The Synergy of Ambidextrous Leadership, Agility, and Entrepreneurial Orientation to Achieve Sustainable AI Product Innovation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the opportunity to review the article. Please note the following:

Overall, I find this article written well; it follows the structure of a good research paper, and I have some comments about it:

1. The article needs to be referenced as per the guidelines of the journal.
2. Please provide a clear and specific abstract showing the findings of the study and also clearly describe the objective of the study. Also, show how you collected the data in the abstract.
3. Please show the organization of the study in the last section of the introduction section.
4. The next section after the introduction should be named as a literature review and hypotheses development, and then develop a section for the theoretical background of the research model and explain how the developed model aligns with the theory of the study.
5. Please make separate sections for the theoretical and practical implications and keep them separate from the discussion.
6. I would like to see some clear definitions for the concepts of the study, such as ambitious leadership and other concepts.
7. If possible, enrich the literature with a few recent and updated studies.
8. Please report the value of the CMB.
9. I have observed some places where grammar checking is required.
10. The research methodology is fine.
11. The conclusion is okay.

All the best

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would appreciate the editor for providing me an opportunity to review the article “Exploring the Synergy of Ambidextrous Leadership, Organizational Agility, and Entrepreneurial Orientation: Unleashing Product Innovativeness in the AI Industry of the Yangtze River Delta, China”. The paper is overall interesting, and the literature review is strong. However, some details are missing, which makes me a bit concerned. I hope the authors can solve all the issues during the revision.

0. The research motivation is somewhat unclear.

1. Please clarify the contribution more specifically. Some related work should be compared with the current paper.

2. Please add some notations on Figure 1 to show how each component corresponds to the hypothesis and the potential positive or negative effect.

3. I wonder if the respondents and AI firms considered in this paper are representative enough. Please provide more details for this.

4. How are the measurements in Table 1 are designed? Please provide some guidelines for the measurements.

5. I see no Table 6 in this paper.

6. I wonder if the raw data and code can be attached to enhance the reproducibility.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

The article investigates how ambidextrous leadership (AL) can foster product innovativeness in the AI industry of China's Yangtze River Delta through the lenses of organizational agility (OA) and entrepreneurial orientation (EO). The research employs a quantitative method with a sample of 405 usable questionnaires. The study aims to understand the interactive effects of these three dimensions (AL, OA, EO) on enhancing product innovation. Upon thorough testing of the hypotheses and meticulous scrutiny of the methodology, it is my pleasure to extend my warmest congratulations to the authors for their outstanding work. I am pleased to report that the study is devoid of any areas of weakness or methodological inaccuracies, which is a testament to the authors' meticulousness and dedication.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I don't have comments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

satisfied 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did a great job in revising the manuscript. I have no further comments on this paper now