Absorptive Capacity and Its Dual Effect on Technological Innovation: A Structural Equations Model Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Good to see the good research work, anyway, I have some suggestions which could improve your research work, such as

In abstract, in first sentence author should give the main problem of the study then relate the objective to solve it, then methodology such as population, sample and type of data collection some time response rate as well. Further author (s) will talk about findings and in last implications, please revise abstract accordingly. One more thing, author (s) should not use personal noun such as We, I, He, She in academic writing.  Furthermore, I couldn’t see the moderating relationship in the literature even in data analysis, then why author (s) writing the findings of moderation in abstract, please check.

In introduction section: author (s) should revise the introduction section, basically author should start then introduction of the study with practical problem why you are going to conduct this study, then practical problem relates with theory, further author (s) should defend your proposed variable could be beneficial for practical problem solution. Moreover, in last author should give the methodology gaps as well.

Methods, good to see the proper justification of target population, but the proposed sample size is enough to represent the population which is 3791? Please the sample size should be 350 at least to represent the proposed population. It is suggested for author (s) should fulfil the sample size requirement or author (s) should use the GPower software to calculate the sample size.

Data analysis: The research framework containing the second order constructs, it is suggested that author (s) should use the PLS-SEM either CB-SEM. Basically author must justify the order type treatment in the data analysis such as reflective-reflective, reflective-formative, formative-formative, please operationalized the construct properly. The following papers are recommended for your guidance.

Becker, J. M., Klein, K., & Wetzels, M. (2012). Hierarchical latent variable models in PLS-SEM: guidelines for using reflective-formative type models. Long range planning, 45(5-6), 359-394.

Imran, M., Aziz, A., Hamid, S. N. B. A., Shabbir, M., Salman, R., & Jian, Z. (2018). Retracted: The mediating role of total quality management between entrepreneurial orientation and SMEs export performance. Management Science Letters, 8(6), 519-532.

Author (s) should change the heading in section 5. Conclusion and discussion should not be together, it should discuss separately. Furthermore, author (s) should discuss the implications of the study in respect of practical theoretical and methodological. Author (s) should give the headings of limitations and future recommendations separately and discuss in more details, at least author (s) should the give the 5 limitations and 5 future recommendations of the study.

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer

First of all, we thank you for your valuable and appropriate suggestions, which have been fully addressed. We believe that with the adjustments made we have significantly improved this article.

Attached you will find in detail the actions or comments to each of your suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript investigates absorptive capacity and its dual effect on technological innovation, and the topic is interesting. However, there are substantial shortcomings as follows:

1.       More updated literatures are encouraged to be added, which is positive to address the importance and cutting-edge of this study.

2.       The sample size of this study is too small, and only 200 surveys are collected. The authors are recommended to add more samples to the data analysis, which is helpful to produce more robust and accurate results.

3.       As survey data, the test for validity should be conducted.

4.       The statements of hypotheses are inappropriate, the authors should specify whether it is a positive or negative effect of absorptive capacity on technological innovation, rather than just stating that there is an effect.

5.       As SEM is utilized in this study, so the authors are suggested to present the path analysis graph.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

First of all, we thank you for your valuable and appropriate suggestions, which have been fully addressed. We believe that with the adjustments made we have significantly improved this article.

Attached you will find in detail the actions or comments to each of your suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

I am pleased to preview this interesting manuscript on knowledge capacities to generate technological innovation.

Below you find some critical issues worthy of consideration:

- As academic writers know, the introduction is among the most challenging sections in a paper. The introduction of your manuscript fails to explain the need to study the topic. In other words, I suggest that the authors elaborate on the aspects of the research of interest to a non-academic reader. What are the non-academic triggers for further study of the topic? What are the endogenous factors that make the topic significant nowadays?

- They say, "Several studies included the moderating roles of ACAP on innovation, but none of them sequenced the effect per variable and the final contribution to technological innovation," indicating the gap present in the literature. I recommend that the authors elaborate on how the other authors treat the moderating role. In this way, it will be possible for the reader to have a clear idea of the gap that the research intends to fill. With this in mind, I suggest reading the following paper to position the study within the research stream related to knowledge management clearly:

- de Bem Machado, A., Secinaro, S., Calandra, D., & Lanzalonga, F. (2022). Knowledge management and digital transformation for Industry 4.0: a structured literature review. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 20(2), 320-338.

- The literature review appears clear. However, I would urge the authors for more clarity. In particular, I would suggest that each point in the list of hypotheses have an in-depth literature review that can explain why the hypotheses are worthy of study.

- The sample under analysis is certainly clearly illustrated. I recommend that the authors elaborate on why the population can explain the phenomenon and specifically WHO within the company was in charge of responding to the survey. Other crucial information might be related to how the survey was administered.

- The reliability and replicability of the results appears satisfactory because of the robustness tests implemented. However, I suggest the authors improve the discussion and conclusion section. First, the title of paragraph 5 should be "Discussion and Conclusion" to follow the logical thread of elaborating a research paper. Second, I recommend highlighting the theoretical contribution as was done with the managerial implications, reserving a paragraph to help the reader immediately understand the theoretical effects of your study. Finally, I recommend extending the section on future studies to provide continuity to the research stream.

Overall, the paper appears to be in an advanced stage and of interest to the journal. I recommend deepening the critical issues highlighted.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

First of all, we sincerely appreciate your valuable and appropriate suggestions, which have been fully addressed. We believe that with the adjustments made we have significantly improved this article.

Attached you will find in detail the actions or comments to each of your suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Good to see the all given corrections incorporation.accepted without further corrections from my side.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed most of the comments.