Supply network position, digital transformation and innovation performance: Evidence from listed Chinese manufacturing firms

Chunyan Du; Qiang Zhang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0279133

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 3, 2022
31 Aug 2022 Decision Letter - Ashkan Memari, Editor PONE-D-22-18835Supply network position, digital transformation and innovation performance: evidence from listed Chinese manufacturing firmsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. du, 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 address all requested corrections and amend your manuscript accordingly. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 15 2022 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, Ashkan Memari 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. 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. 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. [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: Partly ******** 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: No Reviewer #2: 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 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: Dear Authors, Overall, the paper was very interesting to read and presented an innovative approach to tackle your research questions. The results also have practical implications and imply a new contribution to research. In general, the paper was easy to follow, however there are some parts which need further major revision to make it more clear to the reader. 1. Introduction: Innovation performance is a central focus of your paper, yet it is not clearly defined for the reader. You state that is is necessary for development and competitiveness, but not what is it or how it could be measured (this is mentioned much later in the methods section). Please clearly define this in the opening paragraph. 2. Literature review: This section needs a major revision. It is unclear to read, and for some studies you discuss the methodology used, while in others the results of the study as well. Please break this into smaller sections which directly relate to the focus of this research. This could also be broken into sections by results (i.e. studies that found centrality (or some similar characteristic) positively correlated with innovation, and those that found it negatively). You may also want to indicate which are studies based in China, and which are abroad (or a mix of international studies), so that you can discuss the generalizability to other countries/regions. The reader also does not understand clearly what gap you are filling. From reading the paper it appears the large dataset, as well as the incorporation of the time aspect is where the major contribution lies because you indicate that some other studies also found that centrality may negatively impact innovation. Please also discuss social network theory here, as it is a central component to your research. 3. Research design The hypotheses are clearly described and well-motivated by previous research. This is very easy to follow. However, section 3.2 (model specification and variable setting) needs revision. Firstly, please put each formula on a separate line and number the formula so the reader knows which you are referencing for the basic and moderating models are well. The moderating model is also overlapping within itself. It would also be helpful to have a table of variable names with the corresponding description. You will see further comments in the text, but please also make it clear why suppliers and customers do not need to be separated when discussing centrality. I assume it is due to knowledge transfer, but this could be more clearly defined to avoid confusion. It may also be helpful to test for the correlation of the variables with each other using a test like Pearson's r. 4. Empirical results and discussion Please create a table of all the model names and which they are testing. It is very confusing that you introduce the models in the results section. This should rather be in the research design section, so the reader knows to expect results for a number of models, instead of just the three hypotheses. You may want to also introduce topics such as the state vs. non-state owned or life cycle in this section. It would be good to also present the effect in terms that are easier to interpret. The coefficient and significance tell us one thing, but ideally the reader should also know the strength of the effect in a more practical sense (since the results can also be used with practical implications). You introduce this in section 4.4. (moderating effects) by stating that a 1% rise in digital transformation increases innovation by 0.513% ... etc. This would be helpful for the main model as well. How does innovation performance increase/decrease when centrality is reduced by x%? for example. Thanks very much for this interesting read! Reviewer #2: The paper is well structured on the whole; however, it offers us very limited insights or analysis and there are areas for improvement in terms of content. 1. Keywords should ideally be phrases of 2-4 words. Research keywords are not selected 2. The second section (literature review) lacks a detailed review of the model and methodology what is the other method to analyze the problem? What is the other methods that used in existing literature? Why authors use this model to analyze the problem? 3. It is recommended that the authors use charts and diagrams to explain the model and also to analyze the results. 4. Formula needs to be more rigorously expressed. For examples, some symbols are not expressed in italic. 5. The authors need to provide a practical example to prove that the research problem originates from practice and assist readers in understanding this research 6. Some more valuable managerial insights should be provided by sensitive analysis. 7. It is better to compare the results of this study with other similar studies. Also, the benefits of research are described ****** 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-18835_reviewer_28.07.22.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279133.r001
Revision 1
13 Oct 2022 Author Response Reviewer 1 1. Introduction: Innovation performance is a central focus of your paper, yet it is not clearly defined for the reader. You state that is is necessary for development and competitiveness, but not what is it or how it could be measured (this is mentioned much later in the methods section). Please clearly define this in the opening paragraph. Response: I have revised the definition of innovation performance in the Introduction part and revised the measurement of innovation performance in the Variable Setting part (page2, page6). 2. Literature review: This section needs a major revision. It is unclear to read, and for some studies you discuss the methodology used, while in others the results of the study as well. Please break this into smaller sections which directly relate to the focus of this research. This could also be broken into sections by results (i.e. studies that found centrality (or some similar characteristic) positively correlated with innovation, and those that found it negatively). You may also want to indicate which are studies based in China, and which are abroad (or a mix of international studies), so that you can discuss the generalizability to other countries/regions. The reader also does not understand clearly what gap you are filling. From reading the paper it appears the large dataset, as well as the incorporation of the time aspect is where the major contribution lies because you indicate that some other studies also found that centrality may negatively impact innovation. Please also discuss social network theory here, as it is a central component to your research. Response: In the updated manuscript, I have carefully redesigned Literature Review. This part is divided into two sections: Supply Chain Concentration and Firms’ Innovation, and Supply Network and Firms’ Development. Some study just found that centrality could positively impact operational performance (Shi et al.,2019). Li et al. (2020) used data from the electronics manufacturing industry of 200 listed firms in China from 2013 to 2017 and discovered that supply network centrality and structural holes were strongly positively connected with innovation performance using a negative binomial model. While we have varied perspectives on their relationship based on big sample data. In the second section, I also have covered social network theory (page 3-4). 3. Research design The hypotheses are clearly described and well-motivated by previous research. This is very easy to follow. However, section 3.2 (model specification and variable setting) needs revision. Firstly, please put each formula on a separate line and number the formula so the reader knows which you are referencing for the basic and moderating models are well. The moderating model is also overlapping within itself. It would also be helpful to have a table of variable names with the corresponding description.You will see further comments in the text, but please also make it clear why suppliers and customers do not need to be separated when discussing centrality. I assume it is due to knowledge transfer, but this could be more clearly defined to avoid confusion. It may also be helpful to test for the correlation of the variables with each other using a test like Pearson's r. Response: I rewrite this part and formed Variable Setting and Model Specification (page 6-7). I have added a table to interpret variables (page 7) and do the correlation of the variables (page 8). I also have added the reason why suppliers and customers do not need to be separated in the text (page 6). 4. Empirical results and discussion Please create a table of all the model names and which they are testing. It is very confusing that you introduce the models in the results section. This should rather be in the research design section, so the reader knows to expect results for a number of models, instead of just the three hypotheses. You may want to also introduce topics such as the state vs. non-state owned or life cycle in this section. It would be good to also present the effect in terms that are easier to interpret. The coefficient and significance tell us one thing, but ideally the reader should also know the strength of the effect in a more practical sense (since the results can also be used with practical implications). You introduce this in section 4.4. (moderating effects) by stating that a 1% rise in digital transformation increases innovation by 0.513% ... etc. This would be helpful for the main model as well. How does innovation performance increase/decrease when centrality is reduced by x%? for example. Response: I have revised models in Model Specification (page 7). Table 4 (H1and H2) and Table 6 (H3) are the results of basic model and moderating effect model, respectively (page 9,12). As for Moderating Effect Model Test, I rewrite this part with more practical implications (page 11,12). Reviewer 2 1. Keywords should ideally be phrases of 2-4 words. Research keywords are not selected Response: I have selected 4 words as keywords in the revised manuscript (page 1). Keywords: network centrality, structural holes, innovation performance, digital transformation 2.The second section (literature review) lacks a detailed review of the model and methodology what is the other method to analyze the problem? What is the other methods that used in existing literature? Why authors use this model to analyze the problem? Response: I have restructured Literature Review in the revised manuscript (page 3-4). Prior research has primarily used case studies or questionnaire surveys pertaining to supply chain networks. Some other studies focus on the social network analysis of firms in a sub-sector industry to examine the network-level supply chain relationship. We constructed the basic model and moderating effect model to test the relationship between supply network position and innovation performance and explore the role of digital transformation in the manufacturing field. 3. It is recommended that the authors use charts and diagrams to explain the model and also to analyze the results. Response: I have revised 4 Figures for heterogeneity analysis of basic model and discussion of moderating effect model instead of Tables (page 10-12). 4. Formula needs to be more rigorously expressed. For examples, some symbols are not expressed in italic. Response: I have checked the formula and revised it by Equation Editor in the Table 1 so that they can be clearly presented (page 7). 5. The authors need to provide a practical example to prove that the research problem originates from practice and assist readers in understanding this research Response: I have revised Introduction part and provided two examples(page 2). 6. Some more valuable managerial insights should be provided by sensitive analysis. Response: I have revised the moderating effect analysis and done more practical interpretation(page 11-12). 7. It is better to compare the results of this study with other similar studies. Also, the benefits of research are described Response: I have added Comparison with other studies in the text to do comparisons (page 12). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279133.r002
28 Oct 2022 Decision Letter - Ashkan Memari, Editor PONE-D-22-18835R1Supply network position, digital transformation and innovation performance: evidence from listed Chinese manufacturing firmsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. du, 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 Dec 12 2022 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, Ashkan Memari 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: 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: Dear Authors, Thank you very much for your updated manuscript. I have made a few more suggestions in the text, mostly concerning the introduction and literature review section. Here, there are still some parts that are unclear and/or could be improved. Please find my comments in the attached PDF document. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-18835_R1_reviewer_20.10.22.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279133.r003
Revision 2
1 Nov 2022 Author Response I'd like to thank the reviewer for his/her attentive reading, useful remarks, and constructive ideas, which have substantially enhanced the manuscript's presentation. Reviewer 1 I have made a few more suggestions in the text, mostly concerning the introduction and literature review section. Here, there are still some parts that are unclear and/or could be improved. Response: I have removed some sentences marked in the Introduction part (page2). I have paraphrased some sentences and reorganized the reference order in the Literature Review (page 3-4). In the Descriptive Statistics and Analysis part, spearman correlation and multicollinearity analysis are also performed. Even though several values are relative highly correlated; the results reveal that the maximum variance inflation factor (VIF) in Model (1)-(4) is 2.55, 2.54, 1.86 and 1.86, reflecting that there is no multicollinearity between the variables. Some other errs are corrected in the revised copy with track changes. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279133.r004
1 Dec 2022 Decision Letter - Ashkan Memari, Editor Supply network position, digital transformation and innovation performance: evidence from listed Chinese manufacturing firms PONE-D-22-18835R2 Dear Dr. du, 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, Ashkan Memari 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: Dear authors, Thank you very much for your edits. I made a few small grammar suggestions in the first section. This version is very clear and interesting to read! Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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 ******** Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-18835_R2_reviewer_v01.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279133.r005
Formally Accepted
5 Dec 2022 Acceptance Letter - Ashkan Memari, Editor PONE-D-22-18835R2 Supply network position, digital transformation and innovation performance: evidence from listed Chinese manufacturing firms Dear Dr. Du: 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 Dr. Ashkan Memari Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279133.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 .