Structural Characteristics and Evolution of the Dual Network of Patent Technology Collaboration and Innovation in China–Japan–ROK
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAbstract: Define ROK; not everyone knows what countries are represented. Also, if more definition can be provided for lines 22-24 for the patent acronyms. OK if it cannot be done due to space limitations; as long as it’s clear in the narrative.
Introduction: Line 39; remove the word “all” and just leave it “….countries”, unless you’re sure it’s all the countries. Nice first paragraph page 2. Line 71, insert “..as a reference”.
Literature Review: This is well written and provides some solid background to the reader relating to the paper’s research objective. The last paragraph could also be placed at the end of the Introduction, since it’s pertaining to the goals of the upcoming research.
Methodology: Please don’t split Table 1 between pages. Also, Figure 1 has “average degree” and “average” of weighted degree in italics, why? It’s a nice network structure analysis model; is there a source for the Figure (or authors rendering)? It would help to have some detail about Figure 1 and it’s interrelationships/interactions.
Analysis and Results: Line 215 is there a time range (from year x to before 2022 for the data)?Never mind, I saw the time range on the next page: 2002-2022. Table 7 is split between pages.
Discussions: I would have liked to see more discussion about the areas that China-Japan-ROK are highly collaborative in (e.g., see Figure 5 and section 4.4.1).
Conclusions and Policy Implications:
Overall comments: A well-written paper; good conclusions, policy implications and limitations section. Maybe a sentence or two would be good to add about how this paper has contributed to “moving the needle” in this area of collaborative network structural research.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAbstract: Define ROK; not everyone knows what countries are represented. Also, if more definition can be provided for lines 22-24 for the patent acronyms. OK if it cannot be done due to space limitations; as long as it’s clear in the narrative.
Introduction: Line 39; remove the word “all” and just leave it “….countries”, unless you’re sure it’s all the countries. Nice first paragraph page 2. Line 71, insert “..as a reference”.
Literature Review: This is well written and provides some solid background to the reader relating to the paper’s research objective. The last paragraph could also be placed at the end of the Introduction, since it’s pertaining to the goals of the upcoming research.
Methodology: Please don’t split Table 1 between pages. Also, Figure 1 has “average degree” and “average” of weighted degree in italics, why? It’s a nice network structure analysis model; is there a source for the Figure (or authors rendering)? It would help to have some detail about Figure 1 and it’s interrelationships/interactions.
Analysis and Results: Line 215 is there a time range (from year x to before 2022 for the data)?Never mind, I saw the time range on the next page: 2002-2022. Table 7 is split between pages.
Discussions: I would have liked to see more discussion about the areas that China-Japan-ROK are highly collaborative in (e.g., see Figure 5 and section 4.4.1).
Conclusions and Policy Implications:
Overall comments: A well-written paper; good conclusions, policy implications and limitations section. Maybe a sentence or two would be good to add about how this paper has contributed to “moving the needle” in this area of collaborative network structural research.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
We are truly grateful to yours and other reviewers’ critical comments and thoughtful suggestions on our manuscript (Manuscript ID: sustainability- 3116766). We have revised the manuscript and responded to these questions point-by-point based on the comments and suggestions. Additionally, the list of changes is given below. Now we are submitting this revised version after making improvements. If you have any other questions about this manuscript, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Comments and the list of changes in the revised manuscript
Reviewer 1:
Point 1:
Abstract: Define ROK; not everyone knows what countries are represented. Also, if more definition can be provided for lines 22-24 for the patent acronyms. OK if it cannot be done due to space limitations; as long as it’s clear in the narrative.
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestions, due to the limited space of the manuscript, we're so sorry that we are unable to provide more definition of the patent acronyms. Because of relevant explanations in other parts of the manuscript, it does not affect the reader's understanding of these patent technologies.
Point 2:
Introduction: Line 39; remove the word “all” and just leave it “….countries”, unless you’re sure it’s all the countries. Nice first paragraph page 2. Line 71, insert “..as a reference”.
Response 2: Thanks for your suggestions, we have removed the word “all”.
Point 3:
Literature Review: This is well written and provides some solid background to the reader relating to the paper’s research objective. The last paragraph could also be placed at the end of the Introduction, since it’s pertaining to the goals of the upcoming research.
Response 3:
Thanks for your suggestions, after some discussion, we believe that it is appropriate to leave the last paragraph unchanged, as the introduction already includes some solid background to the reader relating to the paper’s research objective.
Point 4:
Methodology: Please don’t split Table 1 between pages. Also, Figure 1 has “average degree” and “average” of weighted degree in italics, why? It’s a nice network structure analysis model; is there a source for the Figure (or authors rendering)? It would help to have some detail about Figure 1 and it’s interrelationships/interactions.
Response 4: Thanks for your suggestions, we're so sorry that Figure 1 has “average degree” and “average” of weighted degree in italics was our mistake. Due to the limited space of the manuscript, it’s a pity that we are unable to provide more detail about Figure 1 and it’s interrelationships/interactions.
Point 5:
Analysis and Results: Line 215 is there a time range (from year x to before 2022 for the data)?Never mind, I saw the time range on the next page: 2002-2022. Table 7 is split between pages.
Response 5: Thanks for your suggestions, there is a time range on the next page: 2002-2022.
Point 6:
Discussions: I would have liked to see more discussion about the areas that China-Japan-ROK are highly collaborative in (e.g., see Figure 5 and section 4.4.1).
Response 6: Thanks for your suggestions, due to the limited space of the manuscript, we're so sorry that we are unable to provide more discussion about the areas that China-Japan-ROK are highly collaborative in (e.g., see Figure 5 and section 4.4.1).
Point 7:
Overall comments: A well-written paper; good conclusions, policy implications and limitations section. Maybe a sentence or two would be good to add about how this paper has contributed to “moving the needle” in this area of collaborative network structural research.
Response 7: Thanks for your suggestions, we have added a section in the last paragraph of the introduction, which includes how this paper has contributed to “moving the needle” in this area of collaborative network structural research. It reads as follows:
The possible marginal contributions of this paper are: (1) Supplementation of the research framework. Based on the overall structure, the location of the innovation subject network and the surface-point-slice of the cohesion subgroup, this paper constructs the dual network and evolutionary representation of China-Japan-ROK patent technology cooperation and innovation, in order to effectively supplement the analytical framework of cooperation network structure research. (2) Expansion of research methods. This paper uses patented technical cooperation and innovation dual network structure analysis model and SNA method to scientifically explore the characteristic factors of network structure, so as to enrich and expand the empirical research on international technology cooperation and innovation, and provide policy enlightenment for optimizing regional sustainable development and national innovation network.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to read and comment on your paper entitled "Structural Characteristics and Evolution of the Dual Network of Patent Technology Collaboration and Innovation in China-Japan-ROK". The study aims to analyze the dual network relationship and evolution 15 characteristics of patent technology cooperation and innovation at different stages. It was based on data based on data from 5912 invention patents applied by China, Japan, and ROK.
Abstract
Review English. Very long sentences.
In general is good. Well explained, clear and objective. There are main results and contributions.
Introduction:
The introduction is well written and clearly explains the research gap and objective.
Author(s) justify the topic and presents previous work.
Again, there are very long sentences. Review.
Literature review:
The introduction is well written, but is necessary a better structure. A suggestion is present some topics such as dual network relationship, patent technology cooperation and innovation at different stages with highlights and dimensions.
It is important present these dimensions or a model to better understand the research and connect with the Methodology.
Methodology:
I recommend you explain more in detail Figure 1. Maybe it is important present an example.
Main variables or elements could be presented in the section method.
Analysis and Results:
Analysis and results are complete and well explained.
Discussion
Author(s) could give more examples and insights to practitioners based on results.
It is important to add evidence from the analysis in discussion. Some arguments based on data is important to create a robust discussion and relate to previous literature.
Conclusions:
Conclusions are complete and well explained.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are several long sentences.
It is important review.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
We are truly grateful to yours and other reviewers’ critical comments and thoughtful suggestions on our manuscript (Manuscript ID: sustainability- 3116766). We have revised the manuscript and responded to these questions point-by-point based on the comments and suggestions. Additionally, the list of changes is given below. Now we are submitting this revised version after making improvements. If you have any other questions about this manuscript, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Comments and the list of changes in the revised manuscript
Reviewer 1:
Point 1:
Abstract: Review English. Very long sentences.In general is good. Well explained, clear and objective. There are main results and contributions.
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestions, we will try to learn the writing styles of other great manuscripts in the future.
Point 2:
Introduction: The introduction is well written and clearly explains the research gap and objective.Author(s) justify the topic and presents previous work.Again, there are very long sentences. Review.
Response 2: Thanks for your suggestions, we will try to learn the writing styles of other great manuscripts in the future.
Point 3:
Literature Review: The introduction is well written, but is necessary a better structure. A suggestion is present some topics such as dual network relationship, patent technology cooperation and innovation at different stages with highlights and dimensions.It is important present these dimensions or a model to better understand the research and connect with the Methodology..
Response 3:
Thank you for your suggestions, and we will try to learn a better structure of other excellent manuscripts in the future, and highlight the key points and dimensions.
Point 4:
Methodology: I recommend you explain more in detail Figure 1. Maybe it is important present an example.Main variables or elements could be presented in the section method.
Response 4: Thank you for your suggestions, due to space limitations of manuscript, we're so sorry that we cannot explain Figure 1 and illustrate the examples in more detail. Of course, this does not affect the reader's understanding of the methodology.
Point 5:
Discussions: Author(s) could give more examples and insights to practitioners based on results.It is important to add evidence from the analysis in discussion. Some arguments based on data is important to create a robust discussion and relate to previous literature.
Response 6: Thanks for your suggestions, due to the limited space of the manuscript, we're so sorry that we are unable to provide more examples and insights.
We have added a section in the last paragraph of the introduction, which includes how this paper has contributed to “moving the needle” in this area of collaborative network structural research. It reads as follows:
The possible marginal contributions of this paper are: (1) Supplementation of the research framework. Based on the overall structure, the location of the innovation subject network and the surface-point-slice of the cohesion subgroup, this paper constructs the dual network and evolutionary representation of China-Japan-ROK patent technology cooperation and innovation, in order to effectively supplement the analytical framework of cooperation network structure research. (2) Expansion of research methods. This paper uses patented technical cooperation and innovation dual network structure analysis model and SNA method to scientifically explore the characteristic factors of network structure, so as to enrich and expand the empirical research on international technology cooperation and innovation, and provide policy enlightenment for optimizing regional sustainable development and national innovation network.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
