Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 18, 2022
Decision Letter - Bing Xue, Editor

PONE-D-22-31829Regional intergenerational mobility and corporate innovation: Evidence from ChinaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Luo,

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 Mar 30 2023 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,

Bing Xue, Ph.D.

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

This study was supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China (20ARK006).

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

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

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

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

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

4. 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. 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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: This paper examines the impact of regional intergenerational mobility on corporate innovation based on the data from China Labor-force Dynamic Survey (CLDS) and A-share listed companies. They find that regional intergenerational mobility promotes corporate innovation both quantitatively and qualitatively, and government-enterprise human capital allocation and fairness perception are the two channels. I recommend that the paper can be accepted by the journal after minor revision. Before the publication, several errors should be corrected by the authors.

1. The introduction needs to be adjusted. Specifically, lines 66-77 in the original text need to be adjusted to the end of the text. Generally speaking, in the introduction, you only need to introduce the background and highlight the innovation of the article, without presenting the research results.

2. The research literature review is slightly weak and needs to be updated to 2022. More support is given in the literature review section.

3. “firm”, "Company" and “enterprise” need more accurate expression, or unified expression.

4. In the part of Empirical Results and analyzes, it is suggested to directly use variable meanings rather than abbreviations, which is more convenient for readers to understand. For example: Abmobility25, Hcapital, etc.

5. Set the tables according to journal guidelines.

6. The authors are advised to add the limitations of this study and possible future research directions after the conclusions and policy implications.

Reviewer #2: Dear authors,

Based on the title of the manuscript, it looks promising and can be an insightful study. However, there are some problems to be further improved as well. Please consider the following points to improve your work.

(1) In the abstract section, I note that regional intergenerational mobility has a positive impact on both quantity and quality of firm innovation. However, the authors do not explain this in section3.2.1. Detailed information is required.

(2) In Section 2.1, the authors also discuss the possible negative relationship between high regional intergenerational mobility and firm innovation. I think the hypothesis of H1B is not reliable, and it is not convenient for readers to understand the paper clearly. Therefore, I suggest this hypothesis can be removed.

(3) In Section 2.3, I suggest that the authors should be more detailed in their theoretical analysis.

(4) In Section 3.2.2, the authors should explain why absolute intergenerational mobility is chosen as the proxy variable for regional intergenerational mobility.

(5) In lines 281-282, for the sentence “Besides, we also controls the fixed effect of years and industries.”, the pronoun “we” must be used with a non-third-person form of a verb “control”.

(6) In line 309, it should be “As we can see”.

(7) In line 332, there is a spelling mistake in the word “obtanined”.

Reviewer #3: This paper investigates the impact and mechanism of regional intergenerational mobility on corporate innovation. Higher regional intergenerational mobility is found to have a significant positive impact on the innovative activities of local firms. This paper proposes the possible mechanisms for this finding, such as human capital allocation and fairness perception. This is an interesting topic and I have the following comments.

The authors need to add a sentence explaining the proposed methodology. Keywords must be written in alphabetical order.

The authors stated that this study follows a prior study that measures regional intergenerational mobility at the city level. However, they need to explain why this study should measure regional intergenerational mobility at the city level.

Significance (Table 2 and following) is not a %, but a number: 0.01, 0.05 etc.

The authors should add the study limitations and suggestions for future studies.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

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

Revision 1

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

First of all, please allow us to take this opportunity to express our heartfelt thanks to you for taking time out from your busy schedule to review this manuscript. You have provided us with constructive comments and suggestions, which are of great help for us to further improve this manuscript. We have carefully reviewed and revised the manuscript according to your valuable comments and suggestions. Here, we explain the revised work in detail below and provide the point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments. These changes have been provided in the file labeled "Response to Reviewers".

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Bing Xue, Editor

Regional intergenerational mobility and corporate innovation: Evidence from China

PONE-D-22-31829R1

Dear Dr. Luo,

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,

Bing Xue, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Bing Xue, Editor

PONE-D-22-31829R1

Regional intergenerational mobility and corporate innovation: Evidence from China

Dear Dr. Luo:

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

Professor Bing Xue

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

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

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

Learn more at ASAPbio .