Innovation Networks of Science and Technology Firms: Evidence from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for submitting your paper. The article provides an interesting and extensive analysis of innovation networks using data on Chinese science and technology companies in 2022 to identify the intrinsic characteristics and spatial patterns of networks at different dimensions and scales.

 

Comments on individual parts:

• The title of the paper does not sound good. I would suggest the following title: “Innovation networks of science and technology firms: evidence from China”
• The abstract is not precise enough. Although it contains all the required elements, such as the objective of the study, methods, results, it is too detailed.
• The Introduction highlights the research background and defines the research objective. However, it is also recommended that authors expand the Introduction to indicate the logic of the presentation of the research material, e.g. specifying in which chapter what information or research results are included (i.e. the overview of remaining sections).

·         The literature review presents the state of the art, however, the major topics might receive more attention and explanation. The literature review section should identify gaps in literature and formulate the hypotheses. One of the main weaknesses is that the research hypotheses are missing. The section is also not sophisticated enough etc. Moreover, the quality of Figure 1 is very poor. The text in the figure is barely visible.

• The use of research methods is adequate. However, the choice of research method could be better justified. However, the research should also include justification for the questions: how were basic research criteria such as validity and reliability ensured?
• The result section can be considered significant and important. However, the results section should include not only a presentation of the data and interpretation of the results but also a critical evaluation of the findings. The critical assessment of the results will improve the quality of the analysis. Moreover,      the quality of Figures 3-10 is very poor. The text in the figures is barely visible.
• The conclusions focus clearly on the main points. However, the indicated research limitations are too modest and the directions for further research should be better specified.

 

The academic language is correct, however some expressions, wording, style, and abbreviation - might be improved. A general revision would be advisable.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for your review comments, they are very helpful. Your help made the structure of our article clearer and more logical. We have carefully revised the article according to your suggestions, and the response to the specific changes is attached. Please see the attachment.

Kind regards，

All authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The reviewer believes that the topic “Spatial characterization of urban innovation networks constructed based on website hyperlinks: evidence from China's technology firms” is worthy of investigation. However, the following needs to be addressed. There are minor and major issues that should be corrected. I believe the paper could be further strengthened by added information about.

Please reorganize the manuscript at the journal request. Please change the reference format.

The language of this manuscript is very bad and needs help from native speakers.

The title of the manuscript should fully demonstrate the content of this study and the relevant subjects.

Abstracts should include the purpose and findings of the study.

LINE46-50. This a very vague statement. These sentences do not provide any information on how the concept could be conceptualized?

LINE105-109. This section should explain the study's context and research objective. Furthermore, the research gap needs to be narrowed after analyzing the previous studies. The research method is not adequately explained in the first section.

-Introduction, what authors wanted to convey. Here author must build research gap following the previous studies.-The manuscript does not answer the following concerns: Why is it timeliness to explore such a study? What makes this study different from the previously published studies? Are there any similarly findings in line with the previously published studies? Are the findings different from prior academic studies that were conducted elsewhere, if any? For example, information innovation and innovation network, what it requires, what are the new technologies, some recent issue highlights the importance. See the following: Formation mechanism for integrated innovation network among strategic emerging industries: Analytical and simulation approaches. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107705
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043339

-Methodology: Model.. I suggest authors here build your main heading on Research and data methodology. Clearly explain the model building process, and what previous studies have used similar models (model testing approach). 

There is no flow in the text. It partly depends on the lack of proofreading but also on the fact that many statements and claims are made without being followed up by a clear and logical discussion. It is especially problematic in the Introduction that brings up a number of findings from different areas without linking them together.

Please make sure your conclusions' section underscores the scientific value-added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results. Highlight the novelty of your study.

In addition to summarizing the actions taken and results, please strengthen the explanation of their significance. It is recommended to use quantitative reasoning comparing with appropriate benchmarks, especially those stemming from previous work.

Please consider this structure for manuscript final part.

-Discussion

-Conclusion

-Managerial Implication

-Practical/Social Implications

-Discussion needs to be a coherent and cohesive set of arguments that take us beyond this study in particular, and help us see the relevance of what authors have proposed. Authors should create an independent “Discussion” section. Author need to contextualize the findings in the literature, and need to be explicit about the added value of your study towards that literature. Also other studies should be cited to increase the theoretical background of each of the method used.

As any emprical study that use different approaches I would like to ask to introduce in the Conclusion section at least a paragraph containing the study limitations. I noticed some things in the paper but a synthesis of statements related to how the study is useful (or partially useful, since are required certain further analysis) and helps potential interested readers does not really exist. Maybe in addition to the last section of Conclusion it is beneficial to introduce a section called: Discussion.

The reviewer believes that the topic “Spatial characterization of urban innovation networks constructed based on website hyperlinks: evidence from China's technology firms” is worthy of investigation. However, the following needs to be addressed. There are minor and major issues that should be corrected. I believe the paper could be further strengthened by added information about.

Please reorganize the manuscript at the journal request. Please change the reference format.

The language of this manuscript is very bad and needs help from native speakers.

The title of the manuscript should fully demonstrate the content of this study and the relevant subjects.

Abstracts should include the purpose and findings of the study.

LINE46-50. This a very vague statement. These sentences do not provide any information on how the concept could be conceptualized?

LINE105-109. This section should explain the study's context and research objective. Furthermore, the research gap needs to be narrowed after analyzing the previous studies. The research method is not adequately explained in the first section.

-Introduction, what authors wanted to convey. Here author must build research gap following the previous studies.-The manuscript does not answer the following concerns: Why is it timeliness to explore such a study? What makes this study different from the previously published studies? Are there any similarly findings in line with the previously published studies? Are the findings different from prior academic studies that were conducted elsewhere, if any? For example, information innovation and innovation network, what it requires, what are the new technologies, some recent issue highlights the importance. See the following: Formation mechanism for integrated innovation network among strategic emerging industries: Analytical and simulation approaches. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107705

-Methodology: Model.. I suggest authors here build your main heading on Research and data methodology. Clearly explain the model building process, and what previous studies have used similar models (model testing approach). 

There is no flow in the text. It partly depends on the lack of proofreading but also on the fact that many statements and claims are made without being followed up by a clear and logical discussion. It is especially problematic in the Introduction that brings up a number of findings from different areas without linking them together.

Please make sure your conclusions' section underscores the scientific value-added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results. Highlight the novelty of your study.

In addition to summarizing the actions taken and results, please strengthen the explanation of their significance. It is recommended to use quantitative reasoning comparing with appropriate benchmarks, especially those stemming from previous work.

Please consider this structure for manuscript final part.

-Discussion

-Conclusion

-Managerial Implication

-Practical/Social Implications

-Discussion needs to be a coherent and cohesive set of arguments that take us beyond this study in particular, and help us see the relevance of what authors have proposed. Authors should create an independent “Discussion” section. Author need to contextualize the findings in the literature, and need to be explicit about the added value of your study towards that literature. Also other studies should be cited to increase the theoretical background of each of the method used.

As any emprical study that use different approaches I would like to ask to introduce in the Conclusion section at least a paragraph containing the study limitations. I noticed some things in the paper but a synthesis of statements related to how the study is useful (or partially useful, since are required certain further analysis) and helps potential interested readers does not really exist. Maybe in addition to the last section of Conclusion it is beneficial to introduce a section called: Discussion.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for your review comments, they are very helpful. Your help made the structure of our article clearer and more logical. We have carefully revised the article according to your suggestions, and the response to the specific changes is attached. Please see the attachment.

Kind regards，

All authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your manuscript that does indeed focus on a very relevant research area. 

I'd suggest you, first of all, to rethink your introduction / literature review. The current version of the manuscript could be improved twofold.

First, please put your research into a more solid context of the scientific literature of innovation networks giving a reader a deeper insight into the theoretical background of your research, and highlighting research gaps.

Second, please update your literature review with more recent research data: your current literature review contain only 22% references from the last there years and in total only 38% references from the last five years.

Your key methodological approach of analyzing innovation networks based on website hyperlinks might also be scientifically debatable, unless there is a more solid justification for this from the literature (in addition to your current references)

Please, put the discussion of your research results, as well as your conclusion in the context of the revised scientific literature.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for your review comments, they are very helpful. Your help made the structure of our article clearer and more logical. We have carefully revised the article according to your suggestions, and the response to the specific changes is attached.

Please see the attachment.

Kind regards，

All authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has significantly improved as compared to the previous version. Indeed, the authors tried to improve it, and the main weaknesses are solved.

Thus, in my opinion, the manuscript is recommendable for publication.

The manuscript has significantly improved as compared to the previous version. Indeed, the authors tried to improve it, and the main weaknesses are solved.

Thus, in my opinion, the manuscript is recommendable for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,
Thank you for the revised version of your manuscript. I accept the modifications made.