Symbiotic Evolution Mechanism of the Digital Innovation Ecosystem for the Smart Car Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Lines 283-286 corrections required to equation formatting - in particular, alignment to article base text (equations 1-4),

Line 295 - in the text it reads: "...??? (?, ? ∈ [1,2,3,4], ? ≠ ?..." and should be "...??? (?, ? ∈ [1,2,3,4], ? ≠ ?)...". - missing closing parenthesis,

Lines 308-311 - equation formatting correction required in accordance with editorial requirements (alignment),

Line 314 - equation formatting correction required according to the template (split into two lines of text with an increase in the font size of the equation number),

Line 323 - required to standardize the font size of text in the table in line with editorial requirements,

Lines 619-626 - equations are illegible (especially the equations in lines 623-626),

Lines 627-630 - no text (blank lines),

In Figures 5-8, the authors use the notation Time vs Scale (but no unit of time is given - seconds, hours etc.) - it is suggested that consideration be given to introducing the abscissa axis designation as a simulation cycle, i.e. Cycle vs Scale.

Author Response

Thanks a lot for the reviewers’ constructive comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper proposes an interesting approach for a timely topic, relating innovation ecosystem development with smart cars.

The abstract is very technical and presents much detail that should be in the paper, not here. The summary should be closer to what we can find in page 2, paragraph 3, discussing contributions, results and implications.

Figure 1 is not mentioned in the text before it is used and it is not clear to what topic it relates and if it is the authors' contribution or not.

Line 247 is an elliptical sentence, it is obvious that Lotka and Volterra developed the Lotka-Volterra model.

Concerning Methodology and Hypothesis, the term "hypothesis" is usually used for statistical hypothesis testing. I would propose the term "assumption" here, as basis for the model.

The Case study starting on page 17 contains a significant number of proprietary data (names, brands, codes). it might be a good idea to make sure you can use these, or, alternatively, to depersonalize them.

I think the Conclusions need to be rewritten in such a way that you do not repeat points 1 through 5 from the paper, but discuss the implications and impacts of your findings. It could also be a good idea to discuss them as opposed to similar studies and deduce conclusions about your methodology and case study based on your position vis-a-vis other researchers. That would also expand your References section that is quite small at the moment.

Font size for varies considerably across all the fields that use equations. It it sometimes distracting to read. Appendix A text is definitely unreadable, especially towards the end.

No issues about language

Author Response

Thanks a lot for the reviewers’ constructive comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper explores the symbiotic evolution mechanism of the digital innovation ecosystem for the smart car industry. The authors use MATLAB simulations to analyze the specific conditions for different symbiosis modes and identify the optimal evolutionary model for smart cars as a reciprocal symbiosis model. The paper provides insights into the symbiotic relationship among subjects in the digital innovation ecosystem of smart cars and highlights the importance of collaboration and intelligent interaction. The findings have practical implications for industry stakeholders and policymakers looking to promote the development of the smart car industry.

 

In summary, this paper is interesting and gives valuable conclusions. However, the presentations need to be improved. The detail comments list below.

1.     Authors should compare the paper with more related work, to show claimed contributions in the introduction part, the differences (pros and cons), and the novelty more clearly and precisely, rather than focusing on big backgrounds.

2.     The abstract part should be refined to be more attractive and condensed. Such that, readers with different backgrounds can understand and share this paper more easily.

3.     Authors should update the references. More references that published recently (in 2023 or 2022) in notable journals or conferences should be included, e.g., “Symbiosis-Evolution Game and Scenario-Simulation Analysis of Advanced Manufacturing Enterprises from the Perspective of an Innovation Ecosystem”, “A Triple-step Asynchronous Federated Learning Mechanism for Client Activation, Interaction Optimization, and Aggregation Enhancement”, and “Research on the Impact of Digital Transformation on the Product R&D Performance of Automobile Enterprises from the Perspective of the Innovation Ecosystem”, and compare them with the paper.

4.     The figure size and the range of the axis of figure 5, 6, 7, and 8 should be unified.

5.     Authors are recommended to share their codes publicly to increase the impact of this paper.

NA

Author Response

Thanks a lot for the reviewers’ constructive comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the work of the authors. I think the paper can be published.

Reviewer 3 Report

It can be accepted.