Philosophical Research on Enterprise Innovation Ecology Based on a Human–Computer Interaction Mental Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Introduction:
The introduction should provide pertinent background information necessary to understand the rest of the paper. I strongly feel that there is a need to explore a strong justification to conduct this study, which can be seen as a contribution. It does not bring adequate reasoning to defend the need of this manuscript.

Literature review:

The hypotheses flow from the literature review. However, further relevant literature support is required for the hypotheses development. The variables of the study are inadequately introduced. The overarching theory binding these variables should be discussed.

Theoretical and practical implications:

The proposed theoretical contributions and practical implications appear to be weak. It should be strengthened. The implications are supposed to tell us what the sector can learn from the research and how they can use it. Overall, I strongly feel that this study should incorporate more rigor to bring in the required relevance and contribution.

Limitations and directions for future research:
This section needs further exploration.

Author Response

Literature review:

The hypotheses flow from the literature review. However, further relevant literature support is required for the hypotheses development. The variables of the study are inadequately introduced. The overarching theory binding these variables should be discussed.

Theoretical and practical implications:

Answer: The practical significance of this study is to improve the soft power of enterprises by breaking the development bottleneck, so as to achieve a new stage of leapfrog development and surpass the world's advanced enterprises; The theoretical significance of this study is to study the innovation of corporate culture in order to enrich the existing theory of innovation methods. We have supplemented the introduction of the new manuscript.

The proposed theoretical contributions and practical implications appear to be weak. It should be strengthened. The implications are supposed to tell us what the sector can learn from the research and how they can use it. Overall, I strongly feel that this study should incorporate more rigor to bring in the required relevance and contribution.

A: Thank you for your suggestion. We have supplemented it in the article.

Limitations and directions for future research:
This section needs further exploration.

A: Thank you for your suggestion. We have made additional explanations in the conclusion of the new manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article „Philosophical Research on Enterprise Innovation Ecology based on Human-Computer Interaction Mental Model” is very interesting. However, I have some suggestions to make it better.

1)     In my opinion the title ought to be a little changed. This article is not – in fact – “Philosophical research”.

2)     In the Abstract the author said “this paper comprehensively considered all the key factors…” There are 4 factors mentioned in the paper, so I am almost sure that it is not a comprehensive view.

3)     In the abstract, the article’s aim ought to be clearly written: “The aim of this article is….” Please think also about the research question of the article (for example in the Introduction section).

4)     I propose to change one keyword from “Research on….” to three separate “Enterprise Innovation”, “Ecology”, “Model”

5)     This article lacks the Methodology part. This part ought to inform about: methods, limitations of research, and a description of the research process paths.

6)     The author should rethink what he really uses: cognitive psychology or cognitive science. They are connected but not the same.

7)     Fig 1 expresses factors influencing the ecologicalization of enterprise innovation. But the factors the author indicated as the most influencing, such as:

-the promotion of enterprise technology,

- the competitiveness of the enterprise market,

- the innovation characteristic of enterprises and

- the environmental constraints of innovation technology  

are not in this figure.

8)     In fig 2 is written: “Internal/External integration capability of ecology and economy”. What about a society which is the third capital besides natural (what consists of the ecology) and economic capital in the context of sustainable development?

9)     In fig 3 the letter “l” is missing in the word “Model”

10)  In par. 222 the author indicates: “The multi-model human-computer…” Why is there a phrase “multi”?

11)  Under the table 1 and 2 can be a description of what the symbol “R” means (R1-R5). The same is in table 3 (TLI, CFI…).

12)  The title of Fig 6 could be “Satisfaction survey results for new and original modes”

13)  Try to find the differentiating criterion between the two pictures in fig 8 and fig 9. I can not find what differentiates them, looking only at the pictures.

14)  In lines 484-485 the author says “… analyses the disadvantages of the existing system”. Should it not be the analyses of the advantages and disadvantages?

 

15)  In the last part of the article – Conclusions it should be clearly and precisely explained why the author choose the Naïve Bayes algorithm and not the others.

My opinion about this article is positive but it requires some changes mentioned above.

Author Response

The article „Philosophical Research on Enterprise Innovation Ecology based on Human-Computer Interaction Mental Model” is very interesting. However, I have some suggestions to make it better.

1)     In my opinion the title ought to be a little changed. This article is not – in fact – “Philosophical research”.

A: Thank you for your suggestion. In order to make the main body of the article more authentic, this article has conducted a philosophical discussion on the enterprise innovation ecology through experimental analysis. Although there are more data expressions in the article, the overall research tends to be philosophical.

2)     In the Abstract the author said “this paper comprehensively considered all the key factors…” There are 4 factors mentioned in the paper, so I am almost sure that it is not a comprehensive view.

A: Thank you for your suggestion. We will make a comprehensive amendment to this statement in the summary.

3)     In the abstract, the article’s aim ought to be clearly written: “The aim of this article is….” Please think also about the research question of the article (for example in the Introduction section).

A: Thank you for your suggestion. We have explained the purpose of this study in the summary of the article.

4)     I propose to change one keyword from “Research on….” to three separate “Enterprise Innovation”, “Ecology”, “Model”

A: Thank you for your suggestion. We have modified the keyword section of the article.

5)     This article lacks the Methodology part. This part ought to inform about: methods, limitations of research, and a description of the research process paths.

A: Thank you for your suggestion. We have supplemented it in the article.

6)     The author should rethink what he really uses: cognitive psychology or cognitive science. They are connected but not the same.

A: Thank you for your suggestion. The article uses cognitive psychology.

7)     Fig 1 expresses factors influencing the ecologicalization of enterprise innovation. But the factors the author indicated as the most influencing, such as:

-the promotion of enterprise technology,

- the competitiveness of the enterprise market,

- the innovation characteristic of enterprises and

- the environmental constraints of innovation technology  

are not in this figure.

A: Thank you for your suggestion. We have modified Figure 1 of the article.

8)     In fig 2 is written: “Internal/External integration capability of ecology and economy”. What about a society which is the third capital besides natural (what consists of the ecology) and economic capital in the context of sustainable development?

A: Thank you for your suggestion. We have explained it in the article.

9)     In fig 3 the letter “l” is missing in the word “Model”

A: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised Figure 3 in the article.

10)  In par. 222 the author indicates: “The multi-model human-computer…” Why is there a phrase “multi”?

A: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised it.

11)  Under the table 1 and 2 can be a description of what the symbol “R” means (R1-R5). The same is in table 3 (TLI, CFI…).

A: Thank you for your suggestion. R1~R5 refer to five professional researchers in the field of enterprise innovation ecology. CFI is the comparison fit index. We have made additional explanations in the article.

12)  The title of Fig 6 could be “Satisfaction survey results for new and original modes”

A: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the title of Figure 6.

13)  Try to find the differentiating criterion between the two pictures in fig 8 and fig 9. I can not find what differentiates them, looking only at the pictures.

Answer: Figure 8 (a) is the first control experiment, and Figure 8 (b) is the second control experiment.

14)  In lines 484-485 the author says “… analyses the disadvantages of the existing system”. Should it not be the analyses of the advantages and disadvantages?

 A: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the corresponding part.

15)  In the last part of the article – Conclusions it should be clearly and precisely explained why the author choose the Naïve Bayes algorithm and not the others.

A: The naive Bayesian method used in this paper has achieved an accuracy rate of 89% after 2000 samples. The results show that this method has great advantages in time consumption, error control and accuracy.

My opinion about this article is positive but it requires some changes mentioned above.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper, “Philosophical Research on Enterprise Innovation Ecology Based on Human-computer Interaction Mental Model”, addresses a research area interesting in innovation area. However, some aspects should be considered. For example, the Introduction section, the authors authors draw on some prior studies, but a much more critical literature analysis is needed to strengthen the paper’s argument and draw out the gaps they seek to address. Which gap(s) in extant studies are authors trying to address here?  That means, the introduction should clearly indicate the need for this paper in relation to extant research studies.

While the author(s) establish some links to some literature, author(s) need first to create a new section titled Literature review. Here you can insert the sections 1.1, 1.2, etc… Second, to establish a more coherent framework for the overall paper and more recent literature can be used to support the research topics. The theories used could be reinforced to support the study’s development. Strong theorizing remains scarce.  It is this strong theorizing that is needed to explain the phenomenon here proposed.

Also, the paper needs to be present much stronger discussion and conclusion sections in order to offer value to the reader. Overall, the manuscript makes some interesting points, but the study aims to study some relations among the variables. As such, we have a better chance of making a 

Author Response

The paper, “Philosophical Research on Enterprise Innovation Ecology Based on Human-computer Interaction Mental Model”, addresses a research area interesting in innovation area. However, some aspects should be considered. For example, the Introduction section, the authors authors draw on some prior studies, but a much more critical literature analysis is needed to strengthen the paper’s argument and draw out the gaps they seek to address. Which gap(s) in extant studies are authors trying to address here?  That means, the introduction should clearly indicate the need for this paper in relation to extant research studies.

A: Thank you for your suggestion. We have made appropriate supplementary explanations in the introduction.

While the author(s) establish some links to some literature, author(s) need first to create a new section titled Literature review. Here you can insert the sections 1.1, 1.2, etc… Second, to establish a more coherent framework for the overall paper and more recent literature can be used to support the research topics. The theories used could be reinforced to support the study’s development. Strong theorizing remains scarce.  It is this strong theorizing that is needed to explain the phenomenon here proposed.

A: Thank you for your suggestion. The article already has a chapter on relevant reviews.

Also, the paper needs to be present much stronger discussion and conclusion sections in order to offer value to the reader. Overall, the manuscript makes some interesting points, but the study aims to study some relations among the variables. As such, we have a better chance of making a 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

My comments were not inserted. I believe tath paper present several neggative points to be published.

Author Response

• Thank you for your comments. I have rearranged the points of the article

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

My suggestions were not insert...

Author Response

The paper, “Philosophical Research on Enterprise Innovation Ecology Based on Human-computer Interaction Mental Model”, addresses a research area interesting in innovation area. However, some aspects should be considered. For example, the Introduction section, the authors authors draw on some prior studies, but a much more critical literature analysis is needed to strengthen the paper’s argument and draw out the gaps they seek to address. Which gap(s) in extant studies are authors trying to address here?  That means, the introduction should clearly indicate the need for this paper in relation to extant research studies.

Answer: In view of the lack of analysis of the differences between this study and previous studies in your article, In the relevant work section, add "enterprise innovation is a problem that must be faced in enterprise management. The above research indicates that enterprise innovation is essentially an ecological operation. In the enterprise innovation ecological model, the innovation advantages of other companies can be combined to maximize the effect of enterprise innovation, but there is a lack of accurate data analysis of enterprise innovation ecology using intelligent technology".

While the author(s) establish some links to some literature, author(s) need first to create a new section titled Literature review. Here you can insert the sections 1.1, 1.2, etc… Second, to establish a more coherent framework for the overall paper and more recent literature can be used to support the research topics. The theories used could be reinforced to support the study’s development. Strong theorizing remains scarce.  It is this strong theorizing that is needed to explain the phenomenon here proposed.

Answer: To solve the problem that you need to create a new chapter of "literature review" for your article, a new chapter of "literature review" has been added. Second, the fifth reference has been updated to address the issue that you need to use updated literature to support the research topic.

Also, the paper needs to be present much stronger discussion and conclusion sections in order to offer value to the reader. Overall, the manuscript makes some interesting points, but the study aims to study some relations among the variables. As such, we have a better chance of making a 

Answer: To solve the problem that the content of your article is not fully displayed in the conclusion section, add "the core algorithm of the enterprise innovation ecological model based on the human-computer interaction mental model is the naive Bayes algorithm, which can accurately analyze the actual enterprise innovation ecological data, and has excellent applications in time consumption, classification accuracy and control error" in the conclusion section.