The dual mechanism of social networks on the relationship between internationalization and firm performance: Empirical evidence from china

Xin Cao; Peng Li; Xiaozhi Huang; Limin Fan

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0263674

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 19, 2021
16 Sep 2021 Decision Letter - Elisa Ughetto, Editor PONE-D-21-26838The Dual Mechanism of Social Networks on the Relationship between Internationalization and Firm Performance: Empirical Evidence from ChinaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Li, 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 Oct 31 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: https://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, Elisa Ughetto 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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 3. 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. Additional Editor Comments: Dear authors, I agree with the reviewer that you have to add more details in yuor methodology, better discuss the findings and better link your findings with prior theory. Also please engage in a better discussion on the research gaps you want to adress. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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: No ****** 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 ****** 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 research methodology should be improved The analysis needs to indicate to details and implications should be based on these results the introduction must indicate to main gaps and create a bridge between this part and literature review ****** 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: Yes:** Dariyoush Jamshidi [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.0263674.r001
Revision 1
27 Oct 2021 Author Response PONE-D-21-26838(R1): Response to Reviewers Thank you very much for inviting me to submit this revision, and for your clear directions which I have used as main guidance. I appreciate your appraisal that my manuscript shows promise for making a valuable contribution. My point-by-point responses to your comments , are given below. RESPONSES TO THE EDITOR’S COMMENTS Additional Editor Comments: Dear authors, I agree with the reviewer that you have to add more details in yuor methodology, better discuss the findings and better link your findings with prior theory. Also please engage in a better discussion on the research gaps you want to adress. Response: I have followed your suggestions, and do the following in the revised manuscript: (1) I add more details in my methodology. I construct two econometric models, and I also introduce the methods of analyzing mediating effect and moderating effect. (2) I further discuss the findings of the study. I emphasize that our research explains the reasons for the existence of dual mechanisms in social networks based on boundary spanning theory. (3) In the introduction, I further discuss the relationship between current research and previous research. I explained that the existing research mainly focuses on the difference in intensity between business ties and political ties. However, the current research discusses the differences between the two from the perspective of impact mechanism. RESPONSES TO THE REVIEWER #1 Thank you for your careful review of my manuscript, and for your positive assessment that this paper has a potential to make a nice contribution to the literature. Thank you also for your excellent suggestions on how I can improve the paper. I show below how and where I have responded to your comments. The research methodology should be improved The analysis needs to indicate to details and implications should be based on these results the introduction must indicate to main gaps and create a bridge between this part and literature review. Response: Thank you for these valid points. I have followed your suggestions, and do the following: (1) In terms of research methods, I have constructed a mediating effect analysis model and a moderating effect analysis model to analyze the different roles of business ties and political ties. (2) I introduced the details of the analysis method and explained the methods to test the mediating effect and moderating effect. (3) I revised the introduction, briefly combed the research progress of the existing literature, and stressed that the existing research mainly focuses on the difference in strength between business ties and political ties. However, the current research analyzes the differences between the two from the perspective of impact mechanism, and explains the reasons for the differences based on boundary spanning theory. (4) I further enrich the literature review of boundary spanning theory. (5) I further discussed the results of the empirical study. In the discussion, I explained the support of the research results for the mediating effect of business ties and the moderating effect of political ties. Furthermore, I emphasize the role of boundary spanning theory in explaining the dual mechanism of social networks. Revision information of reference list In the revised manuscript, the references cited in the paper are also updated，the revised draft deleted two references and added 12 references. In the old manuscript, two references were deleted as follows： 12. Iurkov, V.; Benito, G.R.G. Change in domestic network centrality, uncertainty, and the foreign divestment decisions of firms. J Int Bus Stud 2020, 51, 788-812. 13. Cuypers, I.R.P.; Ertug, G.; Cantwell, J.; Zaheer, A.; Kilduff, M. Making connections: Social networks in international business. J Int Bus Stud 2020, 51, 714-736. In the revised manuscript, 12 references were added as follows： 12. Horak, S.; Taube, M. Same but different? Similarities and fundamental differences of informal social networks in China (guanxi) and Korea (yongo). Asia Pac J Manag 2016, 33, 595-616. 14. Chen, C.C.; Chen, X.; Huang, S. Chinese guanxi: An integrative review and new directions for future research. Manage Organ Rev 2013, 9, 167-207. 15. Xiao, Z.; Tsui, A.S. When brokers may not work: The cultural contingency of social capital in Chinese high-tech firms. Admin Sci Quart 2007, 52, 1-31. 16. Wang, G.; Jiang, X.; Yuan, C.; Yi, Y. Managerial ties and firm performance in an emerging economy: Tests of the mediating and moderating effects. Asia Pac J Manag 2013, 30, 537-559. 17. Arnoldi, J.; Villadsen, A.R. Political ties of listed Chinese companies, performance effects, and moderating institutional factors. Manage Organ Rev 2015, 11, 217-236. 20. Zhang, M.; Qi, Y.; Wang, Z.; Zhao, X.; Pawar, K.S. Effects of business and political ties on product innovation performance: Evidence from China and India. Technovation 2019, 80, 30-39. 21. Du, J.; Zhou, C. Does guanxi matter in the foreign expansion of Chinese manufacturing firms? The mediator role of linking and leveraging. Asia Pac J Manag 2019, 36, 473-497. 23. Zhang, X.; Ma, X.; Wang, Y.; Li, X.; Huo, D. What drives the internationalization of Chinese SMEs? The joint effects of international entrepreneurship characteristics, network ties, and firm ownership. Int Bus Rev 2016, 25, 522-534. 24. Li, J.; Xia, J.; Zajac, E.J. On the duality of political and economic stakeholder influence on firm innovation performance: T heory and evidence from C hinese firms. Strategic Manage J 2018, 39, 193-216. 25. Shen, L.; Zhang, C.; Teng, W.; Du, N. How do business and political Networking shape overseas dispute resolution for state-owned enterprise from emerging economies. Int Bus Rev 2021, In Press. 36. Anderson, J.C.; Narus, J.A. A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships. J Marketing 1990, 54, 42-58. 37. Friedman, R.A.; Podolny, J. Differentiation of boundary spanning roles: Labor negotiations and implications for role conflict. Admin Sci Quart 1992, 28-47. So in sum, I feel that the above point-by-point responses can answer and address your concerns. Thank you again for all your suggestions. They have helped me greatly in strengthening this paper. Thank you very much and best wishes! Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263674.r002
25 Jan 2022 Decision Letter - Elisa Ughetto, Editor The dual mechanism of social networks on the relationship between internationalization and firm performance: empirical evidence from china PONE-D-21-26838R1 Dear Dr. Peng, 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, Elisa Ughetto 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 ******** 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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: No ****** 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 paper needs a professional proofreading because it will help to improve the paper for publishing. ****** 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: Yes:** Dariyoush Jamshidi https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263674.r003
Formally Accepted
2 Feb 2022 Acceptance Letter - Elisa Ughetto, Editor PONE-D-21-26838R1 The dual mechanism of social networks on the relationship between internationalization and firm performance: empirical evidence from china Dear Dr. Li: 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. Elisa Ughetto Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263674.r004

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 .