System Dynamic and Simulation of Business Model Innovation in Digital Companies: An Open Innovation Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper aims to define a business model innovation based on system dynamics under different scenarios.

Below few comments/suggestions for authors.

 

Abstract. My suggestion here is to try to synthesize and rewrite the content adopting a funnel structure: Context (relevance) and knowledge gap - Aim of the paper – methodology – contribution, results and implications

 

Introduction. The references cited by authors in this section are relevant. Even if each reference mentioned has been discussed in detail

 

Review. In its present form, this section consists of 4 subsections. It sounds something like isolated sections put together. My suggestion here is to integrate them and provide a comprehensive discussion on the topic. The literature review should become an analysis with past similar work and theirs compare, clearly articulating the knowledge gap, and how the methodology selected amends previous pitfalls.

 

Methodology. This section requires attention. Please describe in great detail the methodology used (including references).

 

Discussion of the results should be reorganized comparing the results of this paper with previous contributions, especially form the theoretical perspective.

 

Good luck with your research

Author Response

Thank you very much for your kindness in reviewing my manuscript.

I also thank you for the notes and suggestions that have been given. I will integrate sections as suggested. I will also the more detail in methodology so very useful for reorganized of results discussion.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for giving me the chance to read your paper about System Dynamic and Simulation of Business Model Innovation in Digital Companies. I think that the topic is interesting and actual in the contemporary debate about open innovation. The paper is overall a valuable contribution to the debate.

The paper is adequately developed in terms of the theoretical framework, hypotheses development, and concluding sections. 

I just want to suggest to have a look to the references. There are small mistakes. Examples:

Moradi, E., Jafari, S. M., Doorbash, Z. M., & Mirzaei, A. (2021). Impact of organizational inertia on business model innovation, open 753
innovation and corporate performance. Asia Pacific Management Review, [Article in press] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2021.01.003

Yun, J.J., Won, D. & Park, K. (2016) Dynamics from open innovation to evolutionary change. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. 2, 7  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40852-016-0033-0 

Thank you again for giving me the chance to read your paper, and congratulations for your paper.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your kind help in the review and suggestion.

I use the Mendeley program as a reference manager. I have corrected the suggestions submitted

 

Reviewer 3 Report

General comment:

The paper addresses a very interesting and up-to-date research topic, that is, the Business Model Innovation in Digital Companies, using an open innovation approach. It is very well structured and developed, using an up-to-date analytical tool for assessing system dynamics that provides new insightful implications, deserving publication and international dissemination. Nevertheless, considering the content of the current version of the paper, there are still several aspects that need further work and refinement.

 

Specific comments:

In order to improve the global quality of the manuscript, the following recommendations are made available:

1. The abstract needs to be revised, especially, the first sentence, since in my view the core issue here is not digital transformation. It is suggested instead to raise the interest to the reader about the importance of an evolutionary business model innovation in digital companies.
2. In the introductory item, it is suggested adding a final paragraph with the structure of the paper.
3. The literature review needs to be reinforced, as well as the discussion of results, integrating the following study: https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6040145; recently published in your target journal.
4. When introducing the methodological design, a brief justification for using Vensim PLE x64, as well as mentioning similar previous studies using this type of application are needed.
5. The option for selecting Alibaba as an example of benchmarking needs to be further justified and the connection or possible comparison with the companies selected in the current study needs to be clarified to the reader.
6. In the Conclusions’ section, the policy implications need to be provided.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your kind help in the review and suggestion.

I have corrected the suggestions submitted. first in the abstract. second adding a final paragraph in the introduction. third the policy implication in conslusion.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors I have been analyzing your paper. Overall, the manuscript seems to me to be well structured. The literature review is suitable and many relevant studies have been included. The results are properly presented and discussed. I would like the authors to pay attention to the following: - Authors should clarify the research gap throughout the Introduction. They should also show more clearly how this study can contribute to filling this research gap. - The Methodology will have to be further developed and the authors will have to provide more detail regarding the methods, instruments and other methodological procedures. Good work!

Author Response

I thank you for your kindness in reading the manuscript and providing suggestions for improvement.

I am very grateful for the advice given to sharpen a research gap so this study can contribute to filling the research gap.