Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 24, 2023
Decision Letter - Bing Xue, Editor

PONE-D-23-26959The impact of environmental regulatory instruments on agribusiness technology innovation - A study of configuration effects based on fsQCAPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Xia,

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 Nov 12 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: 

    "We acknowledge the helpful comments from the anonymous reviewers and the financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 72073054), Jiangxi Provincial Social Science "14th Five-Year Plan" (2022) Fund Project (Grant No. 22WT60), Jiangxi Provincial Social Science Foundation Key Project (Grant No. 22ZXQH07), and Jiangxi Provincial Specific Funds Project for Postgraduate Innovation (Grant No. YC2022-B135)."

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: 

   "We acknowledge the financial support from:

National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 72073054) for L. Zhang;

Jiangxi Provincial Social Science "14th Five-Year Plan" (2022) Fund Project (Grant No. 22WT60) for J. Xia, & L. Zhang;

Jiangxi Provincial Social Science Foundation Key Project (Grant No. 22ZXQH07) for L. Zhang;

Jiangxi Provincial Specific Funds Project for Postgraduate Innovation (Grant No. YC2022-B135) for J. Xia.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

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

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. 

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

**********

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: Dear author,

After carefully examining your manuscript, we believe that this is a well-written paper containing interesting results that merit publication. For the benefit of the readers, however, a number of points need clarifying and certain statements require further justification. They are given as below:

1. Introduction: Agriculture-related businesses need to be more closely connected. It is essential to concentrate more on agricultural businesses than on other enterprises, taking into account the analysis of the reported outcomes.

2. Supporting Literature: The majority of the research discussed in this article relates to China, and it is advised that it be better applied in conjunction with pertinent international research.

3. Limitations and Further Research: It would be helpful if you discussed the limitations of your study more explicitly. The manuscript lacks directions on future research or the next steps following this study’s completion. Please consider providing some guidance in this area.

In conclusion, we think the subject matter covered in this paper is significant, the research techniques employed are innovative, and the article can be considered publishable after appropriate minor revisions. Look forward to reading your essay once it has been revised.

Best regards

Reviewer #2: Dear author,

This study applies fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis, a novel methodology, to examine the causal links between environmental regulatory tools and technical innovation in agribusiness. The research was meticulously conducted, and the results are intriguing. Here are some suggested minor revisions:

1. Introduction: The application of the QCA method here is relatively novel. But the way the questions are raised should be smoother. After reviewing the current literature on environmental regulation and enterprise innovation, it is recommended to emphasize that previous literature did not consider the issue of configuration, in order to raise your question and innovation.

2. Methodology and Organization: It is unnecessary to give a thorough explanation of the QCA method's introduction as is done in textbooks. Please be kindly suggested to highlight the features of the fsQCA that were used and the justifications for its applicability.

3. Clarity and Accuracy: It should be mentioned that the manuscript contains a few grammatical and typographical errors. Term consistency is required for the entire text.

In conclusion, the topic discussed in this article is worth attention and the method of research is innovative. However, several minor issues must be addressed before publication. We appreciate your hard work and look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Wang Tuzhan

**********

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: renamed_ee900.docx
Revision 1

Dear editors and reviewers,

We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedbacks, which we utilized to improve the quality of our manuscript. The reviewer comments are presented in italics below, followed by our response in regular font and changes to the manuscript in blue text. The key corrections in the paper, along with the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Reviewer #1

1. Introduction: Agriculture-related businesses need to be more closely connected. It is essential to concentrate more on agricultural businesses than on other enterprises, taking into account the analysis of the reported outcomes.

Thank you for the valuable advice. One of the reasons we chose to focus on agriculture in this paper is because there aren’t as many research on the connection between environmental regulation and technical innovation in the context of agribusiness.

Nevertheless, please refer to line 41, 44, 77, and 127 in the INTRODUCTION part (in the marked manuscript) and REFERENCE 1, 2, 11, and 23 for the addition of new pertinent publications.

2. Supporting Literature: The majority of the research discussed in this article relates to China, and it is advised that it be better applied in conjunction with pertinent international research.

We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. We have checked the literature carefully and added more references on the relevant research conducted in the countries and regions other than China in the revised manuscript.

Please refer to the revisions in the manuscript, mainly the line 72, 74, and 131 in the INTRODUCTION part and REFERENCE 5,7, 9, and 25.

3. Limitations and Further Research: It would be helpful if you discussed the limitations of your study more explicitly. The manuscript lacks directions on future research or the next steps following this study’s completion. Please consider providing some guidance in this area.

Thanks for pointing it out. We have added a paragraph indicating the limitations of this paper and the future direction of research.

Please kindly refer to line 662 to 667 in the updated manuscript.

Reviewer #2

1. Introduction: The application of the QCA method here is relatively novel. But the way the questions are raised should be smoother. After reviewing the current literature on environmental regulation and enterprise innovation, it is recommended to emphasize that previous literature did not consider the issue of configuration, in order to raise your question and innovation.

Thanks for the valuable suggestions. We have added summary about methodology of previous studies and raised the necessity of applying QCA method.

Please kindly refer to line 138-153, and 162 in the INTRODUCTION part and REFERENCE 27 and 28.

2. Methodology and Organization: It is unnecessary to give a thorough explanation of the QCA method's introduction as is done in textbooks. Please be kindly suggested to highlight the features of the fsQCA that were used and the justifications for its applicability.

We have reorganized the RESEARCH METHODOLOGY part, emphasized more on the applicability of fsQCA.

Please kindly see the amended line 178-187 and 230-233.

3. Clarity and Accuracy: It should be mentioned that the manuscript contains a few grammatical and typographical errors. Term consistency is required for the entire text.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some adjustments to the entire manuscript, including paraphrasing sentences to improve the content flow and fixing typos and grammatical errors. These changes will not influence the structure and substance of the paper. Please kindly see the change tracks in the documents as we couldn’t list all the amendments here. We earnestly appreciate the thoughtful effort of the editors and reviewers and anticipate that the correction will be well received.

Furthermore, we have polished the typesetting of the manuscript again to meet PLOS ONE's style guidelines, deleted the acknowledgement about financial support in the manuscript, and updated the funding statement in the cover letter.

Thank you very much for your attention and time. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Jinglin Xia

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter-[PONE-D-23-26959].docx
Decision Letter - Bing Xue, Editor

The impact of environmental regulatory instruments on agribusiness technology innovation - A study of configuration effects based on fsQCA

PONE-D-23-26959R1

Dear Dr. Xia,

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-23-26959R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Xia,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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 customercare@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 .