Morphological Change and Internal Growth Factors of Firms in the Korean Pharmaceutical Industry in Recent Decades
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
Topic
The theme has little appeal to the reader.
Introduction
It is necessary to ground on the basis of the literature the need to conduct the study.
The gap should not be partially justified. This should be in the introduction section and not in the literature review section.
Literature review
This section should include the theories that support the topic under study. And do not include the identification of the gap as justification for the study.
Methodology
Highlight the context of the study, in particular its specificity.
Results
The results should answer the research questions. Confront the results with the existing literature in a separate section.
Separate the discussion of the results from the conclusions.
Conclusions
The section is too long.
Highlight the contribution of the study to the literature and to practitioners.
Highlight the limitations of the study and suggestions for future research.
Author Response
|
Topic |
The theme has little appeal to the reader. |
We tried to revise the manuscript as much as possible for the theme of the revised version to appeal to many readers. |
|
Introduction |
It is necessary to ground on the basis of the literature the need to conduct the study. The gap should not be partially justified. This should be in the introduction section and not in the literature review section. |
We wrote down one paragraph in lines 96-106 to explain the need to conduct the study at the end of the introduction. Summary of lines 96-106 ü Our study is based not on IO theory but mainly on TIM. ü It adopts not microscopic data analysis but two non-traditional TIM methodologies since these methods are more suitable for our research questions. |
|
Literature review |
This section should include the theories that support the topic under study. And do not include the identification of the gap as justification for the study. |
The last part of the literature review focused on the pharmaceutical industry-specific growth studies in lines 182-218. Three pharmaceutical industry-specific research topics are as follows. First, historical and evolutionary studies regarding the pharmaceutical industry in particular countries; Second, RBV-based studies using empirical data on a firm's growth and structural change in the pharmaceutical industry; Third empirical studies combining firm-specific data from IO economics literature with RBV-based data investigate the impacts of its resource and strategic activities. |
|
Methodology |
Highlight the context of the study, in particular its specificity. |
We highlighted the methodological specificity in lines 100-106 as follows. ü Second, extant research in TIM literature usually adopts only microscopic data analysis, such as surveys, interviews, and case studies, which is unsuitable for the entire pharmaceutical industry over a long period. Therefore, two non-traditional TIM methodologies were adopted in this study: a qualitative analysis (GMA) and quantitative analysis (DT), which are more suitable for the research questions and available data for the pharmaceutical industry in Korea over the recent 30 years. |
|
Results |
The results should answer the research questions. Confront the results with the existing literature in a separate section. Separate the discussion of the results from the conclusions. |
We put subtitles at the end of the title of sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.2.2, and 4.2.3 to show matchings between the Research Questions and the Results sections. ü For example, 4.1.1. The Growth Analysis of the Korean Pharmaceutical Industry in 30 years (Research Question 1-1) ü In addition, we wrote a sentence to answer each RQ in lines 367-370, 430-432, 515-517, and 543-545. We removed the discussion section from section 5 and moved it to a new section, "4.3. Discussions". |
|
Conclusions |
The section is too long. Highlight the contribution of the study to the -literature and to practitioners. Highlight the limitations of the study and suggestions for future research. |
We removed the discussion section from section 5 and moved it to a new section, "4.3. Discussions". In addition, some sentences in Conclusions are shortened or deleted. We highlighted theoretical contributions in lines 590-609. We highlighted business implications in lines 610-633 and policy implications in lines 634-645. We highlighted the limitations of the study and suggestions for future research in lines 646-663 |
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
The manuscript provides a potential innovative contribution devoted to morphological change and internal growth factors of firms in the Korean Pharmaceutical Industry. Nevertheless, before publication the following suggestions are provided:
(1) In the first paragraph of the Introductory item, there is a need to provide a motivation for the current study.
(2) In the concluding remarks sections, policy implications for the reinforcement of the performance (in terms of growth) of Pharma companies need to be provided, based on the current empirical findings.
Good luck with the revision.
Author Response
|
Introduction |
In the first paragraph of the Introductory item, there is a need to provide a motivation for the current study. |
We wrote down the motivation of the study in lines 51-54 and the study's objective in lines 69-75. |
|
Conclusions |
In the concluding remarks sections, policy implications for the reinforcement of the performance (in terms of growth) of Pharma companies need to be provided, based on the current empirical findings. |
We highlighted policy implications in lines 634-645. |
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Through extensive data analysis over 30 years, the study on 'morphological changes and internal growth factors of pharmaceutical industry companies' is judged to be meaningful. However, the following should be carefully considered.
1. The logic of analyzing only Korea's pharmaceutical industry data is lacking in the introduction. Since the presented logic is characteristic of the pharmaceutical industry as a whole, it is not logical to use data unique to Korea. It is necessary to present the characteristics of the Korean pharmaceutical industry (‘2020 Pharmaceutical Industry Analysis Report’, Korea Health Industry Development Institute, March 2021), and to prove the value of research only with data from the domestic pharmaceutical industry. For example, it is necessary to add the following characteristics of the Korean pharmaceutical industry.
1) industries with a high proportion of R&D;
2) An industry centered on the production of domestic finished products;
3) Deepening polarization between upper and lower companies.
4) high value-added industries with large market size;
5) Industries with a large job creation effect
6) industries where supply and distribution systems must be transparent;
7) information asymmetry industry between suppliers and consumers;
8) Industry in which drug prices are inelastic
9) Industries protected by intellectual property rights
10) Industry emerging as future food
2. Additional explanation and unit review
- Section 3.1, line 243, describe the API full name
- Check the units in Figure 1 (Millions -> Billions?)
Author Response
|
Introduction |
The logic of analyzing only Korea's pharmaceutical industry data is lacking in the introduction. Since the presented logic is characteristic of the pharmaceutical industry as a whole, it is not logical to use data unique to Korea. It is necessary to present the characteristics of the Korean pharmaceutical industry (‘2020 Pharmaceutical Industry Analysis Report', Korea Health Industry Development Institute, March 2021), and to prove the value of research only with data from the domestic pharmaceutical industry. For example, it is necessary to add the following characteristics of the Korean pharmaceutical industry. ü Industries with a high proportion of R&D; ü An industry centered on the production of domestic finished products; ü Deepening polarization between upper and lower companies. ü High value-added industries with large market size; ü Industries with a large job creation effect ü Industries where supply and distribution systems must be transparent; ü Information asymmetry industry between suppliers and consumers; ü Industry in which drug prices are inelastic ü Industries protected by intellectual property rights ü Industry emerging as future food |
We wrote down two reasons for selecting Korea as a case country in lines 60-68. In addition, we reviewed the characteristics of the Korean pharmaceutical industry from the reference [5] suggested by reviewer 3 and included Korean characteristics as one reason for case country selection. |
|
Section 3.1 |
line 243, describe the API full name Check the units in Figure 1 (Millions -> Billions?) |
We described the full name of API in line 236. We correct the monetary unit from Millions to Billions in Figure 1. |
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please check the attachment
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
As for the overall argument, there are no particular discrepancies, but it is merely an analysis, and it is not clear what the authors want to argue, making the article uninteresting.
Regarding the notation in Fig. 2, it is difficult to understand which condition is used on the right or left side of the bifurcation, so it should be clarified. For example, in Fig. 2, the left side of the branch for "period of production<17.5" is labeled "above", but this branch seems to be a condition that "period of production<17.5" is "yes". It would be easier to write "period of production<17.5" and "period of production≥17.5" on both sides.
In Fig. 3, period of production is the explanatory variable for the first branch.
This validity of the model should be confirmed by checking whether the period of production is statistically significant in the multiple regression analysis with the growth of rate as the objective variable.
The upper classification of Table.9 is not production period ≤ 17.5, but production period <17.5, and the middle classification is production period ≥ 17.5, is it correct?
Finally, I cannot agree to the publication of this paper unless you can make the novelty and generality of this paper is clear and it is of global interest.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
General comment:
The manuscript addresses an interesting research topic, that is, the sustainable growth of firms in the context of the Korean Pharmaceutical Industry. The paper is very well structured and the empirical approach is innovative and adequate for reaching the research goals. Nevertheless, the literature review needs to be reinforced, as well as the policy implications derived from the current analysis.
Specific comments:
Before publication, it is recommended the implementation of the following aspects:
- Reinforce the literature review addressing the non-linear nature of growth determinants of service firms connected with manufacturing, implying the growing importance of servitization, as it happens today with high-tech sectors such as pharmaceutical and biotech activities. For example, referring to the following reference study: DOI: 10.1080/02642060802398853
- Provide policy implications from the set of rich results that are now made available to the readers, connecting those implications with the actions required for fostering sustainable growth in knowledge-intensive industries, in general, and in the pharma industry, in particular.
Congratulations on the research developed so far. Good luck with the revision!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Topic
The topic is not exciting in scientific terms.
Introduction
What is the reason for conducting the study?
What is the literature supporting the need to conduct the study?
Literature Review
Some passages of the text can be moved to the introduction section.
The literature review is superficial.
Methodology
The context in which the study was conducted could be explained.
Results
There is no discussion of the results.
A discussion of results section could be created.
Conclusions
Remove the discussion from this section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments on sustainability-1559942-v2 I admire the authors’ patience and hard-working, and appreciate that the authors clarify their main idea in this version. But there are still some problematic issues which make me worried about the theoretical originality of this paper. 1.This paper “investigates the quantitative growth from 1988 to 2017 and qualitative change of the Korean pharmaceutical firms and industry from 1998”, and “identify the internal factors of pharmaceutical firms that caused the difference between sustainable growth and non-growth between 1988 and 2017. ” There is a great number of theories about how an industry, or a firm, grows. Most researches theoretically modeled and testified (specific) internal or external factors affect the growth of firm. Therefore we can’t find the originality in theory by accomplishing these two objectives mentioned by authors. 2.Also we cannot find the potential contribution from the research questions. Indeed the research question determines the configuration of conclusion, and the theoretical contribution. For instance: “Research Question 1. Has the Korean pharmaceutical industry sustainably-grown quantitively in the recent 30 years? ” To answer this question, you can just minor the performance indicator (GDP, el al.) in the last year of the observation (the 30th year) to that in the first year. “Research Question 2. How have the Korean pharmaceutical firms changed qualitatively in the firms' internal characteristics between 1998 to 2017? ” I am afraid we can have countless answer for this question by switching the approach of Qualitative Recognition of a firm. In this paper the author deducted “shape” of firms as the qualitative character of a firm, but we cannot find any literature support on that characterising. In a word, the question 1 and 2 is just descriptive, not explorative nor empirical study. It is hard to have theoretical contribution either for the Industrial Economics on the growth theory, or for the OB or Strategies theory. “Research Question 3. Which internal factors have affected firms' growth and how they combined for achieving sustainable growth in the Korean pharmaceutical industry?” Actually this question contains two parts. The first part, please check any textbook of Business Management. As for the second part, again the question about “which factors” has partially explored by prior scholars, who ignored by the authors. The authors can have contributions on this area by narrowly reviewing the relevant literature. But, the worse problem from this problem is, the “how”. To explain “how” factors “achieving” growth, only descriptive analysis by factors identification is not enough. A empirical investigation by statistically and regression modelling would be necessary. That challenges the methodology of this paper. Finally, this is an axcellent consultant report about the Korea’s pharmaceutical firm. If the Sustainability believes an industrial observation and, in extent, a think-tank report is valid enough to publish, I think it is good enough. But if we are talking about an academic article, this work is still distant from scholar judging.Reviewer 2 Report
I respect the significant revisions made following my review comments.
