Exploring Innovation Ecosystem with Multi-Layered Heterogeneous Networks of Global 5G Communication Technology
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper delineates the dynamics of emerging technology innovation ecosystems through a multi-level perspective. The paper offers interesting insights into management, governance, efficiency and shared prosperity through quantitative research. However, some points should be addressed.
- The authors should consider the evolution of quadruple and quintuple helix innovation systems. These innovation systems are based on both democracy and ecology. Ecology is a necessity and is a driver for further knowledge and innovation. Thus, these systems are particularly interesting for Sustainability readers.
- The linear link between innovation systems and sustainable development is explicit. The authors should briefly discuss the term sustainable development in their introduction to catch the readers' interest. In this vein, the following two papers should be included: "Broad strokes towards a grand theory in the analysis of sustainable development: a return to the classical political economy", New Political Economy, 27(5), pp. 866-878, and (b) "The concept of sustainable development: From its beginning to the contemporary issues", Zagreb International Review of Economics & Business, 21(1), 67-94.
- The role of "knowledge discovery" (line 93) is of prime importance. It would be interesting if the authors show the relationship between "knowledge discovery" and their perspective of innovation systems.
- The implications for innovation participants, innovation managers and policymakers are interesting and need thorough discussion. However, what are the theoretical implications of this study? This point is important as the authors aim to provide a newfold theoretical framework to explore the innovation ecosystem.
- Are there any limitations in this research?
Minor editing of the English language is required
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study provides a comprehensive exploration of emerging technology innovation ecosystems, adopting a multilayer network perspective and introducing the A-K-S-T framework. The study's contribution to innovation ecosystem literature is noteworthy, providing actionable insights for management, governance, efficiency, and shared prosperity. Here are some concerns about this article.
1. The articulation of innovation and specific contributions in the article lacks clarity. It is recommended that the authors provide a concise and explicit summary of the overall contributions of the study in the concluding section of the introduction，which would enhance the reader's understanding of the unique value that the research brings to the field.
2. While the introduction touches upon the complexity and heterogeneity of IE, consider explicitly introducing key concepts such as collaboration, competition, and coopetition at an earlier stage for a more structured and reader-friendly approach..
3. The abbreviation "A-K-S-T" has been referenced several times before its full expansion is provided. It is advisable to amend this usage to ensure clarity and adherence to scholarly writing conventions.
4.The font size of the characters in Figures 1,2,7,8, and 11 is relatively small, rendering them challenging to read effectively. It is recommended to revise them to ensure an optimal and legible font size.
5. Figure 6 is experiencing display issues and is not rendering correctly.
6.The appropriateness of the term "Innovation feature" in Table 2 is under scrutiny from a definitional standpoint. It appears to align more closely with graph-theoretical features extracted through network analysis rather than encapsulating the essence of innovation features.
7.There are apparent oversights in the editing stage of the manuscript, as evidenced by instances such as "Funding: Please add" and "sources: authors."
8. Several issues have been identified in the formatting, font, and capitalization of the references.
9. The English expression in the manuscript exhibits some issues. It is advisable for the authors to seek assistance from a native English speaker for refinement and polishing.
10. In the data selection process within the manuscript, it is recommended to supplement a comprehensive flowchart. This addition will enhance reader comprehension.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageN/A
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents a comprehensive analysis using a novel framework. While it offers a detailed exploration of the 5G innovation ecosystem through a multi-layered network perspective, there are potential areas for improvement:
1. The paper introduces a complex framework (A-K-S-T). Still, it could benefit from a more detailed justification of its design and components for other tasks, not only 5g innovation ecosystems.
2. Although detailed, the methodology section could be strengthened by more explicitly addressing potential biases or limitations by practical application.
3. The discussion and future perspective sections could be expanded to explore the implications of the findings more thoroughly.
Those recommendations can enhance the practical significance of the results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors addressed my previous comments and improved their manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of the English language is required.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI extend my gratitude for the successful revision undertaken. It is noteworthy that your paper has now reached a publishable stage. The steps you have taken in this round have notably enhanced the quality of your work.
