Research on the impact of COVID-19 on Chinese small and medium-sized enterprises: Evidence from Beijing

Zhengwei Ma; Yiran Liu; Yida Gao

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0257036

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 16, 2021
10 Jun 2021 Decision Letter - László Vasa, Editor PONE-D-21-12192 Research on the impact of COVID-19 on Chinese small and medium-sized enterprises: Evidence from Beijing PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhengwei Ma, 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 25 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: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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 include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 4. Please upload a copy of Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 5 to which you refer in your text on page 10, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No 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: The topic is actual and calls the attention of the public, but in this form the manuscript is not in compliance with requirements of scientific papers. The number of hypothesis is too much, it is advised to reconstruct them. The sample (234 valid questionnaires) is too low for drawing conclusions. The introduction of the results is not visualized, the reviewer did not find the referred figures. The plain text is not transparent enough. Content of Tables would need more clear description. The research concept is good but presenting the results need major reconstruction. Reviewer #2: The topic is very much actual - everything that goes about COVID is timely and trendy nowadays. Therefore, investigation on the effects and status of recovery in SME-s in China is a more than welcomed idea and most likely will be of interest to the journal's readers. The title, abstract, and keywords are acceptable. In the introduction, however, I have some structural problems: 1.1, the Importance of SME-s is instead belonging to Literature review, so I recommend shifting it there. 1.2 will be enough for introduction, extended by describing the research goals and the context better. Literature review exists; however, it is unusually detailed articulated, and in some parts, I feel it is instead a chapter of a theoretical book or university booklet. More emphasis should be set on the critical and analytical approach while processing the literature sources. While there is a methodology chapter, we can see an unusual chapter named the "Hypothesis and construct" chapter, indicating 15 (!) hypotheses. First of all, in my opinion, it should be merged with the methodology chapter, and, on the other hand, 15 hypotheses are just too much. As not all of them belong to the category of accurate and well-defined hypotheses, please merge or cancel a few. In addition, it is just not clear on what basis these hypotheses are defined? Regarding the results, why these are valid, however, there is a disproportion regarding the structure as it is too short. While the methodology is explained on several pages, the results are on net 2 pages, without a real explanation. Conclusions include implications and suggestions as well, excellent idea. There are no limitations indicated in the text; it should be done in the introduction, methodology, or conclusions. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257036.r001
Revision 1
13 Jul 2021 Author Response (1) Respond to reviewer one. Thank you so much for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Research on the Environmental Impact of Tidal Power Generation in China”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript, as well as the important guiding significance to our study. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1: 1.The number of hypothesis is too much, it is advised to reconstruct them. Response: Thank you so much for your comment. As there is no well-established SEM that has existed in areas studying the impact of COVID-19 on enterprises, we need to construct the exploratory structural equation model instead of confirmatory structural equation model. Initially we need to consider all possible assumptions that might exist and revise the model after comparison with actual observed data to get the best-fit model[1]. Consequently, the initial hypotheses seem to be too much. 2. The sample (234 valid questionnaires) is too low for drawing conclusions. Response: Thank you so much for your comment. Bentler[2] has suggested a 5:1 ratio of sample size to number of free parameters to construct a reliable structural equation model and J.Christopher Westland[3] calculated the lower bound of the sample size with 30 indicator variables and 6 latent variables applying algorithm to be 187. Consequently, 234 samples are considered enough for a well-behaved SEM. 3.The introduction of the results is not visualized, the reviewer did not find the referred figures. The plain text is not transparent enough. Response: Thank you so much for your comment. According to your confusion of the accuracy of the data, we show all the data resources in the Introduction chapter below: (1)'' Until the end of 2020, the cumulative number of confirmed cases worldwide has reached 91.5 million, and the cumulative death toll has reached 1.96 million. '' https://international.caixin.com/2021-01-13/101650269.html (2)'' There has been a reduction in business income of nearly 67.69% of SMEs; 21.61% of SMEs cannot repay loans and other debts in time, facing greater pressure on operating funds; 86.22% of SMEs cannot survive on funds in their accounts for more than 3 months; 33.73% of SMEs do not have enough funds to survive for one month. '' https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1660042030690643188&wfr=spider&for=pc (3)'' The global economy is expected to shrink by 4.4%, the US GDP will drop by 4.3%, the Eurozone GDP will shrink by 8.3%, and Japan's GDP will drop to 5.3%. '' http://www.xhyb.net.cn/news/guoji/2021/0112/141056.html & https://xueqiu.com/1011660583/160852673 (4)'' The US unemployment rate in October 2020 was 6.9%, with an increase of 3.3% compared to that in October 2019; the EU’s overall unemployment rate rose from 6.6% in September 2019 to 7.5% in September 2020; Japan witnessed a rise of unemployment rate, from 2.4% in September 2019 to 3.0% in September 2020. '' https://new.qq.com/omn/20201117/20201117A0AFN400.html & http://ft.newdu.com/economics/word/202101/309995.html (5)'' The corporate bankruptcy rate in developed countries is expected to increase by 2.4% in 2020 compared to 1.4% in 2019. '' https://atradius.cn/zh/reports/corporate-insolvency-growth-to-accelerate-in-2020.html (6)'' 70% of employment opportunities are generated by small and micro enterprises and self-employed individuals. '' https://www.dx2025.com/archives/85508.html (7)'' By the end of 2019, Chinese small, micro and medium-sized enterprises accounted for 99.7% of the total number of enterprises in the country. Among them, small and micro enterprises accounted for 97.3%.'' https://wenku.baidu.com/view/1ac0ae3c1b2e453610661ed9ad51f01dc3815754.html (8)'' Chinese SMEs contribute more than 50% of taxation, more than 60% of GDP, more than 70% of technological innovation, more than 80% of urban labor employment, and more than 90% of the number of enterprises. '' https://xueshu.baidu.com/usercenter/paper/show?paperid=1b0e00g0k43n0p701j2p0pc0pu131990&site=xueshu_se (9)'' New York City began the first phase of "unblocking" on June 8th, with more than 400,000 people back to work, and another five areas in New York State will enter the second phase of resumption of work. '' http://www.21jingji.com/2020/6-9/0NMDEzNzlfMTU2NjU0NA.html (10)'' The UK started on June 1st, with schools in some areas resuming classes gradually, and "non-essential" retail stores resuming business one after another. '' https://world.huanqiu.com/gallery/9CaKrnQhZnj (11)'' In Japan, since August 1st, basic restrictions have been completely lifted, and work has resumed. '' http://cifer.pbcsf.tsinghua.edu.cn/index.php?m=content&c=index&a=show&catid=113&id=473 (12)'' As of July 2nd, various industries in China have basically resumed production, with a resumption rate of 99.1%, and on average, 95.4% of people have resumed their work. More than 50 cities have resumed full operations. Among them, the resumption rate of SMEs has reached 91%, which has fully promoted the recovery of production capacity and directly affected economic growth. '' https://app.21jingji.com/html/2020yiqing_fgfc/ (13)'' In 2020, China's GDP is expected to grow at 2.3%, ranking first in the world. '' http://cn.dailyeconomic.com/finance/2021/01/18/22370.html 4.Content of Tables would need more clear description. Response: Thank you so much for your comment. We add the ''Nomenclature'' before chapter ''Introduction''. Please review it. Revised portions are marked in red in the paper. Thank you so much for your comments. I really learn a lot for your comments. All comments are very valuable and helpful for revising and improving our manuscript, as well as the important guiding significance to our study. References: [1]Jöreskog, K.G. & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8 User's reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software. [2]Bentler, P. M. EQS, Structural Equations, Program Manual, Program Version 3.0, BMDP Statistical Software, Inc., Los Angeles, 1989, 6. [3]J. Christopher Westland. Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling[J]. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,2010,9(6). (2) respond to reviewer two. Thank you so much for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Research on the Environmental Impact of Tidal Power Generation in China”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript, as well as the important guiding significance to our study. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #2: 1. 1.1, the Importance of SME-s is instead belonging to Literature review, so I recommend shifting it there. 1.2 will be enough for introduction, extended by describing the research goals and the context better. Response: Thank you so much for your comment. We have moved 1.1 to Literature review and revised the subtitle of 1.2. Revised portions are marked in red in the paper. 2.Literature review exists; however, it is unusually detailed articulated, and in some parts, I feel it is instead a chapter of a theoretical book or university booklet. More emphasis should be set on the critical and analytical approach while processing the literature sources. Response: Thank you so much for your comment. Following your suggestion, we have revised the literature review. We add the new chapter "Analytical approach" in literature review. Please review it. Revised portions are marked in red in the paper. 3.While there is a methodology chapter, we can see an unusual chapter named the "Hypothesis and construct" chapter, indicating 15 (!) hypotheses. First of all, in my opinion, it should be merged with the methodology chapter. Response: Thank you so much for your comment. Following your suggestion, we have merged "Hypothesis and analysis" chapter with "methodology" chapter. Please review it. Revised portions are marked in red in the paper. 4.On the other hand, 15 hypotheses are just too much. As not all of them belong to the category of accurate and well-defined hypotheses, please merge or cancel a few. Response: Thank you so much for your comment. As there is no well-established SEM that has existed in areas studying the impact of COVID-19 on enterprises, we need to construct the exploratory structural equation model instead of confirmatory structural equation model. Initially we need to consider all possible assumptions that might exist and revise the model after comparison with actual observed data to get the best-fit model[1]. Consequently, the initial hypotheses seem to be too much. 5.In addition, it is just not clear on what basis these hypotheses are defined. Response: Thank you so much for your comment. We reconstruct chapter 3.1.2 "Hypothesis" and add the theoretical basis for these hypothetical definitions. Please review it. 6.Regarding the results, why these are valid, however, there is a disproportion regarding the structure as it is too short. While the methodology is explained on several pages, the results are on net 2 pages, without a real explanation. Response: Thank you so much for your comment. We have rewritten the chapter “Results”. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. Please review it. 7.There are no limitations indicated in the text; it should be done in the introduction, methodology, or conclusions. Response: Thank you so much for your comment. We add the new chapter "Limitations and future research" before chapter "Conflicts of Interest". Please review it. Thank you so much for your comments. I really learn a lot for your comments. All comments are very valuable and helpful for revising and improving our manuscript, as well as the important guiding significance to our study. References: [1]Jöreskog, K.G. & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8 User's reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Detailed Response to Reviewer two.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257036.r002
28 Jul 2021 Decision Letter - László Vasa, Editor PONE-D-21-12192R1 Research on the impact of COVID-19 on Chinese small and medium-sized enterprises: Evidence from Beijing PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhengwei Ma, 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 20.08.2021. 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: 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. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: (No Response) ******** 2. 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: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. 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 ****** 5. 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 ****** 6. 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: The authors answered the comments of the reviewers, the structure became more clear. I am satisfied by the corrections and in this form the manuscript is recommended for publication. Reviewer #2: The authors improved the paper based on the reviewer's suggestions; in some cases just explained and argued for their original solutions. The papaer is much better in its current version, however, I still have concerns regarding the large number of hypotheses, I stil revommend to lower the number of hypotheses, deleting and merging some. This review was made by the academic editor. ****** 7. 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257036.r003
Revision 2
2 Aug 2021 Author Response Thank you so much for the your comment concerning our manuscript entitled “Research on the impact of COVID-19 on Chinese small and medium-sized enterprises : Evidence from Beijing”. The comment is valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript, as well as the important guiding significance to our study. We have studied the comment carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the respond to your comment is as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comment: Reviewer #2: 1.The paper is much better in its current version, however, I still have concerns regarding the large number of hypotheses, I still recommend to lower the number of hypotheses, deleting and merging some. Response: Thank you so much for your comment. We have deleted and merged some hypotheses and restructured the model. Revised portions are marked in red in the paper. Thank you again for your comment. I really learn a lot for your comment. The comment is very valuable and helpful for revising and improving our manuscript, as well as the important guiding significance to our study. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Detailed Response to Reviewer two.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257036.r004
23 Aug 2021 Decision Letter - László Vasa, Editor Research on the impact of COVID-19 on Chinese small and medium-sized enterprises: Evidence from Beijing PONE-D-21-12192R2 Dear Dr. Zhengwei Ma, 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, László Vasa, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. 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 ****** 5. 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 ****** 6. 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: Some remarks for finalization: the words "hypothesis" - singular - and "hypotheses" - plural - should be checked, it is wrongly written in some parts of the manuscript (for example, 3., 3.1, 3.1.2 chapter titles). Due to the reconstruction of hypotheses, now H6 is right after H3. It is understandable for the reviewers, who followed the review process, but readers can hardly understand this structure. I recommend to check it and correct if possible. Reviewer #2: The authors improved their paper taking my recommendations into consideration. The paper is much better and sound in its current form. As all suggestions were considered and implemented, I recommend the paper for publication in its current form. ****** 7. 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257036.r005
Formally Accepted
9 Nov 2021 Acceptance Letter - László Vasa, Editor PONE-D-21-12192R2 Research on the impact of COVID-19 on Chinese small and medium-sized enterprises: Evidence from Beijing Dear Dr. Ma: 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257036.r006

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 .