How to Improve an Enterprise’s Innovation Capability from the Perspective of High- and Low-Level Enterprises Using Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well-structured and presents very interesting and useful results. These findings can be particularly valuable in shaping public policies to foster the growth of both low- and high-level companies. I congratulate the authors for their research. Below, I have added a few minor observations to address the issue.

1. Delete the keyword “enterprise innovation capability”, it is already included in the title.

2. In the Theoretical perspective and literature review section, define both high-level and low-level enterprises, including the elements that differentiate one from the other.

3. Write conclusions based on the findings obtained, not just on the method used.

4. Although most of the bibliography is relevant, there are some very old references. It is recommended to avoid using outdated sources as much as possible and replace them with more current ones.

Author Response

Dear editor，

Thank you for you guidence. I deleted the keyword “enterprise innovation capability”. In variable measurement section, we define both high-level and low-level enterprise. We add 6 references and delete 11 references.

The new references are as follows:

1. Hanaysha JR, Al-Shaikh ME, Joghee, etc. Impact of Innovation Capabilities on Business Sustainability in Small and Medium Enterprises[J]. FIIB Business Review, 2022,11(1): 67-78.
2. MC da Cunha Bezerra, CF Gohr, SN Morioka. Organizational capabilities towards corporate sustainability benefits: A systematic literature review and an integrative framework proposal[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020(247):119114
3. Rahman M.N., Doroodian M., Kamarulzaman Y., and Muhamad N. Designing and Validating a Model for Measuring Sustainability of Overall Innovation Capability of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises[J]. Sustainability 2015, 7(1): 537-562.
4. L Xie, J Zhou, Q Zong, Q Lu Gender diversity in R&D teams and innovation efficiency: Role of the innovation context[J].Research Policy,2020 49(1): 103885.

5. Nguyen , ML Verreynne, J Steen, et al. Government support versus international knowledge: Investigating innovations from emerging-market small and medium enterprises[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2023(154): 113305.
6. Baumann J.,  Kritikos The link between R&D, innovation and productivity: Are micro firms different?[J]. Research Policy, 2016 45(6): 1263-1274.

The deleted references are as follows:

1. Andries, P., Czarnitzki, D., 2014, Small firm innovation performance and employee involvement. Small Business Economics. 43(1), 21-38.
2. Awwad, A., Akroush DMN., 2016, New product development performance success measures: An exploratory research. EuroMed Journal of Business 11(1), 2–29.
3. OECD., Main Science and Technology Indicators (MSTI): 2009/1 edition[DB/OL]. www.oecd.org,‑2009-07-13.
4. Poddar, P., Singh, S.K., 2022, Innovation and corruption: dissecting causal linkage using patent application information from India. The Singapore Economic Review 67(03):1147-1173.
5. Tian, X., Wang, TY., 2014, Tolerance for failure and corporate innovation. Review of Financial Studies 27(1), 211-255.

6. Wang, Y., Ellinger A.D., Jim W.Y., 2013, Entrepreneurial opportunity recognition: an empirical study of R&D personnel. Management Decision 51(2), 248-266.

     7. Østergaard, C.R., Timmermans, B., Kristinsson, K., 2011, Does a different view create something new? The effect of employee diversity on innovation. Research Policy 40(3), 500-509.

     8. Lane P. J., Lubatkin M., 1998, Relative Absorptive Capacity and Interorganizational Learning. Strategic Management Journal 19 (5), 461-477．

     9.Joshi, A (2014). By whom and when is women’s expertise recognized? The interactive effects of gender and education in science and engineering teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59, 202–239.

     10. Hall, B.H.,2002, The financing of research and development. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 18(1),35-51.

     11. Grossman, G. M., Helpman, E., 1991, Innovation and Growth in the World Economy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Thank you for your guidance. Thank you again. I am looking forward to your reply.

Kind regards

Yours sincerely,

Xiaoyu  Bai

2024.4.1

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

Thank you for allowing me to read the manuscript.  The paper is well-written and properly structured. Please see below my suggestions to improve the article.

1. Title: How to Improve the Enterprises Innovation Capability from the Perspective of High and Low Level Enterprises? Using Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis

The title is good, precise, and clearly states the study's purpose. Having said that, as the study market is in China. It might be good to state China in Topic.

2. Abstract
The abstract highlights the study's purpose, study design, methodology, and findings. It is also suggested to highlight the policy implications and the originality or significance of the research in brief.

3. Introduction

The researcher has provided an excellent introduction to the report by providing a clear background. It is well-discussed and backed up with appropriate references. Having said that, it would have been great if the researcher had included the discussion of the resource-based view under the theoretical perspective rather than in the introduction.  

4. Literature Review
The literature review is good; however, it is suggested to identify the research gap and highlight the significance of the study in the current scenario as the researcher has used almost a decade-old data to interpret the result, and enterprise innovation capability around the world has changed over time.

5. Methodology
The strengths of this paper lie in the methodology applied in the paper. The use of QCA is appropriate for a similar type of study. However, it is suggested to increase the dataset as per the researcher the study has been conducted over the period of 6 years from 2010 to 2015 which may not be relevant in the current scenario.  Likewise, it would be good if the researcher had used the control variables to isolate the effect of those variables in the study. Some of the control variables that can be used for study areas like industry sector, market competition, technological infrastructure, etc. 

6. Results and Discussion
The results and the discussion section are good. However, it is suggested to discuss the findings with the recent literature. Some literature used to justify the findings is quite old. For example, (Østergaard et al., 2011).

7. Conclusion and Policy Implication
The conclusion is good. I commend the researcher for excellently writing implications for management. However, the researcher should highlight the policy implications for the government of the study.  

8. Overall Expression of the Report
There are some areas for improvement in terms of language and typos.

Overall, this manuscript has the potential for publication after minor revision as stated above.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your guidance. Thank you very much.

1.Literature Review
We applied a lot of new literature in the literature review section. For example, Shan et al.(2021); Zygmunt, 2022; Ren and Gao(2020); Shi and Xu(2022); Blanco-Gonzalez-Tejero and Cano-Marin(2022); Medase(2021); Adamides and Karacapilidis(2020); Kolluru and Mukhopadhaya(2017); Wikhamn, 2020; Ortigueira-Sánchez et al.(2022) and so on. We will pay more attention to this problem in the future. 

2.Methodology

Due to the continuous change of data statistical standards, it is impossible to obtain multi period data of the same statistical standards in the near future. During the research, we knew that the data problem is a relatively large board, but please understand. It is difficult for us to obtain the market competition and technical infrastructure data you mentioned. It is so Sorry!

3.Results and Discussion
We have adjusted some literature. For example, Østergaard et al. (2011).

Xie, J Zhou, Q Zong, Q Lu Gender diversity in R&D teams and innovation efficiency: Role of the innovation context[J].Research Policy,2020 49(1): 103885.

4.Conclusion and Policy Implication
The policy of government R&D investment is discussed in the part of Implications for management.

Thank you for your guidance. Thank you again. I am looking forward to your reply.

Kind regards

Yours sincerely,

Xiaoyu  Bai

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations to the authors for an interesting study in the field of enterprises innovation capability. Even if the analysis sample is small and the research method is predominantly qualitative, the authors used the data in a constructive way and conducted a useful and interesting research. The study was conducted coherently, the proposed variables were correctly evaluated and interpreted, and the results of the study were somewhat predictable, in the context of other similar researches and the reality that we all actually know.

However, I would have liked the authors to study the innovation capacity of companies from the full quadruple-helix perspective, respectively including the capacity of the academic environment to support R&D and innovation and especially the influence of the community on the necessity and utility of innovation.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your suggestions. I hope I can apply the full quadruple-helix perspective, respectively including the capacity of the academic environment to support R&D and innovation and especially the influence of the community on the necessity and utility of innovation. However, the biggest problem we face is the problem of data collection and acquisition. We are very sorry that we cannot obtain the data you pointed out. I will improve in the future. Thank you very much for your gui Thank you for your guidance. Thank you again. I am looking forward to your reply.

Kind regards

Yours sincerely,

Xiaoyu  Bai

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the theoretical part, a lot of attention was paid to the issue of gender, but in the research part, this topic is already weak. In my opinion, it would be appropriate to either reduce the emphasis on this issue in the theoretical part or increase its role in the empirical part.

in my opinion, the selection of the method and the use of Fs-QCA are not explained enough. In addition, I would have pointed out more strongly the limitations of this method.

Author Response

The  following document include the revisied paper and Response to Reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper “How to improve The Enterprises Innovation Capability From The Perspective of High and Low Level Enterprises? Using Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis” presents original research that adds new insight to the field. However, it is recommended that the following indications be taken into account to improve the quality of the document

The key concepts of the analysis should be applied. In this case it is recommended to consider gender, innovation and methodology as key concepts of the research. Thus, in relation to the concepts it is recommended to consider the following references:

Blanco-Gonzalez-Tejero, C., & Cano-Marin, E. (2022). Empowerment of women's entrepreneurship in family business through Twitter. Journal of Family Business Management, https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-04-2022-0050

Ortigueira-Sánchez, L. C., Welsh, D. H., & Stein, W. C. (2022). Innovation drivers for export performance. Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship, 1(2), 100013.

In Figure 1 it is recommended not to cut the words. Try to fit whole words in the design, e.g. (Configuration).

The methodology should be discussed in more depth. Authors who consider this methodology for the analysis should be cited. For example:

Medina Molina, C., Ribeiro Soriano, D., & Blanco González-Tejero, C. (2022). Multi-level corporate entrepreneurship in SMEs: an intra-metropolitan analysis. Review of Managerial Science, 1-29.

The results should be commented on more broadly.This can help to contextualize your results and show how they fit into the larger picture.

Be sure to avoid overgeneralizing your conclusions. It's important to remain focused on the specific results of your study.

Next, discuss the implications of your findings. This means explaining how your results contribute to the existing body of knowledge in your field, and what they suggest about future research directions.

Please proofread the document for spelling and grammar errors. Ensure that the language is clear and concise throughout the document and check that all numbers and statistics are accurately presented. It is strongly encouraged to include the certificate of proofreading services.

All citations and references and journal formatting should be considered.

Author Response

The  following document include the revisied paper and Response to Reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this paper.

The title of the paper should be modified and present as a one sentence. It is unclear: "high and low level enterprises".

In the introduction the aim of the paper should be clearly specified together with the research questions. The research gap will have to be presented.

Conclusions should include not only the theorethical contribution but also the practical one (if it is applicable). The direction of further research should be presented.

Author Response

The  following document include the revisied paper and Response to Reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The issues raised by the authors are current and interesting for the reader. It can be a source of inspiration for theoreticians and practitioners also. It can be a starting point for further scientific research.

The text is extensive and clear. The Authors carry out a scientific argument in a logical manner.

The title indicates the topic covered in the text. The abstract is well written, comprehensive and sufficiently concise, but a clearly defined purpose of the article was missing..

The keywords are relevant.

The introduction is interesting and places the topic in context, although Authors should furher describe the structure of the text.

The Authors reviewed the literature in a critical and comprehensive manner, literature review  is adequate to the topic and up-to-date, does not contain self-quotations.

The methodological part lacked hypotheses (and their verification in later parts).

The research process does not raise any objections. The research, however based on secondary data, is conducted in a logical manner. The discussion is also unremarkable.

Conclusions are correctly formulated, based on the results of previously conducted analyses. The Authors should have pointed out the implications of the research results and the limitations in a broader perspective.

Author Response

The  following document include the revisied paper and Response to Reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf