Data-Driven Evaluation and Recommendations for Regional Synergy Innovation Capability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper entitled as "Data-driven Evaluation and Recommendations for Regional Synergy Innovation Capability" is an interesting paper to the audience and it has merits. However, it has many issues that should be corrected. It is my decision that te paper should go through a major revision. 

See the comments below. 

1) Turnitin returned a similarity result of 31%. Within this, 6% comes from a single source. The software did not report the link, when I clicked it, I assume that this is the paper that I am referring to: "Data-Driven Coupling Coordination Development of Regional

Innovation EROB Composite System: An Integrated Model Perspective". The paper is another paper of the first author in which the first author is the fourth author in that paper. Both papers use data for Yangtze River Delta region. Sample periods are different in both papers. The method followed are complementary in terms of the paper's contributions to the regional development and sustainability. 

However, regarding the 31% and 6% that mentioned above, the authors should work on revising the paper as it should be. 

2) The paper focuses on a panel data as it was set as the course of paper. However, though data exists for a panel regression method, no such results are reported. Paper is largely based on empirics of indices. Given the existence of the data, the paper shuld be revised by including appropriate panel regression method for this paper. This revision is important also for the novelty of the paper. 

3) Given the structure of data and also given the discussion regarding spatial heterogeneity in the paper, the paper reports no spatial panel regressions. I suggest spatial panel methods including spatial heterogeneity tests, spatial panel unit root tests and spatial regression analysis. 

4) The term "enlightenment" in the heading is not correct way of English. Discussion and Implications would be a better choice of wording. 

5) The paper notes that in the data section, aims are: 

this study constructs an evaluation 145

index system including innovation input capacity [39], economic spillover capacity [30], 146

knowledge creation capacity [40,41], and environmental support capacity [42] to measure 147

and evaluate regional collaborative innovation capacity. 

After line 145, paper continues to discuss importance of these capacity concepts. 

Then, in the conclusion, no reference is made nor it is disscussed: What are the findings in terms of innovation capacity, environmental support capacity, economic spillover capacity? No discussion and conclusion is present adequately. This is not very understandable. Thus, conclusion amd method should be revised to make it more focused with this direction. So is abstract. 

For example, no sentence regarding economic spillover capacity after it has been discussed at the very introduction of the empirical section after line 141. I believe the authors will revise the paper with more focus with revisions with relevant sections including abstract, introduction, conclusion, discussion. 

6) more recent papers on the topic could be added to the literature. 

7) Regarding similarity at comment 1, 31% should be reduced preferably below 20% and 6% from a single source should be focused on by authors in revisions. 

Grammar issues exist. Wording in the paper is not correct in certain places. It should be revised. 

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

1. The abstract presented does not comprehensively describe the main contents of this study, so it is still unclear how the output of this research should be.

2. Authors need to specifically explain the main reason or urgency of this research. One way to do this is by adding relevant literature to the introduction section.

3. What is the novelty of this research? What's the explanation? I don't think it's been explained clearly.

4. What is the explanation for Figure 3. Geographical map of the Yangtze River Delta integration region? The manuscript has not been explained in detail and specifically

5. What is the explanation for the relevance of the parameters used (Innovation input, Economic spillover, Knowledge creation, and

environmental support) in this study? How can the relations between these parameters achieve the objectives of this research?

6. References need to be added especially to support the need for this research and the analysis carried out.

Authors need to pay attention and improve the writing of this manuscript in English.

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

I found your research on evaluating regional synergy innovation capability to be highly insightful and relevant in the context of promoting sustainable and high-quality development of regional economies. The proposed data-driven evaluation model, encompassing variables such as innovation input, economic spillover, knowledge creation, and environmental support, seems well-structured.

However, To improve the quality of the paper, the following should be addressed:

1. The word "in-novation" in line 129 should be corrected.

2. The authors should add relevant work and literature on these important components of their work, "economic spillovers, knowledge creation, and environmental support."

3. The source of the data and the date of access should be clarified. 

4. There are no steps for data validation and reliability, e.g.:

a- Reliability: Testing for internal consistency: If you have multiple independent variables, you can use measures like Cronbach's alpha or inter-item correlation to assess the internal consistency of the variables. High internal consistency indicates that these variables are reliable.

b- Check stability: Perform test-retest or split-half reliability analysis to check the stability of your variables across time or across subsystems.

c- Content validity: Ensure that your variables capture the key aspects or dimensions of the construct being measured.

Convergent validity: Assess the extent to which different measures of the same construct converge or are closely related to each other.

d- Discriminant validity: Check whether your variables are distinct from each other by ensuring that they are weakly correlated with variables that measure different constructs.

5. Missing descriptive statistics for your data. Add tables to show the statistical properties of your data.

6.  The map in Figure 3 is not clear. Use a better resolution.

7. Write a section on how your work applies to other regions of the world to reflect the generalizability of your results.

8. Add section for the limitations of your study and future work to address these limitations.

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

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

1) In the introduction, the wording is unclear. It is not understandable for the outside reader, what is meant and what is going on. The issue is very serious. Here is the first sentence: "A region is an important part of global economic integration, economic interests [1], 26 and international division of labor." What does this mean? What region? Why would a region is soo important at the global level? A region of what? I should state that, please read the sentences as if your are an outsider. Second sentence also does not clear the issue. And the paragraph continues the same way. Seccond sentence: "It is the most active economic unit in the global economy." A region is the most active unit? Third sentence: "A region’s competitive advantage comes from synergy innovation [2-4]." 

So, the intro should be in a deductive form: think of it as an upside down pyramid. From general to specific the sentences should go. And lastly, authors should focus on highligting the contribution of the paper. As of it is, it is unclear from the introduction section. Importance of regional development, innovation, sustainable development concepts are themes to be focused on. 

2) Definition of synergy innovation should be given as soon as possible to the reader at the intro. 

3) Check the paper for typos and Grammar. Example: "this thesis establishs". Further, is this research part of a thesis? If so, it should be included in the acknowledgements section as far as I know, but you should check with the MDPI for rules for it. 

4) At Table 1, column name, Sign, must be Annotations. To save space, you could use Anno., Ref. for references and note them as a table note with a footnote as it is with the rules of journal as it is visible in the template. 

5) Equation numbers should be on the right-hand-side. 

6) In the indexing, explanation for 0.99, 0.01 are missing. Why are they used? 

7) For data, it is stated that "For the data incompleteness during certain years, 304 we used this SPSS regression estimation method to process and estimate the incomplete 305 data based on the existing statistical data." Could authors discuss this a little more? What is the percentage of missing data? Which years particularly? Did they assume no change for specific years or used a rolling method to fill data? I assume that if the percentage of data generated is too much, this raises concerns for reliability for results. Therefore, it should be discussed a little more than it already had been. 

8) Check for typos again I should warn for the empirical section. clone Baha alpha? It should be Cronbach's Alpha. 

9) Chi-square should be written in latin letters instead of writing x2. Also, state what the hypotheses were, at which % of significance, the results are accepted. (at line 355)

10) Searching for sustainability implications of the paper is missing and it should be emphasized both in the intro, in the development and in the conclusion what the sustainability implications of the findings are especially for a paper submitted to sustainability. 

11) Future directions are written by the authors and are satisfactory. No suggestion for this respect. 

12) The paper focuses and underlines that it uses panel data. And the paper also notes that it has estimated regressions with SPSS. I cannot see such tables. Further, in the previous round, I noted that the paper focuses on panel data and no reference is being made to panel regression method. Also, no such results in the paper. Though this was noted in the last round, why are they still missing? If no regressions are estimated, why are they talked about in the paper both in the empirics and in the abstract? Corrections for empirics are needed with this respect. If relevant regression section is forgotten to be included in this template, it should be revised and included. Relevant changes should be done to this end. 

I know that authors responded that for future studies they will focus on this in their response. However, it is noted by them in the paper that regressions are done. If they did estimate them ,they should include them. My suggestion is to include them to the analysis. Also, future directions suggest fuzzy models. This is too complex. Even the basic regressions are not reported. Which could be a suggestion for future studies. 

But my concern and suggestion for this paper is, authors should develop empirics in terms of regression results for "this" paper, not for a "future" paper.  

English errors in terms of typos exist. I noted some as examples in authors' comment box. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and your affirmation of the revision of our papers in round 1.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 in round 2 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

Authors have made improvements to the manuscript in accordance with the comments submitted.

-

Author Response

Thank you very much for your affirmation of the revision of our paper in round 1.we deeply appreciate you, with your patience and professional helps, the process of revising this paper is like deep communication with the best scientists in this field to make our paper more perfect. The new vision of the research has been opened up and new ideas have been inspired. You know it's exciting. Thank you again. In round 2, we have conducted minor editing of English language required.We hope that you would find the revision satisfactory.Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I recommend accepting the paper.

Minor editing

Author Response

Thank you very much for your affirmation of the revision of our paper in round 1 and accepting our paper.we deeply appreciate you, with your patience and professional helps, the process of revising this paper is like deep communication with the best scientists in this field to make our paper more perfect. The new vision of the research has been opened up and new ideas have been inspired. You know it's exciting. Thank you again. In round 2, we have conducted minor editing of English language required.We hope that you would find the revision satisfactory.Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Majority of corrections are made and authors provide sufficient explanations in their response file. After making the corrections seriously in this round, my decision is positive. 

Minor issues.