The Impact of Industry Clusters on the Performance of High Technology Small and Middle Size Enterprises
Andrej Raspor
Goran Bakalar
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the conclusion, explain more clearly whether and in what way the hypotheses are confirmed together with a link to the theory. Consider a pictorial representation of the model.
Author Response
Author Response to Reviewer Comments
Reviewer 1
Point 1: In the conclusion, explain more clearly whether and in what way the hypotheses are confirmed together with a link to the theory. Consider a pictorial representation of the model.
Response: Your suggestion is greatly appreciated. Upon your suggestions, we have added a corresponding relationship between the theoretical and empirical aspects of the study. In conclusion, we have described the various paths of the model and hypothesis and how the theory supports the hypothesis. Our conclusion section has been rewritten to make it much more informative than it was in the previous version.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,​
Thank you for your exploration of how we can better understand and evaluate the impact of industry clusters on the performance of High-tech SMEs. Here are some suggestions that should improve the quality of your manuscript:
1. In Abstract, line 12, the authors should explain the acronym SMEs in the brackets. The acronym has been mentioned in the title, and that can be acceptable only if explained here. 2. In Abstract, line 15, the authors should explain the acronym SPSS in the brackets since that was the first time mentioning that in this manuscript. 3. In Keywords, SMES should be written correctly as it used to be consistent through the manuscript. 4. In Introduction, line 90, the authors should explain which type of questionnaire was used, in what research the same type was used previously at this scientific level, and two references for that. 5. In Data Analysis and Hypothesis Testing, line 363, the authors should prove with two references where succesfully the methods were used and what was achieved. 6. In Data Analysis and Hypothesis Testing, line 371 and 372, the authors should explain the acronyms. 7. The Chapter 5 in this manuscript has to be named Results. Clear, without mixing with methods in Chapter 4 and with out the discussion from Discussion in this way. 8. Contribution and Limitation should be part of Discussion. The last chapter has to be named Conclusion, since that structurally, theoretically, and scientifically, includes important parts of each scientific manuscript.Author Response
Author Response to Reviewer Comments
Reviewer 2
Point 1: In Abstract, line 12, the authors should explain the acronym SMEs in the brackets. The acronym has been mentioned in the title, and that can be acceptable only if explained here.
Response: We want to thank you for your suggestion. Upon your suggestion, we have added an explanation of the meaning of SME in the abstract and changed the title in a way that we hope will make it clearer to the reader what SME is. We hope our abstract is much better than our previous one.
Point 2: In Abstract, line 15, the authors should explain the acronym SPSS in the brackets since that was the first time mentioning that in this manuscript.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. A brief description of the version number and the functions of SPSS is provided in the abstract. SPSS is used for statistical analysis, integrating data entry, organization, and analysis functions. Its basic functions include data management, statistical analysis, chart analysis, output management, etc. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted. Amos24.0 is the structural equation model analysis software.
Point 3: In Keywords, SMES should be written correctly as it used to be consistent through the manuscript.
Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We really appreciate it. The SMEs in the keywords and the manuscript have also been corrected.
Point 4: In Introduction, line 90, the authors should explain which type of questionnaire was used, in what research the same type was used previously at this scientific level, and two references for that.
Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. In this section, we have provided more details, explaining what research paradigm and questionnaire to use, what sampling techniques can be used, and what methods were used for data collection previously. We also cited the references in the reference section. These details are in the manuscript on Pages # 1-2, Lines # 38 to 70. We hope our improved introduction version will be much stronger than the previous version, as it has much more information.
- Harris, L. R., & Brown, G. T. (2010). Mixing interview and questionnaire methods: Practical problems in aligning data. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 15(1), 1.
- Plonsey, R., Barr, R. C., & Bioelectricity, A. (2007). Quantitative Approach. New York, NY: Springer.
Point 5: In Data Analysis and Hypothesis Testing, line 363, the authors should prove with two references where successfully the methods were used and what was achieved.
Response: The comment you made is greatly appreciated. In the manuscript, we have explained in more detail why we decided to use SPSS and AMOS and the reasons for each. We also cited the reference paper in the reference section of the manuscript for further reading. These two references have been provided below these comments as a convenience.
- Ong, M. H. A., & Puteh, F. (2017). Quantitative data analysis: Choosing between SPSS, PLS, and AMOS in social science research. International Interdisciplinary Journal of Scientific Research, 3(1), 14-25.
- Finch, H., French, B. F., & Immekus, J. C. (2016). Applied psychometrics using SPSS and AMOS. IAP.
Point 6: In Data Analysis and Hypothesis Testing, line 371 and 372, the authors should explain the acronyms.
Response: I appreciate your suggestion. On page # Lines 418-420 of the manuscript, there is a description of acronyms that has been added.
Point 7: The Chapter 5 in this manuscript has to be named Results. Clear, without mixing with methods in Chapter 4 and without the discussion from Discussion in this way.
Response: Your suggestion is greatly appreciated. According to your suggestion, heading 5 has been changed to Results.
Point 8: Contribution and Limitation should be part of Discussion. The last chapter has to be named Conclusion, since that structurally, theoretically, and scientifically, includes important parts of each scientific manuscript.
Response: Thank you very much for your kind advice. I appreciate it. By your suggestion, the Contribution and Limitations section has been added to the Discussion section of the document. The last chapter that was named has been updated into the Conclusion. I hope that our manuscript will now be much better than the one we had before and that it will be able to impress our readers.
Reviewer 3 Report
Last chapter, in my opinion, should be replaced or divided so that article contains chapter conlusion.
Title appropriately reflects the contents of the paper. The topic is of general interest,and contain new aspects. To the some point it reflects the present state of knowledge, and the relevant aspects are presented. Lliterature is sufficiently critical, current, and internationally evaluated. The size of the article appropriate to the contents. Text is presented in a manner that scientists in other disciplines will understand. It is presented clearly and concisely. Abstract appropriately covers the contents of the article. Key words are suitable.
Last chapter, in my opinion, should be replaced or divided so that article contains chapter conlusion. After that, paper can be accepted.
Author Response
Author Response to Reviewer Comments
Reviewer 3
Point 1: Title appropriately reflects the contents of the paper. The topic is of general interest, and contain new aspects. To the some point it reflects the present state of knowledge, and the relevant aspects are presented. Literature is sufficiently critical, current, and internationally evaluated. The size of the article appropriate to the contents. Text is presented in a manner that scientists in other disciplines will understand. It is presented clearly and concisely. Abstract appropriately covers the contents of the article. Key words are suitable.
Last chapter, in my opinion, should be replaced or divided so that article contains chapter conclusion. After that, paper can be accepted.
Response: Thank you very much for your kind advice. The previous chapter, chapter 5, is divided into two parts. The last chapter is titled Conclusion. A discussion part of Chapter 6 discusses contributions and limitations.
Reviewer 4 Report
In general, I recommend the authors review the content in order to include the aforementioned comments.
The authors of this article have presented an interesting research about the independent innovation as the mediator variable to explore the impact of industry cluster on High-tech SMEs performance.
Please, find below some comments and suggestion to be considered by the authors:
1.- The authors should clearly indicate if tables, diagrams and figures are “source own elaboration” or not. Please review all figures and tables and follow the guideline information for authors.
2.- Funding section is missed. Please, include it.
3.- Abstract: I kindly recommend to include the full name of SME acronym in the first time the authors mentioned, (line 12) such as Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs) to avoid any misunderstanding.
4.- Abstract: Also for Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) in line 17. In addition, both tools SPSS and AMS are protected or registered brands. So please, add the copyright mark “®” in all the cases in this manuscript.
5.- Introduction: If the article take the SME as the key case study, it must be defined the concept at the beginning of this section. What is considered a small-medium or large enterprise?
6.- Introduction: On the other hand, and from the point of view of high technology, when can a company be grouped as a "high technology company"? In terms of research funding? In terms of the number of researchers in the R&D department? Please could you clarify?
7.- Line 150: There is a typo related to the author Baptist Rui.
8.- Line 178: Typo “above studies” instead of “above Studies”
9.- The photographs included in the manuscript do not provide added value. Please, could you remove them or include in an Annex?
10.- Lines 331 and 332: What are Chengdu, Mianyang, Luzhou and Nanchong? ¿sub-custer? ¿smaller areas? Please, clarify.
11.- Lines 393-403: Is there any reason for the highlighted text in yellow?
In general, I recommend the authors review the content in order to include the aforementioned comments.
I do suggest the authors to take into account my comments, and this is the reason I recommend to accept after minor revision, due to the article has some areas for improvement above mentioned.
Author Response
Author Response to Reviewer Comments
Reviewer 4
Point 1: The authors should clearly indicate if tables, diagrams and figures are “source own elaboration” or not. Please review all figures and tables and follow the guideline information for authors
Response: Thank you for your sharp observation. In this paper, tables, diagrams and figures, all the sources are compiled by the author. If there is a reference, it will be specially marked.
Point 2: Funding section is missed. Please, include it.
Response: Thank you for your sharp observation. This article does not have funding.
Point 3: Abstract: I kindly recommend to include the full name of SME acronym in the first time the authors mentioned, (line 12) such as Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs) to avoid any misunderstanding.
Response: We want to thank you for your suggestion. Upon your suggestion, we have added an explanation of the meaning of SME in the abstract and changed the title in a way that we hope will make it clearer to the reader what SME is. We hope our abstract is much better than our previous one.
Point 4: Abstract: Also, for Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) in line 17. In addition, both tools SPSS and AMOS are protected or registered brands. So please, add the copyright mark “®” in all the cases in this manuscript.
Response: According to the reviewer, we agreed with the full name of SEM has been added for SPSS and AMOS; when using only SPSS and AMOS for statistical analysis, unsigned can be accepted if the chart content is not directly output.
Point 5: Introduction: If the article takes the SME as the key case study, it must be defined the concept at the beginning of this section. What is considered a small-medium or large enterprise?
Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. In this section, we have provided more details of small and medium-sized enterprises in China, explaining what research paradigm and questionnaire to use, what sampling techniques can be used, and what methods were used for data collection previously. These details are in the manuscript on Pages 1-2, Lines 38 to 70. We hope our improved introduction version will be much stronger than the previous version, as it has much more information.
Point 6: Introduction: On the other hand, and from the point of view of high technology, when can a company be grouped as a "high technology company"? In terms of research funding? In terms of the number of researchers in the R&D department? Please could you clarify?
Response: The reviewer has a valid point, and I agree with him. The manuscript has been updated to include more detailed explanations of technology-based small and medium-sized enterprises on Pages 1-2, lines 38 through 70 on pages 1 and 2.The revised Measures mainly have the following standards for the identification of high-tech enterprises:
- Engaged in the research and development, production or technical services of one or more high-tech and products.
- Scientific and technical personnel with college degree or above account for more than 20% of the total number of employees in enterprises, and scientific and technical personnel engaged in research and development of high-tech products should account for more than 10% of the total number of employees in enterprises.
- The annual funds for research and development of high-tech and its products should account for more than 5% of the total income of the enterprise in that year. 4. The sum of technical income and sales income of high-tech products should account for more than 60% of the total income of the enterprise in that year; The investment of newly-established enterprises in high-tech fields accounts for more than 60% of the total investment.
- The main person in charge of enterprises should have a strong sense of science and technology and intellectual property protection, be familiar with the research and development, production and operation of their products, and pay attention to technological innovation and research and development of high-tech products.
Point 7: Line 150: There is a typo related to the author Baptist Rui.
Response: The reviewer's point of view is accurate. After spelling checks, this name has been corrected in the manuscript's main text.
Point 8: Line 178: Typo “above studies” instead of “above Studies”
Response: This reviewer has a valid point. There was a mistake with the capital letter. It has been corrected.
Point 9: The photographs included in the manuscript do not provide added value. Please, could you remove them or include in an Annex?
Response: We agree with the reviewer and we have removed it.
Point 10: Lines 331 and 332: What are Chengdu, Mianyang, Luzhou and Nanchong? sub-cluster? smaller areas? Please, clarify.
Response: Thank you for your sharp observation. Chengdu, Mianyang, Luzhou and Nanchong are cities in Sichuan Province, they are cities with a key distribution of high-tech enterprise clusters.
Point 11: Lines 393-403: Is there any reason for the highlighted text in yellow?
Response: Thank you for your sharp observation. They are typographical errors. Corrected.
Reviewer 5 Report
Response for Authors
I rejected the manuscript because I did not find any Novelty in the present research work.
Round 2
Reviewer 5 Report
Response for Authors
I rejected the manuscript.
