ● The creation of a new scientific discipline, which allows to better understand the collaborative networks, by developing new research studies in the future to support the its different actors involved

SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON WEAKNESS

- Figure 2 could be better presented