Technology Standardization for Innovation: How Google Leverages an Open Digital Platform

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors raise a very interesting issue related to the standardization of technological solutions. In this case, they describe the recognized, in their opinion, Google's strategy for implementing HTML5 as a standard. The theoretical foundation itself and the identification of the literature in the subject of the article does not arouse negative comments. You could say that this is it.
Certainly, the authors repaired a lot, participating in meetings, looking at the hands of Google developers, etc. However, I would call the article differently. It does not refer to the standardization used by Google, it has not been proved by the authors, but it concerns the implementation of HTML5 as a standard. This means that on the basis of the observations made, it is not possible to draw general conclusions as to what the GOOGLE standardization policy looks like in general, and even more broadly for the entire market.
The article is interesting. It is true that it is quite uncomfortable to read, but this may be my subjective feeling. Certainly the structure of IMRAD would help to systematize the format of the article.
Still, the article is interesting.
Is the article suitable for publication? Probably yes, but whether in a special issue or not. Editor's Decision.

Technical: empty almost whole page no.5

Author Response

Thank you for taking your time to deeply engage with our manuscript and for your constructive feedback. Your insightful comments helped us to deepen our arguments and refine the flow and readability of the paper. We hope you appreciate the improvements of this manuscript that we made in response to your feedback.
Firstly, we have added the description of Google's general policy/attitude toward standardization with the reference in the results section. We believe this helps to clarify the standardization process and general strategy held by Google.
Secondly, thank you for your valueble comments regarding the manuscript structure. We revised the structure of the manuscript by following the IMRAD style to enhance the readability. When revising the structure, we have consulted with several published articles in Information (e.g., Konnikov et al. (2021) Analyzing Natural Digital Information in the Context of Market Research. Information 12(10), 387. https://doi.org/10.3390/info12100387).
Thirdly, thank you for pointing out the format issue (empty page). We reformatted the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper deals with the examines firm strategies in developing and diffusing technology standards while maintaining a consensus with competitors in the industry.

This paper was well-written and presented a good quality as academic and practical research.

The paper should be divided into the following sections: 1. Introduction, 2. Materials and Methods, 3. Results, 4. Discussion, 5. Conclusions

The paper needs to be better reorganized also in subsections, with better and easier differentiation.

The abstract of the paper should be improved. The aim of the paper should be better stated. The abstract should be a single paragraph and should follow the style of structured abstracts but without headings:

1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study.

2) Methods: Describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied. Include any relevant preregistration numbers, and species and strains of any animals used.

3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings. 

4) Conclusion: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations.

Authors should take into account more previous works (e.g. theoretical, conceptual, and empirical reviews) published in the literature. Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previously published studies. I suggest adding a reference: Fedushko S., Mastykash O., Syerov Y., Shilinh A. (2021) Model of Search and Analysis of Heterogeneous User Data to Improve the Web Projects Functioning. Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies, vol 83. Springer, 2021. pp 56-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80472-5_6

The authors should reorganize the conclusion section because the contents of the conclusion are not clear. The conclusion should include the following contents as background, research objective, experiment result, finding and future research, and limitations.

I suggest adding a concluding paragraph with that, how these main findings of the paper address the challenge of information science.

Thank you for a good job.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your engaging and encouraging comments on the paper. We tried our best to incorporate your suggestions and concerns. The details are explained below.

First of all, thank you for your valuable comments regarding the manuscript structure. We revised the structure of the manuscript by following the IMRAD style to enhance the readability. When revising the structure, we have consulted with several published articles in Information (e.g., Konnikov et al. (2021) Analyzing Natural Digital Information in the Context of Market Research. Information 12(10), 387. https://doi.org/10.3390/info12100387).
Second, thank you so much for your clear suggestions on the abstract. We have revised the abstract to clarify the purpose of the study and elaborate our results and conclusion.
Third, we took into account more previous works and discuss the relationships between our work and the literature. We have tried but could not read the article you mentioned in the review. However, we have found another article, whose first author is the same person (Fedushko S, Ustyianovych T, Syerov Y, Peracek T. User-Engagement Score and SLIs/SLOs/SLAs Measurements Correlation of E-Business Projects Through Big Data Analysis. Applied Sciences. 2020; 10(24):9112), and have cited it to improve our discussions.
Fourth, we have revised the conclusion section by adding a paragraph which describes our main findings and the challenge/gap in the literature. By this revision, we believe the conclusion of this manuscript clearly communicates what we have found and how it links to the challenge of information science.

Reviewer 3 Report

The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results, and major conclusions. An abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone.

The author must use the template for the journal paper.

From a quality point of view, the manuscript is technically correct. The entire manuscript is well written, but the template of the journal paper must be used. Meantime, new references (e.g., Fedushko S, Ustyianovych T, Syerov Y, Peracek T. User-Engagement Score and SLIs/SLOs/SLAs Measurements Correlation of E-Business Projects Through Big Data Analysis. Applied Sciences. 2020; 10(24):9112. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10249112) can be added and a comparison with the obtained results vs data literature would be welcome. 

The paper needs to be better reorganized also in subsections, with better and easier differentiation.

The way the data is collected lacks validity and reliability. The authors explicitly expressed this problem in the "Limitations" of the study, but I still think it is a very problematic issue.

It is suggested to organize the Conclusion section much better. 

Anyway, the paper can be used by any person desiring to become familiar with the field and to develop an interest in the area of the journal.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your clear suggestions on our paper. Regarding the abstract, we have revised the abstract to clarify the purpose of the study and elaborate our results and conclusion.
Also, thank you for your valuable comments regarding the manuscript structure. We revised the structure of the manuscript by following the IMRAD style to enhance the readability. When revising the structure, we have consulted with several published articles in Information (e.g., Konnikov et al. (2021) Analyzing Natural Digital Information in the Context of Market Research. Information 12(10), 387. https://doi.org/10.3390/info12100387).
Furthermore, regarding the reference, we have cited it to improve our discussions and deepened our arguments in relation to the literature.
Fourth, we have revised the conclusion section by adding a paragraph which describes our main findings and the challenge/gap in the literature. By this revision, we believe the conclusion of this manuscript clearly communicates what we have found and how it links to the challenge of information science.