The Structure and Nature of Social Capital in the Relationship between Spin-Offs and Parent Companies in Information Technology Clusters in Brazil and Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well constructed, and the proposed research topic is significant and adequately analysed. I do not find anything that the Author(s) could improve. I can only suggest the extension of specific issues, for example, including in considerations (in section 2)  regarding social capital apart from the dimension of norms, values ​​and relationships, as well as the dimension of roles. Moreover, it would be helpful to define the differences between the thematic categories of information and knowledge more precisely. We should consider information as a prerequisite for acquiring and then generating knowledge. Hence, in the case of these two issues, we often talk about different initiators and implementers and, consequently, about other ways of using the same type of social capital by cluster stakeholders, i.e. information owners and knowledge owners. I leave the decision authors.

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewer,

 

            We would like to thank the reviewers and the editor for the prompt and thorough review of our article and for the possibility of publishing it in Economies.

In relation to the reviews of the article, we inform that all the comments/suggestions of the reviewers were considered. Most of them have been incorporated in the new version of the text, as can be seen in the highlights of the new version. We would like to inform you that, in addition to the suggested revisions, we have carried out a general revision of the text. The table below reports the responses to the reviews.

 

 

Reviewer: 1 Comments/suggestions	Responses
The manuscript is well constructed, and the proposed research topic is significant and adequately analysed. I do not find anything that the Author(s) could improve.	We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her comments
I can only suggest the extension of specific issues, for example, including in considerations (in section 2) regarding social capital apart from the dimension of norms, values ​​and relationships, as well as the dimension of roles.	The 1st and 2nd paragraphs after H3 in section 2 show that social capital goes beyond norms, values ​​and relationships, when it points out its role in innovation, sharing and creation of knowledge, and even in the creation of new companies.
Moreover, it would be helpful to define the differences between the thematic categories of information and knowledge more precisely. We should consider information as a prerequisite for acquiring and then generating knowledge. Hence, in the case of these two issues, we often talk about different initiators and implementers and, consequently, about other ways of using the same type of social capital by cluster stakeholders, i.e. information owners and knowledge owners. I leave the decision authors.	The sixth paragraph of the second section has been added in order to better differentiate between information and knowledge.
	We thank the reviewer and believe that after the suggested revisions and the general revision the article has undergone significant improvements.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper examines the impact of social capital structure and nature on the formation of technology clusters in Brazil and Spain. While your paper explores an interesting topic, it still has some problems. We have identified several key issues that need to be addressed:

 1. The authors present eight hypotheses in Part II, suggesting that some of these hypotheses could be combined. Five of the hypotheses were not tested in the research of the thesis, and if they are to be retained, it is recommended that they be further elaborated and explained.

 

2. The thesis mentions that geographic proximity promotes the strength of inter-organizational relationships and knowledge exchange, but how is “geographic proximity” defined? Are there clear criteria or measures?

3. It is suggested that further clarification be provided as to whether the selection of 166 companies in Brazil and 66 companies in Spain in the paper accurately reflects the ICT clusters in Brazil and Spain.

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

 

            We would like to thank the reviewers and the editor for the prompt and thorough review of our article and for the possibility of publishing it in Economies.

In relation to the reviews of the article, we inform that all the comments/suggestions of the reviewers were considered. Most of them have been incorporated in the new version of the text, as can be seen in the highlights of the new version. We would like to inform you that, in addition to the suggested revisions, we have carried out a general revision of the text. The table below reports the responses to the reviews.

 

 

Reviewer: 2 Comments/suggestions	Responses
This paper examines the impact of social capital structure and nature on the formation of technology clusters in Brazil and Spain. While your paper explores an interesting topic, it still has some problems. We have identified several key issues that need to be addressed:  1. The authors present eight hypotheses in Part II, suggesting that some of these hypotheses could be combined. Five of the hypotheses were not tested in the research of the thesis, and if they are to be retained, it is recommended that they be further elaborated and explained.	We thank the reviewer and inform him/her that we strive to meet all the required reviews.             (1)   Table 4 has been added with the tests of the other hypotheses dealing with the relationships between parent companies and non-parent companies.
2. The thesis mentions that geographic proximity promotes the strength of inter-organizational relationships and knowledge exchange, but how is “geographic proximity” defined? Are there clear criteria or measures?	(2) The definition of geographical proximity has been added to page 1 in a footnote.
3. It is suggested that further clarification be provided as to whether the selection of 166 companies in Brazil and 66 companies in Spain in the paper accurately reflects the ICT clusters in Brazil and Spain.	(3) In the method section, data on the companies in the Barcelona and Santa Catarina clusters has been added to make the choices clearer.
	We thank the reviewers and believe that after the suggested revisions and the general revision the article has undergone significant improvements.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is aimed to determine how proximity between organizations promotes the intensity of relationships and facilitates the exchange of information and knowledge in the relationship between the parent firm and the spin-off and its influence on organizational performance. 

Some suggestions are as follows.

(1) There are some differences between the title and the research content, which requires modifying the title to accurately reflect the research content.

(2) Figure 1 shows the relationship of the research hypothesis, which is good. But it's better to show the positive or negative sign of the hypothesis.

(3) All variables should have variable names.

（4）Section 3 is best to show the descriptive statistics of variables, including the distribution of variables.

（5）The conclusions and analysis in Section 4 are not enough, it is necessary to discuss the main results, compare the results of the relevant literature, and explain.

（6）“5. Conclusions” may be wrong.

(7) Figure 4 shows that a large number of hypotheses are unproven. However, the concern is that the data are insufficient, and that more explanation is needed.

（8）The introduction about the motivation and contribution of the research is not enough.

Overall, I think this manuscript needs more revision, especially regarding the theories and new findings presented in this study.

 

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

 

            We would like to thank the reviewers and the editor for the prompt and thorough review of our article and for the possibility of publishing it in Economies.

In relation to the reviews of the article, we inform that all the comments/suggestions of the reviewers were considered. Most of them have been incorporated in the new version of the text, as can be seen in the highlights of the new version. We would like to inform you that, in addition to the suggested revisions, we have carried out a general revision of the text. The table below reports the responses to the reviews.

 

 

Reviewer: 3 Comments/suggestions	Responses
This study is aimed to determine how proximity between organizations promotes the intensity of relationships and facilitates the exchange of information and knowledge in the relationship between the parent firm and the spin-off and its influence on organizational performance. Some suggestions are as follows. (1) There are some differences between the title and the research content, which requires modifying the title to accurately reflect the research content.	We thank the reviewer and inform him/her that we strive to meet all the required reviews.                       (1)   The title has been changed as suggested.
(2) Figure 1 shows the relationship of the research hypothesis, which is good. But it's better to show the positive or negative sign of the hypothesis.	(2) Figure 1 has been modified to include the expected signs of the hypotheses.
(3) All variables should have variable names.	(3) The names of the variables have been included in Figure 2.
（4）Section 3 is best to show the descriptive statistics of variables, including the distribution of variables.	(4) Section 4 - Results and Discussions includes a table and a presentation of descriptive statistics.
（5）The conclusions and analysis in Section 4 are not enough, it is necessary to discuss the main results, compare the results of the relevant literature, and explain.	(5) Some recent discussions and authors from the literature have been added.
（6）Conclusions may be wrong.	(6) After the reviewers' suggestions and the revisions made, the conclusions were reformulated. We believe they are correct.
(7) Figure 4 shows that a large number of hypotheses are unproven. However, the concern is that the data are insufficient, and that more explanation is needed.	(7) An explanation of the reasons for the number of unconfirmed hypotheses is given below Figure 4 and in the conclusions.
（8）The introduction about the motivation and contribution of the research is not enough.	(8) Changes have been made to the introduction section.
(9) Overall, I think this manuscript needs more revision, especially regarding the theories and new findings presented in this study.	We thank the reviewer and believe that after the suggested revisions and the general revision the article has undergone significant improvements.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no addtional comment.