The Relation between Bio-Industry Performance and Innovation Capacity—Focusing on the Korean Bio-Industry
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your study “The relation between Bio-industry Performance and Innovation Capacity- Focusing on the Korean Bio-industry.”
The manuscript provides an interesting contribution but I’ve listed some comments on how I believe the manuscript might be improved by section.
<Introduction>
It is necessary to explain the entire research frame of this study and clearly show the difference from previous studies. However, there is no description of collaboration, which is considered a key variable in this study, in the introduction, and existing theories and explanations for why collaboration has a significant impact on corporate performance in the bio industry seem to be necessary.
<Literature review>
The Third and fourth hypothesis deals with collaboration and performance of bio companies. However, the theoretical background of this research is unclear why the author focused on R&D collaboration. Authors should pay more attention to relevant literature such as open innovation or external knowledge sourcing when discuss about collaboration.
<Results>
The study shows statistical results very well and clearly. Authors set out 4 scientific questions and 4 hypotheses. Scientific questions and hypotheses seemed appropriate.
<Discussion and Conclusion>
The contribution should be stated more clearly in the abstract and the introduction, and the practical and policy implications of this research could be enhanced.
<Minor concern>
There are several typo and grammar mistakes in this paper. The paper reads well but it could use slight copy editing to review for minor grammatical mistakes. Also, the reference list of this paper should be updated.
I hope these comments will help in moving the paper forward. I wish you the best of luck with your research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The aim of the article was is to learn the competitive advantage factors that improve the innovation ability of the Korean bio industry. Accordingly, the authors attempted to find factors that enhance a company's innovation capability through literature research and to find out how these factors affect company performance by applying these factors to the Korean bio industry.
The authors conducted a literature review and survey, which allowed them to formulate 4 research questions and set and verify 4 research hypotheses. The research model was constructed and presented on figure 1. The research model was constructed and presented on figure 1. Additionally the Bio industry analysis procedure was described on the figure 2.
A total of 1,973 companies were surveyed as part of the "bio industry survey." Finally, surveys with missing data were excluded and a total of 1,293 bio companies remained. Initially, the authors analysed the concentration trend of the collected data and the state of the domestic bio industry, and investigated whether the variables were properly matched in terms of correlation between variables. Therefore, descriptive statistics and correlation analysis were conducted. Further in this study, multiple regression analysis was conducted which allowed the identification of the main independent variables related to the dependent variable. In addition, this study, in order to analyse how the six input factors have a complex effect on the output factor, was performed through a multiple regression analysis of SPSS 25.
The conducted research made it possible to answer the research questions posed and to verify the research hypotheses.
Among other things, the empirical results showed that:
- R&D intensity, Machine investment, and Human resources factors affect the business performance of Korean bio companies. Nonetheless, factors affecting innovation capacity by bio industry were defined differently.
- also can be seen the Korean bio industry is currently in a period of growth in which External cooperation and Non-cooperation companies are making huge investments and External cooperation.
The authors pointed out the limitations of the undertaken study, among others:
1. this study analysed pre COVID-19 survey data hence a comparative study with post COVID-19 data is needed.
2. there is a limitation in explaining all bio industries with 6 independent variables and 1 dependent variable hence it is necessary to conduct additional multivariate studies in the future by expanding the variables.
General outlines:
The manuscript is clear and presented in a well-structured manner.
Most of the cited references are recent (mainly from the last 7 years). The citations of older publications result from changes in the approach of discussed issues or legal solutions concerning them.
The data presented in tables in the article enrich the discussed issues and support the description.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The research tries to address the question regarding the innovation process and competitiveness of the bio industry in South Korea.
This research is relevant tot the sustainability research area and also to the economic component of what today’s view on the bio industry should be.
The subject is in line with previous research, but also attracts a different point of view because of the high degree of the econometric testing done to validate its research questions.
The paper could benefit from a paragraph in the Introduction section that presents the backbone of the research, its purpose and main methodological processes. Also, there could be created a Discussion and Limits section to highlight issues of the scientific approach and how it could be improved in future research.
The quality and the quantity of the data used for econometric testing could be improved, if further data is available. From my overview, I consider the review of the data selection rigorous enough to consider the entire methodological process in line with today’s research needs.
The Conclusion section could be improved with new validation regarding the limits of the model and what can be done to improve the research.
The References could be improved with the illustration of previous research delivered by opposing ideological currents, if any.
No additional comments regarding the tables and graphs, although the paper could benefit as functionality from a descriptive approach of the results of the model explained in a graphical manner.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
