Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The goal of this research was to examine the impact of China's high-tech industrial development zones (HIDZs) policy on the innovation output and quality of their host cities. The study used panel data from Chinese cities between 2001 and 2019 and employed the PSM-DID model to analyze the effects of HIDZs policy. The paper reports that the analysis results confirmed two research hypotheses, which are: (1) the establishment of HIDZs and the implementation of relevant policies can promote urban innovation, and the direct impact on the innovation output is more prominent than innovation quality. (2) the impact on urban innovation output and quality is significantly different when HIDZs are set up in different types of cities. When HIDZ is set up in cities with better development foundation and more diversified industrial policies, its marginal effectiveness is mainly reflected in improving the quality of urban innovation, while in cities with a lower development level and less industrial policies, the marginal effect of establishing HIDZ is mainly reflected in increasing the output of urban innovations, and the HIDZ is easy to become a tool to stimulate GDP growth. The paper also presents implications for China's HIDZ practice based on the research conclusions.

In general, the study achieves its objectives. Still, the authors could improve the manuscript in the following points:

Clarify the research questions: The authors could provide a more specific research question that is clearly stated at the beginning of the paper to guide readers through the study;

Improve the literature review: The authors could provide more critical analysis of the existing literature ;

Discuss limitations and future research: The authors could discuss the limitations of their study and how these could be addressed in future research, as well as suggest possible avenues for future research in the field ;

 

Improve writing style: The authors could improve the writing style by being more concise, avoiding passive voice, and using clear and simple language to convey their ideas.

Author Response

Reviewer 1-Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Response: Many thanks for your valuable comments and suggestions, which help us to revise this manuscript directly and accurately. Below, we will explain the modification response in bold type (The line-number is the number in the revised version after accepting the revised format):

In general, the study achieves its objectives. Still, the authors could improve the manuscript in the following points:

(1) Clarify the research questions: The authors could provide a more specific research question that is clearly stated at the beginning of the paper to guide readers through the study;

Thanks for the hint. Based on the suggestions, we revised the beginning of the paper (introduction section) to clearly proposed research questions for HIDZ, and further explain the research objectives which correspond to the steps in this article. (See the fourth paragraph of the introduction, line 82-95)

(2) Improve the literature review: The authors could provide more critical analysis of the existing literature;

Thanks for the inspiring suggestion. We have added critical thinking and questioning to existing literature in the literature review (see line 143-149, 161-164), making it correspond to the logic and research issues discussed in our article. In addition, our literature review combs the effects of HIDZ in three aspects, and the following paragraph (line 178-204) summarizes the possible positive and negative impacts on urban innovation.

(3) Discuss limitations and future research: The authors could discuss the limitations of their study and how these could be addressed in future research, as well as suggest possible avenues for future research in the field;

Many thanks. In the last paragraph of the article, we explicitly mentioned the limitations of this study (see line 616-620), and then proposed possible paths for future research (see line 620-628).

(4) Improve writing style: The authors could improve the writing style by being more concise, avoiding passive voice, and using clear and simple language to convey their ideas.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. In the revised version, several of our authors have checked the language to improve the readability of the article. We corrected detailed errors, and rewritten many of the passive voice expressions. We also invited native English speakers to polish the text in order to convey our ideas more clearly and directly.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article „Do the High-Tech Industrial Development Zones Foster Urban Innovation? A case study of China” aimed at examine the impact of HIDZs policy on their host cities’ innovation output and quality. The authors, using a variety of research methods enhanced by statistical equations, determined that the quality of innovation resulting from HIDZs varies across the regions studied. In addition, they highlighted the important role of HIDZs in the context of promoting urban innovation.

The following points can be highlighted in the article:

- line 48 – most likely there is an error in the word "succuss". Shouldn't it be success?

- chapter 2. Conceptual framework - It is proposed to combine subsections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 into one 2.1. - Literature review. Subsection 2.1.1 is very short, while 2.1.2 is very similar. The titles of these subsections also sound almost the same;

- Figure 1 – Influence of HIDZs on Urban Innovation Development; the letter n should be combined with its word in the previous line; ; unintelligible is the effect „admittance threshold” and terms: „the grounded city”, „aglomeration diseconomy”, „restrict startups”; the effects (second column) should be indicated unambiguously, without using dots;

- Figure 2 - no reference in the text;

- Tab. 3,5,6,7 - markings with asterisks, under the table are illegible

There is a great deal of statistical data in the text, so it is recommended that the text be checked by a statistician as well.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2-Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Response: Thank you for your valuable advice and very clear suggestions for revision, which help us to revise this manuscript directly and accurately. Below, we will explain the modification response in bold type (The line-number is the number in the revised version after accepting the revised format):

The following points can be highlighted in the article:

• line 48 – most likely there is an error in the word “succuss”. Shouldn’t it be success?

Thank you for pointing out this error. We have modified this mistake.

(2) chapter 2. Conceptual framework – It is proposed to combine subsections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 into one 2.1. – Literature review. Subsection 2.1.1 is very short, while 2.1.2 is very similar. The titles of these subsections also sound almost the same;

Thank you for your suggestion. We have made 2.1-Literature review a unified chapter and improved it based on the comments of all reviewers (for example, line 130-133, 143-149, 161-164, 178-204).

(3) Figure 1 – Influence of HIDZs on Urban Innovation Development; the letter n should be combined with its word in the previous line; ; unintelligible is the effect „admittance threshold” and terms: „the grounded city”, „aglomeration diseconomy”, „restrict startups”; the effects (second column) should be indicated unambiguously, without using dots;

Thanks for the comments. Based on your suggestion, we first checked the expressions of these proper names and corrected the inaccurate use. For example, the term " agglomeration diseconomies" is changed to "diseconomies of agglomeration" (line 191), and the relevant literature is listed ( Ref.“Richardson, H. W. (1995). Economies and diseconomies of agglomeration. Urban agglomeration and economic growth, 123-155.”). After completing the revision of the literature review, we further modified Figure 1 to clarify the results of its different effects (line 225-242, Figure 1).

(4) Figure 2 - no reference in the text;

Thanks for pointing out the mistake. The reference in the text for Fig. 2 has been added (line 250). We also added a reference to the base map of Figure 2 (see line 287).

(5) Tab. 3,5,6,7 - markings with asterisks, under the table are illegible

Thank for the comment. We have modified the expression of these tables and removed quotation marks to improve the readability of marks.

(6) There is a great deal of statistical data in the text, so it is recommended that the text be checked by a statistician as well.

Thank you for your suggestion. Our authors will also conduct testing on the content of quantitative analysis to meet the requirements of all reviewers and journals.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is well written, innovative and could be useful for business.

There are some questions:

1. The authors write that HIDZ has influenced the agglomeration of high-tech enterprises and the construction of R&D facilities within its borders and in its cities through the combined effects of agglomeration, policy effects and selection effects (line 208-211). I would like to clarify the following aspects of this statement: how does the resulting effect depend on the intensity of investment? Is it possible to form ecosystem-based innovation agglomerations?

2.       The studies showings that HIDZs have positive spillovers to surrounding areas (lines 232-233). What exactly the authors mean by "spillover effects"? Has the impact of HIDZ on the quality of life in these areas been assessed? What other spillover effects have been or are intended to be assessed in the future?

3. Based on a literature review, a conceptual framework (Figure 1) is proposed that summarizes the impact of HIDZ on the quantity and quality of urban innovation (lines 207-208). However, no references to sources are provided. The essence of this figure is also not very clear. Why the authors conclude that "a positive effect prevails, so HIDZ is also seen as a growth pole" ( lines 213-214). A clearer justification should have been given for the figure presented.

4.       In 3.1.1. and 3.1.2. measurement models are presented.  There is a lack of justification for the use of models with references to scientific sources.

5.       It would have been more appropriate to split up section 5. Conclusion and discussion into two separate sections: Conclusions and Further Research. This would have been more logical.

However, the article is logically structured and useful for researchers working in this field.

Author Response

Reviewer 3-Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Response: Thank you for your valuable advice and very clear suggestions for revision, which help us to revise this manuscript directly and accurately. Below, we will explain the modification response in bold type (The line-number is the number in the revised version after accepting the revised format):

The manuscript is well written, innovative and could be useful for business.

There are some questions:

1. The authors write that HIDZ has influenced the agglomeration of high-tech enterprises and the construction of R&D facilities within its borders and in its cities through the combined effects of agglomeration, policy effects and selection effects (line 208-211). I would like to clarify the following aspects of this statement: how does the resulting effect depend on the intensity of investment? Is it possible to form ecosystem-based innovation agglomerations?

Thank you for your suggestion. Previous studies have shown that large-scale investment within development zones can reduce the operating costs of various market entities, thereby promoting the agglomeration of different types of enterprises in this area. Cooperation and competition between the same type of enterprises, as well as knowledge spillovers and personnel exchanges between different types of enterprises, may promote the formation of an innovation ecosystem. We have revised the narrative of this paragraph based on the suggestions of various reviewers (see line 225-242), to make this statement echo the content of the literature review, with some references added (ref. [7][24][27]).

2. The studies showings that HIDZs have positive spillovers to surrounding areas (lines 232-233). What exactly the authors mean by "spillover effects"? Has the impact of HIDZ on the quality of life in these areas been assessed? What other spillover effects have been or are intended to be assessed in the future?

Many thanks. Based on your suggestion, an introduction to the references has been added (see line 257-258), which indicate that the spillover effects generated by the development zone include firm productivity, wages, and local manufacturing employment growth. And significant findings have been accumulated in the field of HIDZ driving regional development [ref. 36, 37]. Therefore, we argue that HIDZ may also have a similar effect on innovation of the host city.

3. Based on a literature review, a conceptual framework (Figure 1) is proposed that summarizes the impact of HIDZ on the quantity and quality of urban innovation (lines 207-208). However, no references to sources are provided. The essence of this figure is also not very clear. Why the authors conclude that "a positive effect prevails, so HIDZ is also seen as a growth pole" (lines 213-214). A clearer justification should have been given for the figure presented.

Thanks for your comments. We have modified the text (see line 225-242) and Figure 1 of the research framework and added some references. I have reorganized the views of this paragraph, which are inspired by your suggestions on the one hand, and also echo the content of the literature review section (line 179-206) on the other hand.

4. In 3.1.1. and 3.1.2. measurement models are presented.  There is a lack of justification for the use of models with references to scientific sources.

Thanks for the hints. We have supplemented the references (line 282-284, 308-311). Existing research has begun to use DID models to explore the effectiveness of development zones or related policy areas, and we have referred to relevant methods.

5. It would have been more appropriate to split up section 5. Conclusion and discussion into two separate sections: Conclusions and Further Research. This would have been more logical.

Thank you for your suggestion. To make the structure of this chapter clearer, we divided Chapter 5 into two parts: (1) Discussion of Policy Implications (line 500-590), and (2) Research Conclusions and Prospects for Further Research (line 591-630).

6. However, the article is logically structured and useful for researchers working in this field.

Thank you for your positive remarks and all your inspiring suggestion,

with best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx