Temporal and Spatial Evolution of the Science and Technology Innovative Efficiency of Regional Industrial Enterprises: A Data-Driven Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article submitted for review is characterized by relevance and timeliness. The article is well structured, the presentation of the material is logical and consistent, the graphic material nicely illustrates the research results. However, despite the positive points mentioned above, we would like to provide certain recommendations, the consideration of which will contribute to increasing the level of scientificity and quality of the article.

1. The abstract should briefly state the purpose of the article, research methods and briefly outline the results.

2. In the introduction, it is necessary to start with the relevance of the research topic. Write down the purpose and objectives of the research, and then proceed to the literature review.

3. We also recommend to cross-reference the following articles and add them

- Popelo, O., Tulchynska, S., Revko, A., Butko, M., Derhaliuk, M. (2022). Methodological Approaches to the Evaluation of Innovation in Polish and Ukrainian Regions, Taking into Account Digitalization. Comparative Economic Research. Central and Eastern Europe, 25(1), 55-74. https://doi.org/10.18778/1508-2008.25.04.

- Boiarynova, K., Popelo, O., Tulchynska, S., Gritsenko, S., Prikhno, I. (2022) "Conceptual Foundations of Evaluation and Forecasting of Innovative Development of Regions", Periodica Polytechnica Social and Management Sciences. 30(2), 167–174. https://doi.org/10.3311/PPso.18530

- Marhasova, V., Garafonova, O., Popelo, O., Tulchynska, S., Pohrebniak, A., Tkachenko, T. (2022). Environmentalization of Production as a direction of ensuring the sustainability of production activities of enterprises and increasing their economic security. International Journal of Safety and Security Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 159-166. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsse.120203

4. In the article, it is necessary to indicate what is the value and novelty of the research. It is desirable to prove the practical expediency and significance of the conducted research.

5. We consider it expedient to expand the conclusions with specific calculation results and provide recommendations.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and for your positive and constructive comments about our paper. We are very grateful for your kind guidance and suggestions, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. We hope that you would find the revision satisfactory. Our responses to your specific comments and descriptions of the resultant changes in our revision are as follows.Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

the article is a thorough study, but needs minimal additions. First, in the abstract, clearly specify the purpose of the research and the tools for its achievement. Secondly, in the conclusions, add specific results obtained as a result of the calculations, as well as more clearly formulate the scientific novelty of the research, since in the conclusions the authors pay too much attention to the problems of further research. Thirdly, in the methodology, highlight which methodological approach was used to substantiate the proposed evaluation methodology.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and for your positive and constructive comments about our paper. We are very grateful for your kind guidance and suggestions, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. We hope that you would find the revision satisfactory. Our responses to your specific comments and descriptions of the resultant changes in our revision are as follows.Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. This paper Takes Anhui Province as the research object. However, it is finally concluded that the research direction of providing theories and methods for the sustainable development of industrial enterprises from individual case to general question is not rigorous in terms of science. In addition, the article does not reflect its own theoretical innovation, which can be modified to provide scientific suggestions to be improved.

 

2. The literature review part only lists the previous studies, does not summarize and comment on the previous articles, does not discuss the shortcomings and limitations of previous studies, and especially, does not extend the innovation of my own article research.

 

3. Why is this indicator selected and where is the data obtained in Page 5？

 

4. There is no overall summary for the paper before 3.4 Policy Suggestion in Page15.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and for your positive and constructive comments about our paper. We are very grateful for your kind guidance and suggestions, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. We hope that you would find the revision satisfactory. Our responses to your specific comments and descriptions of the resultant changes in our revision are as follows.Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf