Does Technology Orientation Determine Innovation Performance through Digital Innovation? A Glimpse of the Electronic Industry in the Digital Economy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The title as well as the introduction raised expectations about your manuscript and research. The topic you are addressing would be a relevant addition to existing literature. Thank you for this valuable contribution. I will structure my feedback in (a) general remarks (these comments cover feedback applicable in the entire manuscript), and (b) specific remarks (feedback on sentence and/or word level). The specific remarks can include a quote from your original manuscript to refer to a specific section. The specific remarks will refer to page (emphasis added in boldface; e.g., 1.15/16) and row(s; e.g., 11.15/16).

 

General remarks:

The overall manuscript is neat and written concisely—with relevant information for existing literature. The manuscript displays a thorough approach. Overall, your manuscript is coherent and concisely written. I have a few small remarks below.

 

Specific remarks:

p.1.22              Do you mean “digital innovation” instead of innovation? I would suggest to keep referring to digital innovation because not all innovation can be labeled “digital”.

p.1.25              “data” à what data? Can you be more specific?

p.1.26              I would replace “techniques” with analyses (this indicates exactly what you did). Moreover, you refer in that sentence to “variables”. The reader does not know—at that point—what variables you mean.

p.1.28              “the electronic industry” à “electronic firms” (this is more in line with what you have written so far. Moreover, use electronic firms or electronic industry, but not electronic industry firms (see p.1.35).

p.1.36              The words “significant attention” require more than two references.

p.2.46              “renewed knowledge” à You mean the firm as a system, or knowledge from departments? I would like to see this a bit more specific.

p.2.82/83`       “like see” à Oddly phrased. You can replace this with “see e.g.”.

p.3.98–100      The tourism example is not properly introduced. I have also noticed that you use this example later on as well. If this is the context you are researching, make than explicit.

p.4.138            The word “heavy” is redundant.

p.4.149            “or” = and/or.

p.4.151/152     What is the difference between digital and electronic? Sometimes it seems that you are using these concepts interchangeably; however, this has to be made explicit.

p.4.160            You mention “new technologies”; however, what new technologies are you talking about?

p.5.180            “high” = high(er).

p.5.199            DI as an abbreviation has not been introduced. Please add this to the header.

p.5.201            You are focusing on the firm’s ability to grow, but what about the resources a firm has?

p.5.203            I am wondering if enthusiastically is the correct term here.

p.6.215            The sentences do not follow logically. Can you create more coherence?

p.6.217            I fail to understand how digital innovation is only conceptualized as SNSs. Maybe I am lacking (prior) knowledge but as an non-expert this is feel incomplete. Plus when it concerns digital innovation the hardware (e.g., websites, physical resources) are different from the “software”, such as knowledge, skills and awareness. Note: I use the terms hard- and software to indicate different dimensions of digitalization.

p.6.238            The “advertising orientation” requires a source.

p.7                   The first section/paragraph on this page: That is money-steered (i.e., the amount of money determines the extent to which firms can be part of digital innovation.

p.7.266            First of all, this is not a paragraph (a paragraph is at least three sentences). Second, the “through” contains a spelling error.

p.7.280            You summarize a few things here and I have noticed you mix plural and singular concepts.

p.7.282–287    I do not understand the link between the two aspects here. It is illogical. Can you rephrase and restructure?

p.8.Table1       You displays the percentages with three decimal numbers. This is unusual. Re-evaluate if this is what you want to do.

p.8.291            Numbers up until twenty needs to be completely written. Also apply this to the remainder of your manuscript. This is visible on page 9 as well.

p.8.295            Anchor points from a Likert-scale need to be placed in italics.

p.8.Table 2     The alignment is off in the table. Please adjust. In addition, why do you display the 100% twice in the first section about experience, but not in the education and age?

p.9.316            The hyphen is not an em dash. Please adjust.

p.10                 The p-value is with a non-capitalized letter and has to be placed in italics. Check the remainder of your work and revise accordingly. In a similar vein, the “r” for the correlation has to be placed in italics as well (as well as M and SD). Make sure you check the tables too.

p.11                 The text “Insert Table 7 here” is redundant.

p.12.386          The header needs to be placed in boldface (and maybe italics, but you need to re-evaluate that).

p.references    I cannot determine what reference format you are using; however, I carefully assume it is APA 7. If so, you need to place the journal and the volume number in italics. Furthermore, the hyphen between the page numbers need to be replaced by an en dash. Doi numbers—if available—need to be mentioned as well.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

After searching for relevant papers, I found that this paper was indeed innovative. This contributes to the study of the mechanisms of influence on innovation performance.

However, there are still some issues that need to be addressed.

 

1.                In the introduction, there is a need to strengthen the description of existing literature. The authors should identify research gaps through the compilation of existing literature, and explain how the study should achieve its purpose.

Please see Yuen et al., (2019). The authors can imitate the paper's formulation of the above comments. However, due to the different fields, it is not necessary to cite this paper.

2.                The model lacks a theoretical basis. I regret not seeing the authors develop models based on any theories.

3.                The authors performed a confirmatory factor analysis. However, the research model is not developed through existing theories, and it is recommended to verify the validity of the model through EFA.

4.                Detailed scales should be placed in "Measure".

5.                Are common method variance tests performed?

6.                In what language was the questionnaire made? Chinese? English? Was there mutual translation to ensure that the meaning of the questionnaire was clear?

7.                The authors highlight that this study helps companies develop operational strategies. There is a need to propose how it should be implemented to improve the managerial contribution of research. For example, companies can do this by implementing cross-functional coordination (Wang et al., 2023) to enhance innovation?

8.                More details are needed on how research in this area should be expanded in the future.

 

 

References:

Yuen et al., 2019 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2019.06.014

Wang et al., 2023 https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.1070078

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I think the authors have done a good job of presenting their findings with clarity and meaning. This is a standardized empirical research paper, one of the best-quality studies I reviewed recently. It is hoped that the authors can expand their research in this field in the future. Good luck!