Value Network Construction in High-Tech Parks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors should improve:

- the research gap + contribution of the paper should be clearly presented in Introduction

- I suggest prepare some research questions, which would be answered during model building.Questions must be relevant to this study and not to industry needs in general.

- Authors write in "data collection" that the triangulation method was used, but they should find and confirm the correctness of the choice of research method in the literature. Moreover, authors wrote that "More than 80 relevant articles are screened out", but there is no result of this screening.

- There is no Discussion in this paper - the result (model) presentation is not enough. Have similar models been built before? What was the result?

- In conclusion - there is no limitation of the research. There is no research process that would not raise doubts/reservations - also in relation to building a model.

- As a general note, I suggest combining research considerations more strongly with the subject of the journal (sustainability).

- Considering the subject of the paper, the references used seem to be quite up-to-date. There is not a single literature item from 2022-2023. In this area, scientific progress is extremely fast, so I suggest you review the latest items, e.g. to build a valuable Discussion.

Other notes:

- quality of Fig. 1 is not good - all words should be fully visible - not crossed by lines

- the titles of section 2 and 2.2 is nearly the same - it is confusing

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

 

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript titled "Value network Construction of Beijing Economic-Technological Development Area based on Grounded Theory". Although I find the topic of great interest to the journal, there are a few issues that need to be addressed. 

Title

I do not think that there is something particularly incorrect about your title, but you might consider whether you can rewrite it so that it might be more concise and recognizable.

Abstract

Try to format your abstract such that is has a better flow to it. Be as specific as possible to the reader can get an accurate picture of what your study is about. 

Introduction

Studying the interplay between economic development and technology adoption is important and warrants attention. However, your introduction could use a bit more specificity with respect to the gap you are addressing. 

Literature review

Here, you are missing some relevant work that can inform your empirical and conceptual framing. For example, you point out the limitation of Porter's value chain, without providing a thorough justification. Also, there are references about technology adoption innovation, and entrepreneurship, you should integrate: 

Morris, M. H., Neumeyer, X., & Kuratko, D. F. (2015). A portfolio perspective on entrepreneurship and economic development. Small Business Economics, 45(4), 713–728.

Santos, S. C., & Neumeyer, X. (2023). The Technologization of Entrepreneurial Processes: A Poverty Perspective. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 70(3), 1174–1185. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2022.3195485

Galindo, M.-Á., & Méndez-Picazo, M.-T. (2013). Innovation, entrepreneurship and economic growth. Management Decision, 51(3), 501–514.

 

Methodology and results

You indicate that you are using a grounded theory approach. There is nothing wrong with that per se. However, you are missing to describe it in detail. make sure to review existing qualitative studies in reputable journals such as the Academy of management Journal or Journal of Management. 

Similarly, you have a set of tables with some statements related to your topic, but I am not sure whether that is enough to be called grounded theory.

Discussion

You can adjust the discussion once you have made the modifications in the rest of your manuscript.

Best of luck

 

Writing style should be improved. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper explores the mechanism of value co-creation among industrial chains, which has significant implications. Using grounded theory, this paper constructs the value network model of the Beijing Economic-Technological Development Area. And it finds that communication network, new technology and computing infrastructure enhance the value of the industry, promote digitalization, networking, intelligent transformation and industrial upgrading. Overall, the paper has a clear and reasonable structure with practical implications in its conclusions. However, the article needs further improvement in the following aspects.

1. The paper’s structure needs adjustment to improve its structural layout and logical order. The introduction is to provide practical significance of this study while the literature review is to provide its theoretical background. Therefore, it is recommended that the introduction and literature review be combined, while the remaining sections remain the same.

2. The introduction and literature review require revision. The summary of contributions in the introduction is not adequately clear. It is suggested to re-summarize the contributions, combining the introduction and existing literature, rather than simply outlining what this paper did. Furthermore, the paper’s structural arrangement should be clearly outlined at the end of the first part.

（1）Li Z., Chen H. & Mo B. (2022), Can digital finance promote urban innovation? Evidence from China, Borsa Istanbul Review, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2022. 10.006.

（2）Li, Z., Liao, G., & Albitar, K. (2020). Does corporate environmental responsibility engagement affect firm value? The mediating role of corporate innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(3), 1045-1055. doi: 10.1002/bse.2416 

（3）Huang, Z., Liao, G., & Li, Z. (2019). Loaning scale and government subsidy for promoting green innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 144, 148-156. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.04.023 

3. The expression should be more scientific and international. It is preferable to avoid expressions such as "domestic and foreign scholars" in the literature review (2.1.3).

Moderate editing of English language.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author(s), 

Thank you for your efforts to incorporate the suggestions and comments of the reviewers. Overall, I found the manuscript much improved. There are a few more issues you should address. 

First, make sure to proofread your document once more. I have noticed a few spelling and grammatical errors. 

Second, I would take another look at the title. I don't think you need to have grounded theory in it. Try to make it as concise and citable as possible. 

A few minor spelling and grammatical errors, but good otherwise. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf