Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 18, 2021
Decision Letter - László Vasa, Editor

PONE-D-21-12838

Is there a moderate range of impact of  financialization on corporate R&D?

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yan Wang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 05 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

László VASA, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

[The authors would like to thank Guangzhou University for sponsoring this research.]

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

 [This work was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China [grant number 19BGL050](grant held by author Zhenghui Li). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.]

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Paper seems well drafted and researched.

Though authors are does not seem native English speakers, language seems good.

I have a few concerns: What was the basis of selection of specific financial variables? Was there is possibility of many other financial variables? What is rational?

What is use of this research to Industry and academia?

What are future directions of research?

Verify calculations for correctness and verify panel threshold regression model of Hansen and restated model. Do all calculations and remove errors if any.

I will advise you improve literature or background study. Refer a few articles to improve, https://doi.org/10.21314/JOP.2020.245 and http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJMFA.2018.095976

Revise and resubmit paper.

Reviewer #2: The paper investigates a widely researched topic from a new aspect, how the financialization impatcs on corporate R&D. The literature is well processed and analyzed. A (general) part of the literature review is included in the Introduction (without formulationg a subchapter), the other part is to find in the theoratical foundation (second chapter). The sources are analysed well, in a critical and comprehensive way.

The authors selected the appropriate statistical methodology toolset (panel threshold regression model ) and applied well. The results are logical, supported by the methodology and datasets. The conclusions are based on the results, reflecting to the question set in the paper's title.

As a summary, in my opinion it is an excellent academic paper. My only suggestion is to include the limitations of the research at the end of the paper.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

Reply to the Reviewer 1:

1、What was the basis of selection of specific financial variables? Was there is possibility of many other financial variables? What is rational?

Reply: Thanks for your concerns and comments. According to Accounting Standards for Business Enterprises, enterprise assets can be divided into operational assets and financial assets. Financial assets are mainly used for investment and financing activities of enterprises. Therefore, when measuring corporate financialization, financial assets items and quasi-financial assets items in the balance sheet of enterprises should be selected. The selection of financial variables in the control variables is mainly based on the relationship between variables and R&D. Although there are many factors influencing R&D, we choose financial variables that have a significant impact on R&D according to relevant references [38-40].

References:

38. He JJ, Tian X. The dark side of analyst coverage: The case of innovation. J Financ Econ. 2013;109(3):856-78. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2013.04.001.

39. Hong M, Drakeford B, Zhang K. The impact of mandatory CSR disclosure on green innovation: evidence from China. Green Finance. 2020;2(3):302-22. doi: https://doi.org/10.3934/GF.2020017.

40. Su K, Liu H. Financialization of manufacturing companies and corporate innovation: Lessons from an emerging economy. Manag Decis Econ. 2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.3278

2、What is use of this research to Industry and academia?

Reply:Thanks for your comments. To Industry, this research provides a reference for enterprises to allocate financial assets rationally, and provides an appropriate range of the proportion of corporate financial assets held by enterprises, which promotes R&D, and achieves sustainable development goals. To academia,the current research mainly focuses on the promotion or inhibition effect of financialization on corporate R&D, this research provides a theoretical basis for the dynamic relationship between financialization and R&D, and provides empirical evidence for the moderate range of the impact of financialization on R&D.

3、What are future directions of research?

Reply: Thanks for your comments. We have limitations in the measurement of financialization, and the relationship between financialization and R&D needs to be further studied. Future research can optimize the measurement of financialization and study the moderate range of the impact of corporate financialization on R&D under the influence of macroeconomic environment. For specific explanation, the research prospect is added at the end of this paper (Line 526-529, Line 533-535). The content of the modification has been marked in red in the article.

4、Verify calculations for correctness and verify panel threshold regression model of Hansen and restated model. Do all calculations and remove errors if any.

Reply: Thanks for your concerns and comments. To ensure the accuracy of the results in this article, we rechecked the original data, the calculated data, the STATA procedures we used and reworked the results. After checking, there is no calculation error in this paper, and the result of panel threshold regression model of Hansen is correct.

5、I will advise you improve literature or background study. Refer a few articles to improve, https://doi.org/10.21314/JOP.2020.245 and http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJMFA.2018.095976

Reply: Thanks for your advice. In order to fully explain the significance of our research, we add the negative impact of financial development, the importance of corporate R&D, and the financing constraints faced by corporate R&D (line 47-52, line 73-77). We also added references (reference 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17).The content of the modification has been marked in red in the article.

Reply to the Reviewer 2:

1、My only suggestion is to include the limitations of the research at the end of the paper.

Reply: Thanks for your comments. We have limitations in the measurement of financialization, and the relationship between financialization and R&D needs to be further studied. For specific explanation, the research limitations are added at the end of this paper (Line 523-526, Line 529-533). The content of the modification has been marked in red in the article.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - László Vasa, Editor

Is there a moderate range of impact of  financialization on corporate R&D?

PONE-D-21-12838R1

Dear Yan Wang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Prof. László Vasa, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - László Vasa, Editor

PONE-D-21-12838R1

Is there a moderate range of impact of financialization on corporate R&D?

Dear Dr. Wang:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Dr. László Vasa

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .