Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Investigating Technological Advancement Strategies for the Innovation Impact of Alternative Energy Patents

Sustainability 2024, 16(2), 562; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020562

by Jong-Hyun Kim and Yong-Gil Lee^*

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Reviewer 4: Anonymous

Reviewer 5: Anonymous

Sustainability 2024, 16(2), 562; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020562

Submission received: 14 December 2023 / Revised: 29 December 2023 / Accepted: 6 January 2024 / Published: 9 January 2024

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Perspectives on Energy Transition, Energy Policy and Green Growth in Use of Multidisciplinary Approaches)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

*_Connectedness of thinking and coherence of ideas_*

  This article,

/Investigating the/ /Technological Advancement Strategy for Innovation Impact of Alternative Energy Patents/, aims to investigates the technological advancement strategies for the inventing the alternative energy technologies by using patent data. This study empirically examine relationships between forward-citation counts and result of invention activities such as a degree and type of the technological advancement

The authors consider ”both the degree and the type of the technological advancement of the patents”, taking accounts of scale and scope of technological knowledge. According with the authors ” /It was confirmed that the innovation impact of patents related to wind energy was more significantly associated with the degree of technological advancement than that of patents related to other fields of alternative energy.”/

*_The_**_Strengths and Opportunities _*_(_S&O )*_points of _**_ the article_*

The authors brought to the front a valuable issue: strategies for technological advancement that can lead to impactful innovations in the alternative energy industries. The authors structured the article as follows:

**

*Abstract -* it**is a self-contained unit capable of being understood without the benefit of the others chapters.

*Introduction*- *Section 1*

* ///Literature review/

The authors explore literature related to the impact of innovation, with specific focus on the studies based on patent data. ”The impact of innovation, within the patent context, results from the utilization of three aspects of patent value: direct economic value, indirect economic value, and technological value [15].”

1.1.1. Alternative energy

1.1.2. Innovation impact

1.1.3. Technological advancement

/1.2. Hypothesis/

In this section, the authors suggest ”hypotheses based on the theoretical background of technological advancement.” They refer to the literature related to the mechanism of progress in the technology advancement, which is closely related to the technological knowledge feature of the invention.

* Hypothesis 1: A significant and positive relationship exist between
    the scale of tech-nological knowledge and technological value
    (citation count).

* Hypothesis 2: A significant and positive (or negative) relationship
    exist between the scope of technological knowledge and technological
    value (citation count).

* Hypothesis 3: A low or insignificant correlation exists between the
    scale and scope of technological knowledge.

*Data and methodology -* *Section 2*

/2.1. Data /

* For this study, the authors retrieved granted Patent Cooperation
    Treaty patent applications (PCT patents) related to the alternative
    energy sources, which correspond to the alternative energy
    technologies by IPC Green inventory by World Intellectual Property
    Organization [12]. There are 13 fields of the alternative energy
    technologies in the IPC green inventory.They retrieved 114,038 PCT
    patents applied from 2011 to 2015. Because, for the patents, it
    takes several years to occur records of forward citation, which is a
    proxy for the impact of innovation. This study utilized 105,556
    patents that do not correspond to multiple fields of the alternative
    energy technologies and are able to be transformed into analytical
    form. The authors suggest empirical results by focusing on the
    fields of solar energy (Solar), wind energy (Wind), fuel-cell
    (Fuel), bio-fuel (Bio), hydro energy (Hydro), harnessing energy
    from manmade waste (HE), and using waste heat (UW). Because number
    of patents of the fields are only sufficient for those fields of the
    alternative to perform empirical analyses. Details on the dataset
    are suggested in the Appendix A.

The data collection process of this study was performed in three steps:

* Using the Korea Intellectual Property Rights Information Service
    (KIPRIS) [39] the authors retrieved the alternative energy patents .
* They retrieved additional information on citations by using Google
    Patents [40].
* The authors converted bibliometric information, such as forward and
    backward citations, TI, assignee, inventor, and application date,
    into an analytical form.

//

/2.2. Variables /

The authors transformed bibliometric information into variables reflecting the value of patents to verify the hypotheses on technological advancement at the individual patent level.

2.2.1. Transformation of the technological classification index

The authors utilized the decomposed form of the technological classification index (DTI) to calculate the variables of interest to avoid calculating variables with information losses.

2.2.2. Calculation of variables of interest: scale and scope of technological knowledge

The authors used four indicators of technological knowledge to reflect the technological advancement features of a patent. There are two types of indicators: scale and scope of technological knowledge. The scale and scope of technological knowledge mean scale and scope aspects of knowledge utilized for a technology invention (a patent). First, they calculated the IE of DTI (DAE) and the number of DTI (DAN) as variables of the scale of technological knowledge in a patent. Equation 1 shows The calculation of the IE (Shannon, 450 1948)

/2.3. Methodology /

2.3.1. A regression method for zero-inflated data

The authors used forward-citation counts as a proxy variable for innovation impact.

HNB was adopted in this study to analyze the relationship between technological value and technological advancement . According to the authors: ”Baccini et al. [43], the zero inflated negative binomial (ZINB), hurdle negative binomial (HNB), and generalized weight regression (GWR) are suitable for analyzing zero-inflated data.”

The authors utilized the zero-inflated data to conduct HNB regression analyses using R-4.1.2 [45] with the software package: “pscl” [46]. In previous studies [43-44], many techniques have been suggested to analyze zero inflated count data. A deep analyse was done: ” According to Gardner et al. [44], ordinary least squares and regression methods for integer counts, such as negative binomial and Poisson, can overestimate the confidence of the analysis results. Baccini et al. [43] suggested that various regression methods are suitable for analyzing zero-inflated data with precision and accuracy. Baccini et al. [43] suggested appropriate methods by comparing the information criteria among the regression analysis methods for these data. ”

*Results - Section 3*

Agree with the aintroducing the associations among the dependent variable (𝐹𝐶𝐶), the variables of interest (𝐷𝐴𝐸, 𝐷𝐴𝑁, 𝑇𝐴𝐸, and 𝑇𝐴𝑁), and the control variables to examine the empirical results by focusing on the hypotheses.

/3.1. Descriptive statistics/

/3.2. Regression/

In this subsection, the researchers describe empirical results to test Hypotheses 1 and 2 by confirming the results of the regression analyses.

According to the authors, /the relationship between innovation impact and the type of technological advancement also appears to be heterogenous. The coefficients of interaction /

/terms between the type of technological advancement and dummy variable for the classification of the alternative energy sources are significantly negative for the solar and hydro energy classification (-0.075 and -0.080). But the coefficients of interaction terms between the type of technological advancement and dummy variable for classification of the alternative energy sources are significantly positive for the fuel-cell and bio-fuel (0.057 and -0.104). Therefore, it seems that more diversified technological advancement of the alternative energy patents makes more innovation impact if the patents correspond to the fuel-cell and bio-fuel. Contrastingly, more specialized technological advancement of the alternative energy patents seems to have greater innovation impact if the patents correspond to the solar and hydro energy. /

/In the case of patents related to wind energy, the association between the expected impact of innovation and the degree of technological advancement is found to be at least 1.8 times and up to times greater than patents of other fields of alternative energy sources. Moreover, in the case of solar and hydro energy, the association between the innovation impact and the type of technological advancements is found to be at least 1.8 times greater than patents of harnessing energy from manmade waste and using waste heat.According to the authors/

*Conclusions - Section 4*

this study suggests a new measurement method for technological knowledge indicators that describes the degree and type of technological advancement. These indicators require two appropriate properties that are useful for predicting a technological value and are not correlated with each other. The results empirically prove that the suggested indicators meet the appropriate properties of the technological advancement indicators when calculated using Shannon IE and DTI. Moreover, the measurement method used in this study is advantageous because it can be easily transformed into a technological advancement indicator .

*Weaknesses and Threats (W&T) points of the article*

*- W&T *

The conceptualization of the way the situation is analyzed and the way the conclusions are drawn are well done.

The list of bibliographic material is well sized , but seems that not all the positions are cited. The authors must check if all the authors was mentioned throughout the article.

Remarq: for authors

Dear authors, this is a timly and valuable subject, the article respects the rigors a scientific paper must do.

I agree with what you, the authors performed througout the article/Investigating the/ /Technological Advancement Strategy for Innovation Impact of Alternative Energy Patents/:

* Suggested empirical results by focusing on the fields of solar
    energy (Solar), wind energy (Wind), fuel-cell (Fuel), bio-fuel
    (Bio), hydro energy (Hydro), harnessing energy from manmade waste
    (HE), and using waste heat (UW).
* Performed the data collection process of the study in three steps:
* Retrieved additional information on citations by using Google
    Patents [40].

  with converted bibliometric information, such as forward and backward citations, TI, assignee, inventor, and application date, into an analytical form.

Agree both with the associations /among the dependent variable /(𝐹𝐶𝐶), /the variables of interest /(𝐷𝐴𝐸, 𝐷𝐴𝑁, 574 𝑇𝐴𝐸, and 𝑇𝐴𝑁), /and the control variables to examine the empirical results by focusing on the hypotheses, /and statistic calculations, representations and conclusions

//

Throughout the article, the manner of indicating the bibliographic source is requested to be check . It is required all the authors mentioned in the references to be cited throughout the article. Check, please.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

We sincerely appreciate you and the comments with your professionality.

Comment 1. The conceptualization of the way the situation is analyzed and the way the conclusions are drawn are well done.

The authors definitely agree with your comments. We sincerely appreciate the comment.

Comment 2. The list of bibliographic material is well sized, but seems that not all the positions are cited. The authors must check if all the authors was mentioned throughout the article.

The authors definitely agree with your comment. We checked all the References and reference marks. We remove several references that are not mentioned in the manuscript.
The following references are removed in the manuscript:

Lee, Y. G., Lee, J. D., & Song, Y. I. (2006). An Analysis of Citation Counts of ETRI‐Invented US Patents. ETRI journal, 28(4), 541-544
GAY, C., LE BAS, C., PATEL, P., TOUACH, K. (2005), The determinants of patent citations: An empirical analysis of French and British patents in the US, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 14 (5) : 339–350.
Romer, D., (2001), Advanced Macroeconomics, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Comment 3. Throughout the article, the manner of indicating the bibliographic source is requested to be check.

The authors definitely agree with your comment. We changed the manner of indicating the bibliographic source.
At lines 940-1016.

Chen, J.; Yin, X.; Mei, L.. Holistic innovation: An emerging innovation paradigm. International Journal of Innovation Studies 2018, 2(1), 1-13.
Pavitt, K.; Robson, M.; Townsend, J. Technological accumulation, diversification and organisation in UK companies, 1945–1983. Management science 1989, 35(1), 81-99.
Kim, J. H.; Lee, Y. G. Factors of Collaboration Affecting the Performance of Alternative Energy Patents in South Korea from 2010 to 2017. Sustainability 2021, 13(18), 10208.
Lee, Y.-G.; Lee, J.-D.; Song; Y.-I.; Lee, S.-J. An in-depth empirical analysis of patent citation counts using zero-inflated count data model: The case of KIST. Scientometrics 2007, 70(1), 27-39.
Appio, F. P.; Baglieri, D.; Cesaroni, F.; Spicuzza, L.; Donato, A. Patent design strategies: Empirical evidence from European patents. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2022, 181, 121776.
Rahim, S.; Murshed, M.; Umarbeyli, S.; Kirikkaleli, D.; Ahmad, M.; Tufail, M.; Wahab, S. Do natural resources abundance and human capital development promote economic growth? A study on the resource curse hypothesis in Next Eleven countries. Resources, Environment and Sustainability 2021, 4, 100018.
Ullah, S.; Luo, R.; Nadeem, M.; Cifuentes-Faura, J. Advancing sustainable growth and energy transition in the United States through the lens of green energy innovations, natural resources and environmental policy. Resources Policy 2023, 85, 103848.
Xie, X.; Hoang, T. T.; Zhu, Q. Green process innovation and financial performance: The role of green social capital and customers’ tacit green needs. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 2022, 7(1), 100165.
Wei, S.; Jiandong, W.; Saleem, H. The impact of renewable energy transition, green growth, green trade and green innovation on environmental quality: Evidence from top 10 green future countries. Frontiers in Environmental Science 2023, 10, 1076859.
León, L. R.; Bergquist, K.; Wunsch-Vincent, S.; Xu, N.; Fushimi, K. Measuring innovation in energy technologies: green patents as captured by WIPO’s IPC green inventory. Economic Research Working Paper 2018, 44.
WIPO IPC Green Inventory. . Available online: https://www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/green-inventory/home (accessed on 7^th February 2021)
Ghisetti, C.; Quatraro, F. Green technologies and environmental productivity: A cross-sectoral analysis of direct and indirect effects in Italian regions. Ecological Economics 2017, 132, 1-13.
Cecere, G.; Mancinelli, S.; Mazzanti, M. Waste prevention and social preferences: the role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Ecological Economics 2014, 107, 163-176.
Lee, Y.-G. What affects a patent’s value? An analysis of variables that affect technological, direct economic, and indirect economic value: An exploratory conceptual approach. Scientometrics 2009, 79(3), 623-633.
Jaffe, A. B.; Trajtenberg, M.; Henderson, R.Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. The Quarterly journal of economics 1993, 108(3), 577-598.
Lee, Y.-G. Patent licensability and life: A study of US patents registered by South Korean public research institutes. Scientometrics 2008, 75, 463-471.
Lanjouw, J. O.; Pakes, A.; Putnam, J. How to count patents and value intellectual property: The uses of patent renewal and application data. The journal of industrial economics 1998, 46(4), 405-432.
Hall, B. H.; Jaffe, A.; Trajtenberg, M. Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of economics 2005, 16-38.
Harhoff, D.; Narin, F.; Scherer, F. M.; Vopel, K. Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. Review of Economics and statistics 1999, 81(3), 511-515.
Hirshleifer, D.; Hsu, P.-H.; Li, D. Innovative originality, profitability, and stock returns. The Review of Financial Studies 2018, 31(7), 2553-2605.
Kang, T.; Maliphol, S.; Kogler, D. F.; Kim, K. Regional Knowledge Capabilities, Entrepreneurial Activity, and Productivity Growth: Evidence from Italian NUTS-3 Regions. International Regional Science Review 2022, 45(3), 293-320.
Malerba, F.; Mancusi, M. L.; Montobbio, F. Innovation, international R&D spillovers and the sectoral heterogeneity of knowledge flows. Review of World Economics 2013, 149(4), 697-722.
Trajtenberg, M. A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. The Rand journal of economics 1990, 172-187.
Chen, J.; Jang, S.-L.; Wen, S. Measuring technological diversification: identifying the effects of patent scale and patent scope. Scientometrics 2010, 84(1), 265-275.
Garcia-Vega, M. Does technological diversification promote innovation?: An empirical analysis for European firms. Research policy 2006, 35(2), 230-246.
Kogler, D. F.; Rigby, D. L.; Tucker, I. Mapping knowledge space and technological relatedness in US cities. European Planning Studies 2013, 21(9), 1374-1391.
Goto, A.; Suzuki, K. R & D capital, rate of return on R & D investment and spillover of R & D in Japanese manufacturing industries. The review of Economics and Statistics 1989, 555-564.
Kwon, S.; Porter, A.; Youtie, J. Navigating the innovation trajectories of technology by combining specialization score analyses for publications and patents: graphene and nano-enabled drug delivery. Scientometrics 2016, 106(3), 1057-1071.
Romer, P. M. Endogenous technological change. Journal of political Economy 1990, 98(5, Part 2), S71-S102.
Solow, R. M. Technical change and the aggregate production function. The review of Economics and Statistics 1957, 312-320.
Rivera-Batiz, L. A.; Romer, P. M. International trade with endogenous technological change. European economic review 1991, 35(4), 971-1001.
Chandler, A. D.; Hikino, T.; Chandler, A. D. Scale and scope: The dynamics of industrial capitalism. Harvard University Press, 2009; 1, pp.1-45
Dosi, G.. Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of economic literature 1988, 1120-1171.
Kaulich, F. Diversification vs. specialization as alternative strategies for economic development: Can we settle a debate by looking at the empirical evidence? Vienna, Austria: United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), 2012; pp.1-51
Available online: http://www.kipris.or.kr/khome/main.jsp (accessed on 18^th May 2020)
Google Patents. Available online: https://patents.google.com/ (accessed on 16^th July 2021)
Shannon, C. E. A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell system technical journal 1948, 27(3), 379-423.
Adams, J. D.; Black, G. C.; Clemmons, J. R.; Stephan, P. E. Scientific teams and institutional collaborations: Evidence from US universities, 1981–1999. Research policy 2005, 34(3), 259-285.
Baccini, A.; Barabesi, L.; Cioni, M.; Pisani, C. Crossing the hurdle: the determinants of individual scientific performance. Scientometrics 2014, 101(3), 2035-2062.
Gardner, W.; Mulvey, E. P.; Shaw, E. C. Regression analyses of counts and rates: Poisson, overdispersed Poisson, and negative binomial models. Psychological bulletin 1995, 118(3), 392.
R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Available online: https://www.r-project.org (accessed on 5^th Nov 2023)
Zeileis, A.; Kleiber, C.; Jackman, S. Regression models for count data in R. Journal of statistical software 2008, 27(8), 1-25.

Comment 4. It is required all the authors mentioned in the references to be cited throughout the article. Check, please.

The authors definitely agree with your comment. We checked all the references. We remove several references and modified References (the list of bibliographic material) and the reference marks. We suggested details in the previous replies.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments for Improvement

Further Elaboration on Data Selection: Clarify the process and criteria for selecting patents for the study. This will enhance the transparency and replicability of the research.

Comparative Analysis: Incorporate a comparative analysis of the impact of technological advancements across different sectors of alternative energy. This would provide a more nuanced understanding of the field.

Methodological Limitations: Discuss potential limitations of using patent data and forward-citation counts as proxies for innovation and technological advancement.

Policy Implications: The study could benefit from a section discussing the practical implications of its findings for policy-making in the field of alternative energy.

Future Research Directions: Suggest areas for future research, such as the examination of regional differences in technological advancements or the impact of specific policy interventions on innovation in alternative energy.

Statistical Analysis Robustness: Provide a more comprehensive justification for the statistical techniques used, particularly for handling zero-inflated data, to strengthen the paper's methodological robustness.

Graphical Representation: Include more graphical representations of data and findings to enhance reader comprehension and engagement.

Conclusion Section: Develop a more robust conclusion that not only summarizes key findings but also ties them back to the broader context of alternative energy and sustainable development.

Overall, the paper presents a valuable contribution to understanding technological advancements in alternative energy through patent data analysis. With the suggested improvements, it could offer more robust insights and implications for the field.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comment 1. Further Elaboration on Data Selection: Clarify the process and criteria for selecting patents for the study. This will enhance the transparency and replicability of the research.

The authors definitely agree with your comment. We added additional explanations in the manuscript.
At lines 328-342:

“However, this study utilized 105,556 patents that do not correspond to multiple fields of the alternative energy technologies and are able to be transformed into analytical form. Moreover, we focused our quantitative analysis only on the fields of the alternative energy technologies with more than 1,000 observations from the 105,556 patent data. Specifically, we suggest empirical results by focusing on the fields of solar energy (Solar), wind energy (Wind), fuel-cell (Fuel), bio-fuel (Bio), hydro energy (Hydro), harnessing energy from manmade waste (HE), and using waste heat (UW). Because number of patents of the fields are only sufficient for those fields of the alternative to perform empirical analyses. Details on the dataset are suggested in the Appendix A.”

Comment 2. Comparative Analysis: Incorporate a comparative analysis of the impact of technological advancements across different sectors of alternative energy. This would provide a more nuanced understanding of the field.

The authors definitely agree with your comment. We suggest explanations incorporating a comparative analysis in the manuscript.
At lines 716-727.

“To sum up, the impact of innovation in alternative energy patents is significantly influenced by both the degree and type of technological advancement, with higher and more specialized technological advancement generally leading to greater impact. However, the specific relationship varies depending on the alternative energy source. Wind energy patents benefit the most from higher degree of technological advancement, while solar and hydro energy patents experience greater impact from more specialized technological advancement. In contrast, fuel-cell and bio-fuel patents see their impact amplified by more diversified technological advancement. Overall, the degree of technological advancement plays a more important role in wind energy patents. For the type of technological advancement, diversification is more impactful for fuel-cell and bio-fuel energy patents, while specialization is more impactful for solar and hydro energy patents.”

Comment 3. Methodological Limitations: Discuss potential limitations of using patent data and forward-citation counts as proxies for innovation and technological advancement.

The authors definitely agree with your comment. We added additional explanations in the manuscript.
At lines 816-818.

“… However, our methodology is based on patent data, which has some limitations. First, it limits the assessment of the technological advancement in some technology areas with fewer patent applications. Second, it does not take into account various innovation impacts and outcomes that are not related to patenting activity.”

Comment 4. Policy Implications: The study could benefit from a section discussing the practical implications of its findings for policy-making in the field of alternative energy.

The authors definitely agree with your comment. We added discussion about the practical implications in Conclusion and discussion.
At lines 802-814.

“In addition, we speculate on the reasons why effective technological advancement strategies may differ across alternative energy technology fields: during our sample period, best-practices in how Bio and Fuel are utilized as energy sources for practical applications had not been established, and we speculate that a diversification of the technological advancement would therefore lead to higher innovative impacts. On the other hand, for energy sources such as Wind and Solar, the best-practices of how they can be used as energy sources for practical applications are mature, and therefore, the technological advancement in the form of specialization to improve productivity or efficiency is more likely to be required than the exploration of new practical applications. Therefore, for a more effective transition to alternative energy, policies for the technological advancement of alternative energy sources should prioritize the exploration of practical applications of energy sources and support the specialization phase to maximize productivity and efficiency after the practical applications of the alternative energy sources have been established.”

Comment 5. Future Research Directions: Suggest areas for future research, such as the examination of regional differences in technological advancements or the impact of specific policy interventions on innovation in alternative energy.

The authors definitely agree with your comment. We propose some areas for further research in the manuscript.
At lines 816-823:

“However, our methodology, which relies on patent data, has limitations. First, it restricts assessment of technological advancement in areas with fewer patents. Second, it overlooks innovation impacts and outcomes unrelated to patent activity. Lastly, our analyses exclude exploring regional differences in innovation paradigms within alter-native energy technologies. Therefore, future research could explore the relationship between innovation impact and technological advancement for less-patented alternative energy technologies, potentially measured by economic value. Investigating regional differences in innovation paradigms for alternative energy sources would be a further area of valuable inquiry.”

Comment 6. Statistical Analysis Robustness: Provide a more comprehensive justification for the statistical techniques used, particularly for handling zero-inflated data, to strengthen the paper's methodological robustness.

The authors definitely agree with your comment. We added explanations justifying the statistical techniques used in the manuscript.
At lines 540-544.

“In addition, HNB has the advantage of more robust standard error for zero-inflated data than ordinary least square method, and by separating the probability distributions of the count part and the binomial part in the statistical estimation process, it is an appropriate method for patent data, the vast majority of which are merely applications and grants [40,42].”

Comment 7. Graphical Representation: Include more graphical representations of data and findings to enhance reader comprehension and engagement.

The authors definitely agree with your comment. We revise the manuscript to include more graphical representation.
At lines 544-549.

“… As shown in Figure 2, number of patents with zero forward citation counts have no impact on following inventions. ”

Figure 2. Distribution of forward-citation counts for the first five years

Comment 8. Conclusion Section: Develop a more robust conclusion that not only summarizes key findings but also ties them back to the broader context of alternative energy and sustainable development.

The authors definitely agree with your comment. We added conclusions that tie results and issues about the sustainable development in the manuscript.
At lines 794-815.

“Conclusively, driven by the urgency of environmental concerns, transitioning to alternative energy sources stands as a pivotal necessity for achieving sustainable development. Addressing these concerns through proactive energy transformation demands overcoming technological hurdles with utmost haste. Recognizing this, our study delved deeply into exploring technological advancement strategies within different alternative energy sectors, with a laser focus on maximizing the expected impact of innovation. Our findings unveil the heterogeneity of optimal approaches across energy sources. We argue the crucial need for tailored support policies within each sector.

In addition, we speculate on the reasons why effective technological advancement strategies may differ across alternative energy technology fields: during our sample period, best-practices in how Bio and Fuel are utilized as energy sources for practical applications had not been established, and we speculate that a diversification of the technological advancement would therefore lead to higher innovative impacts. On the other hand, for energy sources such as Wind and Solar, the best-practices of how they can be used as energy sources for practical applications are mature, and therefore, the technological advancement in the form of specialization to improve productivity or efficiency is more likely to be required than the exploration of new practical applications. Therefore, for a more effective transition to alternative energy, policies for the techno-logical advancement of alternative energy sources should prioritize the exploration of practical applications of energy sources and support the specialization phase to maximize productivity and efficiency after the practical applications of the alternative energy sources have been established.”

Comment 9. Overall, the paper presents a valuable contribution to understanding technological advancements in alternative energy through patent data analysis. With the suggested improvements, it could offer more robust insights and implications for the field.

The authors definitely agree with your comment. Based on your previous comments, we could suggest more discussion in the manuscripts to provide more insight and implications for the field.
At lines 794-824.

However, our methodology, which relies on patent data, has limitations. First, it restricts assessment of technological advancement in areas with fewer patents. Second, it overlooks innovation impacts and outcomes unrelated to patent activity. Lastly, our analyses exclude exploring regional differences in innovation paradigms within alter-native energy technologies. Therefore, future research could explore the relationship between innovation impact and technological advancement for less-patented alternative energy technologies, potentially measured by economic value. Investigating regional differences in innovation paradigms for alternative energy sources would be a further area of valuable inquiry.”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors for the topic they covered, and I would like to give some suggestions for improving the quality of the manuscript. Specifically, the research considers both the degree and type of technological progress, taking into account the scope and extent of technological knowledge. Finally, the study identifies heterogeneous relationships between the impact of innovation and technological progress in different areas of alternative energy. The abstract is completely satisfactory. The introductory part contains all the necessary segments, as well as the significance of the research itself. A literature review is appropriate. The methodology is very clearly given and the results are extensively presented. Each statistical analysis is explained separately. I ask the authors to add a discussion section, then to expand the concluding remarks with theoretical and applied implications in the future, as well as to generally clarify the significance of the research in the conclusion. Also, a section that more broadly describes the limitations of the research is missing. I believe that it is necessary to add more references for such an important topic of research.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Comment 1. I would like to thank the authors for the topic they covered, and I would like to give some suggestions for improving the quality of the manuscript. Specifically, the research considers both the degree and type of technological progress, taking into account the scope and extent of technological knowledge. Finally, the study identifies heterogeneous relationships between the impact of innovation and technological progress in different areas of alternative energy. The abstract is completely satisfactory. The introductory part contains all the necessary segments, as well as the significance of the research itself. A literature review is appropriate. The methodology is very clearly given and the results are extensively presented. Each statistical analysis is explained separately. I ask the authors to add a discussion section, then to expand the concluding remarks with theoretical and applied implications in the future, as well as to generally clarify the significance of the research in the conclusion. Also, a section that more broadly describes the limitations of the research is missing. I believe that it is necessary to add more references for such an important topic of research.

The authors appreciate your professional comments. Authors definitely agree with your comment. Following your comment, We have added the study limitations and discussion to the manuscript and renamed section “Conclusion” as “Conclusion and discussion”.
At lines 794-824.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This mauscript aim to investigates the technological advancement strategies for the inventing the alternative energy technologies by using patent data, which is a hot topic and the analysis process is well. The reviewer has some major concerns as follows:

1. although the author had make a literature review related to alternative energy, technological advancement and innovation impact. The contribution must be highlighted and well summarized in Section 1.

2 For the subsection 1.2, it should be seperated as a section named Section 2. The Hypothesis is the key part.

3.For the data set, it would be better to access and the author should clarify the data availiable statement at the end of paper.

4. Besides the section 4 results, the more discussion part should be presented. However, no further insightful discussion in current version. Also the implication must be added.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

Comment 1. although the author had make a literature review related to alternative energy, technological advancement and innovation impact. The contribution must be highlighted and well summarized in Section 1.

The authors definitely agree with your comment. We revise introduction by adding some sentences in Section 1.
At lines 53-70.
“… Driven by the urgency of the Sustainable Development Goals and the global environmental crisis, alternative energy sources are at the centre of humanity's quest for sustainable development. Innovation in alternative energy sources, coupled with effective environmental policies, is the key to achieving sustainable solutions [6-7]. Previous researches have analyzed various aspects of innovation in the fields of alternative energy technologies, from identifying key technological fields of alternative energy sources to examining its impact on pollution and technological pervasiveness [10-13]. At this study, we aims to provide an in-depth analysis of the relationship between technological advancement and innovation impact in the field of alternative energy sources, in order to contribute a sustainable future through boosting the efficient implementation and maximization of the expected impact of innovation in the fields of alternative energy sources.

This study will conclude with empirical analyses based on patent data related to alternative energy sources, presenting relationships between input and the impact of innovation by focusing on the degree and type of technological advancements. Notably, heterogeneity in the relationships between impact and invention inputs is observed in each field of alternative energy sources. Before delving into the main results, we in-troduce literature related to this study to provide rich insights into topics related to the alternative energy transition, the impact of innovation, and technological advancement. ”

Comment 2. For the subsection 1.2, it should be seperated as a section named Section 2. The Hypothesis is the key part.

The authors definitely agree with your comment. We changed the subsection 1.2 to Section 2.

Comment 3. For the data set, it would be better to access and the author should clarify the data availiable statement at the end of paper.

The authors definitely agree with your comment. We added our opinion for the data available statement at the end of paper.

Comment 4. Besides the section 4 results, the more discussion part should be presented. However, no further insightful discussion in current version. Also the implication must be added.

The authors definitely agree with your comment. According to your comment and other anonymous reviewers’ comment, We have added the study insightful discussion and implication in the section “Conclusion and discussion”.
At lines 794-824.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to review the paper titled "Investigating the Technological Advancement Strategy for Innovation Impact of Alternative Energy Patents" by Jong-Hyun Kim and Yong-Gil Lee. The paper addresses an important and timely topic in the field of energy sustainability, and it provides valuable insights into the innovation impact of alternative energy patents. Overall, the paper is well-written and well-structured, but there are some minor issues that need to be addressed to enhance its clarity and impact.

Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for the paper but could benefit from a clearer statement of the research purpose. It would be helpful to explicitly state the main objective or research question that the paper aims to address. Additionally, I suggest using a separate sentence to explain the approach or methodology that will be employed to achieve the stated purpose. This will help readers better understand the focus and direction of the study from the outset.
Research Methods: While the paper briefly mentions research methods, it would be beneficial to provide a more comprehensive overview of the alternative approaches considered or evaluated in the study. This will allow readers to gain a better understanding of the research context and appreciate the rationale behind the chosen methodology. A more detailed discussion of the research methods would enhance the paper's academic rigor.
Results and Discussion: The paper presents results, but the connection between the findings and the existing literature is not always explicit. To enhance the paper's contribution to the field, I recommend providing a more thorough discussion of the results in the context of the relevant literature. Specifically, the authors should highlight any novel insights or claims that can be made based on the results and how these findings contribute to advancing the existing literature on the topic.
Formatting and Tracked Changes: There appears to be an issue with formatting and tracked changes, particularly after one of the tables. It is essential to ensure that the formatting and track changes are consistent throughout the document to maintain readability and professionalism. I recommend carefully reviewing the entire document to rectify this issue.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There appears to be an issue with formatting and tracked changes, particularly after one of the tables. It is essential to ensure that the formatting and track changes are consistent throughout the document to maintain readability and professionalism. I recommend carefully reviewing the entire document to rectify this issue.

Author Response

Reviewer 5

Comment 1. Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for the paper but could benefit from a clearer statement of the research purpose. It would be helpful to explicitly state the main objective or research question that the paper aims to address. Additionally, I suggest using a separate sentence to explain the approach or methodology that will be employed to achieve the stated purpose. This will help readers better understand the focus and direction of the study from the outset.

The authors definitely agree with your comment. We revise introduction by adding some sentences in Introduction.
At lines 53-70.
“… Driven by the urgency of the Sustainable Development Goals and the global environmental crisis, alternative energy sources are at the centre of humanity's quest for sustainable development. Innovation in alternative energy sources, coupled with effective environmental policies, is the key to achieving sustainable solutions [6-7]. Previous researches have analyzed various aspects of innovation in the fields of alternative energy technologies, from identifying key technological fields of alternative energy sources to examining its impact on pollution and technological pervasiveness [10-13]. At this study, we aims to provide an in-depth analysis of the relationship between technological advancement and innovation impact in the field of alternative energy sources, in order to contribute a sustainable future through boosting the efficient implementation and maximization of the expected impact of innovation in the fields of alternative energy sources.

Comment 2. Research Methods: While the paper briefly mentions research methods, it would be beneficial to provide a more comprehensive overview of the alternative approaches considered or evaluated in the study. This will allow readers to gain a better understanding of the research context and appreciate the rationale behind the chosen methodology. A more detailed discussion of the research methods would enhance the paper's academic rigor.

The authors definitely agree with your comment. According to your comment and other anonymous reviewer’s comments, we added more explanation about the research methods.
At lines 540-546.

“In addition, HNB has the advantage of more robust standard error for zero-inflated data than ordinary least square method, and by separating the probability distributions of the conut part and the binomial part in the statistical estimation process, it is an appropriate method for patent data, the vast majority of which are merely applications and grants [40,42]. As shown in Figure 2, number of patents with zero forward citation counts have no impact on following inventions.”

Comment 3. Results and Discussion: The paper presents results, but the connection between the findings and the existing literature is not always explicit. To enhance the paper's contribution to the field, I recommend providing a more thorough discussion of the results in the context of the relevant literature. Specifically, the authors should highlight any novel insights or claims that can be made based on the results and how these findings contribute to advancing the existing literature on the topic.

The authors definitely agree with your comment. We added more discussion in the “Conclusion and discussion” according to your comment and other anonymous reviewer’s comments.
At lines 794-824.

Comment 4. Formatting and Tracked Changes: There appears to be an issue with formatting and tracked changes, particularly after one of the tables. It is essential to ensure that the formatting and track changes are consistent throughout the document to maintain readability and professionalism. I recommend carefully reviewing the entire document to rectify this issue.

The authors definitely agree with your comment. We checked and revised manuscript by focusing on formatting.

Article Menu

Investigating Technological Advancement Strategies for the Innovation Impact of Alternative Energy Patents

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI