PONE-D-23-15731Does digital transformation enhance the core competitiveness?--evidence from Chinese traditional manufacturingPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 27 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,

Syed Abdul Rehman Khan, 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. Please upload a copy of Figure 5, to which you refer in your text on page 13. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The reviewer believes that the topic “Does digital transformation enhance the core competitiveness?--evidence from Chinese traditional manufacturing” is worthy of investigation. However, the following needs to be addressed. There are minor and major issues that should be corrected. I believe the paper could be further strengthened by added information about.

Please reorganize the manuscript at the journal request. Please change the reference format.

The language of this manuscript is very bad and needs help from native speakers.

The title of the manuscript should fully demonstrate the content of this study and the relevant subjects.

Abstracts should include the purpose and findings of the study.

PARAGRAPH. Digital transformation is an important measure......... This a very vague statement. These sentences do not provide any information on how the concept could be conceptualized?

PARAGRAPH. Therefore, the discussion......... This section should explain the study's context and research objective. Furthermore, the research gap needs to be narrowed after analyzing the previous studies. The research method is not adequately explained in the first section.

-Introduction, what authors wanted to convey. Here author must build research gap following the previous studies.-The manuscript does not answer the following concerns: Why is it timeliness to explore such a study? What makes this study different from the previously published studies? Are there any similarly findings in line with the previously published studies? Are the findings different from prior academic studies that were conducted elsewhere, if any? For example, information Innovation and Innovation Ecosystems, what it requires, what are the new technologies, some recent issue highlights the importance. See the following: Enhancing Digital Innovation for the Sustainable Transformation of Manufacturing Industry: A Pressure-State-Response System Framework to Perceptions of Digital Green Innovation and Its Performance for Green and Intelligent Manufacturing

. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems10030072

-Methodology: Model.. I suggest authors here build your main heading on Research and data methodology. Clearly explain the model building process, and what previous studies have used similar models (model testing approach).

There is no flow in the text. It partly depends on the lack of proofreading but also on the fact that many statements and claims are made without being followed up by a clear and logical discussion. It is especially problematic in the Introduction that brings up a number of findings from different areas without linking them together.

Please make sure your conclusions' section underscores the scientific value-added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results. Highlight the novelty of your study.

In addition to summarizing the actions taken and results, please strengthen the explanation of their significance. It is recommended to use quantitative reasoning comparing with appropriate benchmarks, especially those stemming from previous work. See the following: How to Improve the Quality and Speed of Green New Product Development? Processes 2019, 7, 443. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr7070443

More importantly, the choice of the variables should be explained in light of the theory and the prior literature on the topic. The arguments are simply relationships and causes very close to the replication of many studies dealing with the same thing.

The authors should emphasize the important role of digital technology in green innovation in future research. Please consider this structure for manuscript final part.

-Discussion

-Conclusion

-Managerial Implication

-Practical/Social Implications

-Discussion needs to be a coherent and cohesive set of arguments that take us beyond this study in particular, and help us see the relevance of what authors have proposed. Authors should create an independent “Discussion” section. Author need to contextualize the findings in the literature, and need to be explicit about the added value of your study towards that literature. Also other studies should be cited to increase the theoretical background of each of the method used. Findings should be contextualized in the literature and should be explicit about the added value of the study towards the literature (An adoption-implementation framework of digital green knowledge to improve the performance of digital green innovation practices for industry 5.0, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132608.). Limitations and future research.

As any emprical study that use different approaches I would like to ask to introduce in the Conclusion section at least a paragraph containing the study limitations. I noticed some things in the paper but a synthesis of statements related to how the study is useful (or partially useful, since are required certain further analysis) and helps potential interested readers does not really exist. Maybe in addition to the last section of Conclusion it is beneficial to introduce a section called: Discussion.

Reviewer #2: It is a highly fascinating subject. The concept is emerging and might be helpful in today's actual world, specifically in the supply chain and technological transformations field. Therefore, I recommend this article for further process based on the paper's relevance, originality, need, and suitability for the journal. The introduction is skillfully crafted. However, the author may guarantee the order in which the concepts are explained and presented.

The literature review is skillfully prepared and effectively divides various topics with appropriate titles. Every hypothesis development is discussed in the literature, and it is a good idea to describe the theoretical framework after presenting the image. Similar to how the approach is taught, it is presented logically but still needs to be well integrated into the paper.

In addition, I wonder if the authors should revise their literature and incorporate more pertinent literature. A few of the pertinent articles I am providing to the author that must be incorporated into this study are listed below:

• Khan, S.A.R., Ahmad, Z., Sheikh, A.A. and Yu, Z. (2023), "Green technology adoption paving the way toward sustainable performance in circular economy: a case of Pakistani small and medium enterprises", International Journal of Innovation Science, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-10-2022-0199

• Rehman Khan SA, Ahmad Z, Sheikh AA, Yu Z. Digital transformation, smart technologies, and eco-innovation are paving the way toward sustainable supply chain performance. Science Progress. 2022;105(4). doi:10.1177/00368504221145648

• Khan, S. A. R., Tabish, M., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Embracement of industry 4.0 and sustainable supply chain practices under the shadow of practice-based view theory: ensuring environmental sustainability in corporate sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 398, 136609.

Last but not least, ensure all references are accurate and include all relevant information, such as the volume, issue, and page numbers. Well, the study complied with the requirements set forth by the esteemed publication by providing all pertinent data and by covering all essential topics. To ensure optimum refinement, the author should double-check each line while considering the sample article from a prominent publication.

**********

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: Yes: Dr. Adnan Ahmed Sheikh

**********

[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.

Does digital transformation enhance the core competitiveness?--Quasi-natural experimental evidence from Chinese traditional manufacturing

PONE-D-23-15731R1

Dear Dr. Zhang,

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,

Syed Abdul Rehman Khan, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript has significantly improved as compared to the previous version. Indeed, the authors tried to improve it, and the main weaknesses are solved.

Thus, in my opinion, the manuscript is recommendable for publication.

Reviewer #2: Authors have significantly incorporated the required changes. Before proceeding further, I will suggest the authors to please recheck the grammatical errors and sentence structure

**********

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: Dr. Adnan Ahmed Sheikh

**********