Analyzing the innovation ability of listed companies in the core area of the Huaihai economic zone

Qin-Xia Liu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0285181

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 21, 2022
16 Jan 2023 Decision Letter - Muhammad Khalid Bashir, Editor PONE-D-22-34910Research on the Innovation Ability of Different Listed Companies in the Core Area of the Huaihai Economic ZonePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Liu, 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. ============================== The reviewers have suggested minor revision, please see attached / below this email. Once you login to your account, you'll be able to see the comments and suggestions. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 02 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, Muhammad Khalid Bashir, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: " This work was supported by the Xuzhou Social Science Research Project, No. 22XSM-167, Study on benchmarking gap and promotion path between Xuzhou and national central cities; Project of Jiangsu Vocational Institute of Architectural Technology, No. JYA320-24, Evaluation and comparative study on the primacy of scientific and technological innovation in Xuzhou from the perspective of value chain." Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "This work was supported by the Xuzhou Social Science Research Project, No. 22XSM-167, Study on benchmarking gap and promotion path between Xuzhou and national central cities; Project of Jiangsu Vocational Institute of Architectural Technology, No. JYA320-24, Evaluation and comparative study on the primacy of scientific and technological innovation in Xuzhou from the perspective of value chain." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: " This work was supported by the Xuzhou Social Science Research Project, No. 22XSM-167, Study on benchmarking gap and promotion path between Xuzhou and national central cities; Project of Jiangsu Vocational Institute of Architectural Technology, No. JYA320-24, Evaluation and comparative study on the primacy of scientific and technological innovation in Xuzhou from the perspective of value chain." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. 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. 6. 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: Please incorporate the suggested changes. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Title 1. Instead of using word “Research” use some other appropriate word describing the main objective of the study such as “Analyzing the innovative ...” Or 2. “Identifying determinants of innovative……..” or “Factors affecting innovative …….” as at end of the introduction while describing objectives author(s) Abstract 1. Add the importance/justification of the study i.e. why this research has been undertaken in the beginning and then describe the objectives of the study. 2. Add importance/justification the choice of the “Entropy Weight Analysis” method and description of source of the data collection. 3. In the last 2-3 sentences of the abstract, actual results, concluding statement and main recommendation(s) should be provided. Introduction 1. Justification of the study is lacking. Why the objectives of the study are important for conducting this research. Problem statement should clearly be defined and objectives should be described more clearly. 2. Avoid long sentences and use proper punctuation, commas and semicolons, to separate the parts of a sentence so that reader can easily understand what the author intends to say. Review of Literature 1. All/most of the review should be comprehended. Review of about nine studies is added while Author(s) stated in the beginning of the last paragraph of the review of literature that comprehensive research is available and also mentioned the various methods e.g. factor analysis. So, all such literature should be comprehended. 2. If possible, provide the conceptual framework of the study Methodology (Study Design) 1. Instead of study design as a main heading, heading such as methodology or data and methods etc can be given and study design could be the sub-headings 2. Write some intro of study design before the heading “Construction of the innovation capability evaluation index system” to depict what is going to be written in upcoming sub-headings 3. A heading, “Theoretical Background”, may be added for presenting theories used / theoretical literature. 4. Data collection and analytical methods (Entropy Method) should be backed by the literature and justification should be provided that why this is preferred over other methods such as factor analysis widely used in the literature. Results and Discussion (Evaluation of the innovation ability of listed companies in the core area of the Huaihai economic zone) 1. Instead of “Evaluation of the innovation ability of listed companies in the core area of the Huaihai economic zone”, Results and Discussion” heading may be used and sub-headings under this main headings could be used 2. Table 6 onward and figure 2 onward, only the findings re described and expected reasons behind these findings are lacking. It is suggested that some logics behind these findings should be added 3. Top companies with high input and high output should be explained well so that they can serve as role model. 4. Comparison of this study with the earlier studies is not added. Such discussion must be added so that reader can have a clear idea that how the findings of this study support or contradict the findings of earlier studies. Suggestions Suggestions must come from the findings of the data analysis of the study. In this regard, improve suggestion 2 and 3. Advantages and Disadvantages 1. Advantages and Disadvantages of what? 2. Is it a proper place for this heading at end of suggestion 3. Find more appropriate place in introduction or in methodology or results and discussion Reviewer #2: This paper is a good effort to analyze innovation ability of companies in the Huaihai region. Methodolgoy of the entropy method is appropriate to address the objective of this study. In upcoming research on this aspect relying on just one method (entropy method) would not suffice. A mix method approach would provide better insight. ****** 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.0285181.r001
Revision 1
3 Mar 2023 Author Response Reviewer # Title 1. Instead of using word “Research” use some other appropriate word describing the main objective of the study such as “Analyzing the innovative ...” Or 2. “Identifying determinants of innovative……..” or “Factors affecting innovative …….” as at end of the introduction while describing objectives author(s) The title has been revised in accordance with these recommendations as follows: “Analyzing the innovation ability of listed companies in the core area of the Huaihai economic zone.” Abstract 1. Add the importance/justification of the study i.e. why this research has been undertaken in the beginning and then describe the objectives of the study. 2. Add importance/justification the choice of the “Entropy Weight Analysis” method and description of source of the data collection. 3. In the last 2-3 sentences of the abstract, actual results, concluding statement and main recommendation(s) should be provided. According to these recommendations, the abstract has been modified in three ways. First, the significance and the objective of the research have been highlighted. Second, the selection of methods were included, and the sources of data collection have been added. Third, conclusions and main recommendations have been provided at the end of the abstract. Introduction 1. Justification of the study is lacking. Why the objectives of the study are important for conducting this research. Problem statement should clearly be defined and objectives should be described more clearly. 2. Avoid long sentences and use proper punctuation, commas and semicolons, to separate the parts of a sentence so that reader can easily understand what the author intends to say. In accordance with these recommendations, the introduction has been revised. A statement of the significance and objectives of the study has been added, and the language and content have been polished. Review of Literature 1. All/most of the review should be comprehended. Review of about nine studies is added while Author(s) stated in the beginning of the last paragraph of the review of literature that comprehensive research is available and also mentioned the various methods e.g. factor analysis. So, all such literature should be comprehended. 2. If possible, provide the conceptual framework of the study The literature review has been polished and modified to make the content easier to understand; it also provides a conceptual framework for the research. Methodology (Study Design) 1. Instead of study design as a main heading, heading such as methodology or data and methods etc can be given and study design could be the sub-headings The main heading has been revised as suggested. 2. Write some intro of study design before the heading “Construction of the innovation capability evaluation index system” to depict what is going to be written in upcoming sub-headings According to the recommendations, the content about the research design has been revised, and the sample sources and research methods have been introduced. 3. A heading, “Theoretical Background”, may be added for presenting theories used / theoretical literature. The Theoretical Background heading has been added as suggested. 4. Data collection and analytical methods (Entropy Method) should be backed by the literature and justification should be provided that why this is preferred over other methods such as factor Because the research object of this paper is panel data, the entropy method is more suitable than the factor analysis method. In addition, to conduct more comprehensive and scientific research, this paper also adds the TOPSIS-Entropy combined method to compare and verify the previous analysis results. Results and Discussion (Evaluation of the innovation ability of listed companies in the core area of the Huaihai economic zone) 1. Instead of “Evaluation of the innovation ability of listed companies in the core area of the Huaihai economic zone”, Results and Discussion” heading may be used and sub-headings under this main headings could be used The heading has been revised as suggested. 2. Table 6 onward and figure 2 onward, only the findings re described and expected reasons behind these findings are lacking. It is suggested that some logics behind these findings should be added The survey results and the expected reasons for these findings have been added in accordance with these recommendations. 3. Top companies with high input and high output should be explained well so that they can serve as role model. According to these recommendations, the analysis of typical model enterprises with high input and high output has been further explained (e.g., Hengrui). 4. Comparison of this study with the earlier studies is not added. Such discussion must be added so that reader can have a clear idea that how the findings of this study support or contradict the findings of earlier studies. Due to the lack of research on the innovation ability of the listed enterprises in the Huaihai Economic Zone, there is no way to compare our research with earlier studies. Therefore, this paper adds the TOPSIS-Entropy combined method as a comparative supplementary analysis method to evaluate the Huaihai Economic Zone more scientifically and comprehensively. Suggestions Suggestions must come from the findings of the data analysis of the study. In this regard, improve suggestion 2 and 3. This part has been modified and improved according to these suggestions. Reviewer #2: This paper is a good effort to analyze innovation ability of companies in the Huaihai region. Methodolgoy of the entropy method is appropriate to address the objective of this study. In upcoming research on this aspect relying on just one method (entropy method) would not suffice. A mix method approach would provide better insight. The paper has been modified and improved according to these suggestions, and the TOPSIS-Entropy combined method has been added. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285181.r002
18 Apr 2023 Decision Letter - Muhammad Khalid Bashir, Editor Analyzing the innovation ability of listed companies in the core area of the Huaihai economic zone PONE-D-22-34910R1 Dear Dr. Liu, 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, Muhammad Khalid Bashir, 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: (No Response) 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: (No Response) 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: (No Response) 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: Yes: Tahira Sadaf ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285181.r003
Formally Accepted
20 Apr 2023 Acceptance Letter - Muhammad Khalid Bashir, Editor PONE-D-22-34910R1 Analyzing the innovation ability of listed companies in the core area of the Huaihai economic zone Dear Dr. Liu: 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. Muhammad Khalid Bashir Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285181.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 .