The Spillover Effect of Foreign Direct Investment on China’s High-Tech Industry Based on Interprovincial Panel Data
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is devoted to the urgent problem of the importance of FDI for the economic development of the country. The authors conduct an extensive literature review, on the basis of which they develop two hypotheses about the qualitative or quantitative growth of the economy as a result of foreign investment. The text of the article is clearly structured, the material is presented logically and consistently. The following points are noted as comments and recommendations:
1. A quantitative analysis of the development of FDI in China (Section 2) according to the stages or time periods proposed by the authors should be structured in a table or graphically show the dynamics of changes in FDI.
2. It should be clarified, when developing the production function, how the authors take into account the share of FDI in labor (Lt) and capital (Kt) production costs. Or it is implied that the cost of production consists entirely of FDI.
3. It is recommended to show, for clarity, a record of production function models by regions of China with calculated elasticity coefficients.
4. Based on the results of the impact of FDI on the Chinese economy, along with cartography (Figure 3, 4), it is necessary to make a comparative analysis of models 1 and 2 for the studied regions in tabular form or in another way for better perception.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study highlights crucial issues related to environmental factors in achieving sustainable development and investment goals. The article’s idea itself is interesting. The paper fits within the journal’s interest area. The literature review requires significant improvement. Currently, the number of references is too limited, and we strongly recommend expanding this section. We would like to see the literature review transformed into a more coherent and systematic. We also observe a lack of discussion about the findings and an absence of acknowledgment of the study's limitations. Furthermore, the manuscript lacks a clearly defined research problem and does not clearly articulate its contribution to the existing literature. This is a fundamental aspect that needs to be addressed to establish the relevance and originality of the study. Accept after minor revision
Comments on the Quality of English Languageoderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper needs to be improved so that two hypotheses can be stated with one hypothesis, and it is necessary to draw a decisive conclusion in the paper after the analysis given in point 4.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript argues that there is a spillover effect of foreign direct investment on the development of the high-tech industry in China. The topic, albeit interesting, does not align with the aims and scope of the journal Sustainability. Therefore, I recommend that it be submitted to a more appropriate journal.
Other observations:
Page 2: “Borensztein (1998) obtained that FDI is an important tool for technology transfer…”. This is an opinion, which is not really “obtained” like a result.
Page 4: IPR acronym needs to be explained.
Page 8: Illogical argument: “According to Model II can get the model…”
Section 3.2 beginning in “According to Table 1…” should be moved to the Results section.
Page 8: This looks like a mistake in the amount: “0 billion yuan”
Table 1: Should be moved to the Results section.
Page 9: I´m not sure this is sufficiently clear: “to be continued to differ until it is stationary.”
Page 13: There needs to be a Discussion section, in which the results of the present research are compared and contrasted with previous research.
Page 13: The conclusion should not include figures.
Page 15: The conclusion section should not include references.
Page 15: This seems contradictory: “relatively perfect”
Page 16, first paragraph talks about the Western region as an actor, not as a territory. Who exactly should “promote” and “cultivate”?
Page 16, second paragraph: Who needs to “adopt”, “optimize” and “strengthen”?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are minor issues, some of which I will detail here:
Page 2: This sentence has no verb: “Bornschier and Chase-Dunn (1985) from the perspective of depend-ency theory, that the penetration of multinational corporations has a short-term positive impact on economic growth, but this impact is uneven and has a long-term negative im-pact.”
Pages 5-6: Unclear grammar in these sentences: “1998 Asian financial crisis made the FDI inflow suffer a brief impact, but after 2000 entered a rapid growth phase. 2001 FDI reached 46.045 billion U.S. dollars, compared with 1992, an increase of 7.649 billion U.S. dollars.”
Page 8: Unclear grammar: “new product development in different regions. large; the minimum value of for-eign direct investment”
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article focuses on a topic of widespread interest and approaches it in a commendable manner. The literature review is abundant, but a portion of it leaves the reader with the impression that it may be somewhat outdated.
As for the content, figure 1 needs to be explained from the standpoint of origin and credibility. Also, there are facts that appear to be exposed from a different temporal perspective, such as the use of the present perfect when mentioning the Trump administration - this leads us to believe that a portion of the article may have been written at that time.
The excessively laudative style that permeates certain parts of the text ought to be toned down, as it is deemed largely incompatible with proper scientific conduct (e.g. "relatively perfect infrastructure").
It is surprising that only one reference is made to the "Belt and Road" initiative, which is normally very much germane to the topic at hand and can serve as a mirror for the analyses from China's standpoint.
As for the policy recommendations, the regional dimension is welcome and the focus on particular traits renders them more applicable, but one cannot help but notice that some manage to merely scratch the surface of the measures that could be implemented. A more in-depth rendering of such policy instruments would add weight to the applicability of this otherwise fine research.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageOverall, the language is correct, but the sentences sometimes appear to be artificial, even laconic. Some minor adjustments in terms of tenses should also be made.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript reads much better. The authors addressed most of the comments. However, they ignored this one:
"Page 13: There needs to be a Discussion section, in which the results of the
present research are compared and contrasted with previous research."
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish is moslty fine
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
