Research on Collaborative Innovation of Intelligent Connected Vehicles Industry Based on Test Field: Embedded Case Study from the Perspective of Open Innovation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

See attachement

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

 

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to review my paper. I have read your revision suggestions carefully and made corresponding modifications.

1. The problem of data source has been revised.
2. The longer sentences have been revised.
3. Some repeated phrases and words have been simplified and revised.
4. Some contents of section 2 have been integrated and revised.
5. The conclusion and recommendation section have been revised.

Please review and thank you again.

Wish you all the best in your work.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper titled “Research on Collaborative Innovation of Intelligent Connected Vehicles Industry Based on Test Field：Embedded Case Study from the Perspective of Open Innovation” appears to be a good piece of work. However, there is no new idea behind this work. Similar work has been published before for example :Asia Pacific Business Review 24.1 (2018): 1-21., Post-Communist Economies 32.6 (2020): 771-792, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), pp. 368-373. IEEE, 2018, Digital Business Models. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2019. 57-79. I do not recommend this paper due to the following reasons: 1. In the introduction section, there is no reference provided that form where that data has been collected? 2. The author explains the importance of collaborative Innovation of intelligent connected vehicles with industry and academia but failed to explain why there is a reason to do so. 3. On page # 5, paragraph # 1, authors have cited few reports, but they didn’t explain the missing drawback in these studies that have compelled the author to do this work. 4. The authors didn’t justify that why they selected Beijing as an example of a case study to discuss the impact of the test field of Intelligent Connected Vehicles as a platform on industrial collaborative and innovation. 5. The authors have not discussed methodological aspects from existing literature. What are the usual methodologies and simulation studies used by the other researchers for studying similar issues? Also, justify the use of their methodology. 6. The authors didn’t shed light on the impact of universities and research institutes in the test field of Intelligent Connected Vehicles as a platform for industrial collaborative and innovation. The importance of research start-up, a government grant for research and research patent, and their close relation with innovation of Intelligent Connected Vehicles should be provided.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer.

Thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to review my paper. I have carefully read your revision suggestions and made corresponding modifications and the following responses.

1. The Data source of the case part is in the Data collection part of the third chapter. In addition to the primary Data of the investigation, there are also many secondary Data from the Internet, which cannot all be shown in the article.
2. In the first part, I explained in detail the importance and necessity of collaborative innovation in the intelligent and connected automobile industry based on the test field, including the current situation and problems.
3. Although there are many researches on industrial collaborative innovation, my research is about the collaborative innovation research of the ICV industry based on the test field. At present, there are very few studies on this in China and abroad, so there are not too many references. I have made a supplementary explanation on the selection of research methods in the Research Methodology section of the third chapter.
4. The reasons for choosing Beijing as the case are in the Case Selection section of Chapter 3.
5. As for the research on the cooperative patent, I have another paper in Chinese which has been published in the core journal of CSSCI.
6. I made some literature supplement and language modification.

Please review and thank you again.

Wish you all the best in your work.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The reviwer would like to thanks authors for the improvements made. 

However, the English is still poor and need a strong revision.

Plus, conclusions section is very long. The text is more a summary than a conclusion! Review it properly!

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept in present form