SME Engagement with Open Innovation: Commitments and Challenges towards Collaborative Innovation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled: “SMEs open Innovation engagement: commitment and challenges towards collaborative Innovation”, as I found it interesting to read. Overall, the study has the potential to make contributions to research on open innovation. Having said that there are areas in need of improvement:

• I found the introduction section lacking sufficient substance in setting the stage and providing the background for the study. The abstract is indeed much more informative. I suggest extending this section to discuss the premise of the study
• The literature review section does not offer a review of existing literature in this area of inquiry but rather is focused on hypotheses/model development. I suggest either retitling this section to developing a separate section that at least briefly discusses the current state of research and findings in this area. Also, hypotheses should be rewritten to demonstrate a clear effect- e.g., a significant relationship essentially suggests the correlation result, not the regression results. More importantly, the hypotheses should state if the expected effect is positive/negative. This section also lacks sufficient explanation that justifies/support the logic behind the proposed hypotheses.
• The method section lacks sufficient information on the sample and operationalization of variables. I suggest adding those subsections before the analysis. Also, I suggest improvement to the reporting of the results- e.g., the effect size (R-Square) should be reported in the regression table. 
• A discussion of the results is lacking in the paper. This is an essential part of a manuscript that should discuss the results of the method section in detail.
• The paper needs thorough proofreading to improve the clarity of language. 

Author Response

For introduction part,  included some extensive work  of other and have addressed the gaps that  is very crucial to undertake this study 

Literature review was written in detail and have explained all the necessary explanation need for this study 

Hypothesis have included strongly positive  relationship to provide a clear effect of the hypotheses 

 Research methodology has provided a detail explanation of the sample and operationalization of variables.

R square has been added for both model, before moderation and after moderation 

Very detail explanation provided in discussion

All the one highlighted in red has been added to enrich the manuscript 

Proof reading done 

Reviewer 2 Report

Table 4-10 is moved to an appendix. It is better to move all the tables to the Appendix. The data is not shown in the article.  At least a skeleton of the data sheet should be shown so that the readers will get an idea regarding the SEM analysis. As per the structure of the model, all responses are either nominal or ordinal. How does the author claim that the proposed study is quantitative in nature?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The social exchange theory and the actor-network theory has been used as a pillar to remodel it into a quantitative study.  From these theories, interrelated set of constructs or variables) formed into propositions, or hypotheses, that specifies the relationship among variables 

Based on the research conducted by various authors and the details that has been incorporated , hypothesis was constructed based on these arguments to address the gaps 

In the discussion part,  already included the explanation of why organizational citizenship behaviors and organizational culture were not moderated by appropriability regime 

Reviewer 3 Report

This research was undertaken to study the effects of organisational citizenship behaviours, organizational culture, managerial ties and transactional cost as on open innovation adoption and to study the moderating role of the appropriability regime on these relationships.

The results revealed that organizational citizenship behaviours predict open innovation positively and significantly. Highly integrative culture was found to relate positively to open innovation.

Overall, this research is a valuable contribution to literature. All research methods are appropriate and results are sufficiently backed by literature. 

Literature review is done appropriately and hypothesis formulation is sound. 

Author Response

The reviewer has given a thumbs up for the manuscript, Thank you

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to read the revised version of your manuscript, "SMEs open Innovation engagement: commitment and challenges towards collaborative Innovation for consideration." Overall, the revision is sufficiently successful, in my view. My main theoretical, empirical, and presentation concerns have been addressed sufficiently. The current version is much more focused, clear, and methodologically robust. The use of language and clarity of arguments have improved as well. I wish you luck with your manuscript. 

Reviewer 2 Report

I believe that the materials shown in red color are newly added.