Green R & D investment, ESG reporting, and corporate green innovation performance

Fawad Rauf; Wang Wanqiu; Khwaja Naveed; Yanqiu Zhang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0299707

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 19, 2023
28 Nov 2023 Decision Letter - José Antonio Clemente Almendros, Editor PONE-D-23-34370Green R& D investment, ESG Reporting, and Corporate Green Innovation PerformancePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Rauf, 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. ==============================Although the topic is interesting, the current version is quited limited. I encourage you to follow all the suggestions from the reviewers.Additionally, I strongly recommend you the following suggestions. INTRODUCTION: make a compelling motivation and highlight how the paper stands out. Enrich the description of the literature gap. LITERATURE REVIEW: highlight which research stream the paper aims to fit into. The hypotheses should be underpinned with a theory or theories. Present the arguments in the light of some theoriesMETHODOLOGY: test potential endogeneity problem.DISCUSSION: Link to the literature review. Theoretical contribution of the paper.the paper should substantially contribute to a theory and create new knowledge in the field. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 12 2024 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, José Antonio Clemente Almendros, 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 [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: No 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: 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: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 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 and editor, First of all, many thanks for inviting me to review the manuscript titled “Green R& D investment, ESG Reporting, and Corporate Green Innovation Performance” (# PONE-D-23-34370) submitting to PLos One. After reading it by myself, I still point out these issues, although the topic is interesting and important. 1.The abstract is ok. 2.The keywords is ok. 3.The authors should add the value and contribution of the manuscript into the introduction section. 4.The section of literature review and hypothesis development is poor. The authors should rewrite it. 5.There is serious something wrong with methodology section. The quality of data collection is poor. 6.The authors should add more into the standard empirical research steps that need indeed. 7.The discussion section is poor, however, it is very important, that is the finding of the manuscript comparing with the previous studies. That is the value of the manuscript. 8.The authors should check all the references’ format based on Plos One’s papers published in the journal of Plos One. 9.The language over the whole manuscript should be polishing by native English speakers. 10.The value of present version is limited. 11.Besides, the value of research model is limited. Based on the quality and contribution of the manuscript, I should “Reject” and welcome the new submission in the future. Good Luck ! Oct 27, 2023 Reviewer #2: The paper seems good, but: a. improve the initial part (intro e literature) - see below for suggestion b. improve the methods with some scheme/figures c. improve the final part with some managerial and scientific implications d. realize a professional proofreading REFRENCES SUGGESTED 10.1504/IJMFA.2016.081854 Does a Board Characteristic Moderate the Relationship between CSR Practices and Financial Performance? Evidence from European ESG Firms Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 2021, 14(8), 354 Andewi Rokhmawati & Ardi Gunardi & Matteo Rossi, 2017. "How Powerful is Your Customers Reaction to Carbon Performance? Linking Carbon and Firm Financial Performance," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 7(6), pages 85-95 10.1504/IJMFA.2022.123895 ESG and corporate financial performance: the mediating role of green innovation: UK common law versus Germany civil law EuroMed Journal of Business, 2022, 17(1), pp. 46–71 Exploring the moderating role of social and ethical practices in the relationship between environmental disclosure and financial performance: evidence from esg companies Sustainability (Switzerland), 2022, 14(1), 209 The effect of corporate social responsibility and the executive compensation on implicit cost of equity: Evidence from French ESG data Sustainability (Switzerland), 2021, 13(20), 11510 The effect of corporate social responsibility practices on tax avoidance: an empirical study in the French context Competitiveness Review, 2022, 32(3), pp. 326–349 The effects of business ethics and corporate social responsibility on intellectual capital voluntary disclosure Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2021, 22(7), pp. 1–23 ****** 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: Matteo Rossi ******** [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.0299707.r001
Revision 1
12 Jan 2024 Author Response Reviewer #1: Dear authors and editor, First of all, many thanks for inviting me to review the manuscript titled “Green R& D investment, ESG Reporting, and Corporate Green Innovation Performance” (# PONE-D-23-34370) submitting to PLos One. After reading it by myself, I still point out these issues, although the topic is interesting and important. 1.The abstract is ok. 2.The keywords is ok. 3.The authors should add the value and contribution of the manuscript into the introduction section. Answer : We have meticulously revised the introduction section to emphasize the inherent value and contributions offered by our manuscript. Our focus was on elucidating how this research fills a notable gap in the field, providing unique insights into ESG reporting. The updated introduction now explicitly outlines the contributions of our study, illustrating its significance in advancing knowledge and offering novel perspectives. By integrating this clarification, we aim to provide readers with a clear understanding of the distinctive contributions and relevance of our work within the broader academic discourse." 4.The section of literature review and hypothesis development is poor. The authors should rewrite it. Answer: We acknowledge the feedback regarding the literature review and hypothesis development section and have taken substantial steps to enhance its quality. We've embarked on a thorough rewrite of this section, focusing on refining the literature review to encompass a more comprehensive examination of relevant scholarly works. Additionally, we've restructured the hypothesis development to ensure clarity, coherence, and alignment with the study's objectives. The revised section now offers a more robust synthesis of existing literature, presenting a clearer foundation for our hypotheses based on a rigorous review of prior research. These enhancements aim to strengthen the theoretical underpinnings and methodological framework of our study. 5.There is serious something wrong with methodology section. The quality of data collection is poor. Answer: We recognize the concerns raised about the methodology section, particularly regarding the quality of data collection. We have thoroughly revisited our methodology, focusing extensively on improving the data collection process to ensure its robustness and reliability. We've implemented stricter protocols, refined data collection techniques, and incorporated additional measures to enhance the overall quality and integrity of the data gathered. These adjustments aim to bolster the credibility and validity of our findings, ensuring a more rigorous and dependable foundation for our study." 6.The authors should add more into the standard empirical research steps that need indeed. Answer: We appreciate the feedback and have taken steps to bolster the comprehensive portrayal of the standard empirical research steps in our methodology section. We've expanded upon each empirical research step, providing additional detail and clarity regarding the procedures followed. This includes a more comprehensive depiction of data collection, analysis techniques employed, and the specific empirical methodologies applied in our study. By enriching this section, we aim to offer a more detailed and transparent account of our research methodology, ensuring readers have a clear understanding of the rigorous steps undertaken in our empirical investigation." I add significant additions to our methodology, incorporating regression analysis, fixed effects, one-year lagged variables, and a two-stage least squares (2SLS) approach. These methodological enhancements demonstrate a thorough and robust analytical framework, offering a comprehensive analysis of the data. 7.The discussion section is poor, however, it is very important, that is the finding of the manuscript comparing with the previous studies. That is the value of the manuscript. Answer: the discussion section holds immense significance, especially in delineating the manuscript's findings in comparison to previous studies. Recognizing this importance, we've placed substantial emphasis on revising and augmenting the discussion section. We've enriched this segment by meticulously comparing and contrasting our findings with existing literature, highlighting the unique contributions of our study in relation to prior research. This revised discussion section now provides a more comprehensive analysis, emphasizing the manuscript's value through a thorough interpretation and contextualization of our research outcomes in the broader academic landscape 8.The authors should check all the references’ format based on Plos One’s papers published in the journal of Plos One. Answer: "We acknowledge the need to ensure the conformity of our references' format with the guidelines specified in PLOS ONE's papers published in the journal. We have meticulously reviewed and adjusted all references in our manuscript to align with the prescribed format outlined in PLOS ONE's publication guidelines. This revision ensures consistency and adherence to the required referencing style of the journal, meeting the publication standards. 9.The language over the whole manuscript should be polishing by native English speakers. Answer: "We appreciate the feedback regarding language polishing and clarity within the manuscript. In response, we have engaged professional native English speakers to meticulously refine the language and improve the overall clarity of the manuscript. This step aims to ensure that the content is presented in a coherent and comprehensible manner, meeting the linguistic standards expected for publication." 10.The value of present version is limited. Answer: We acknowledge the critique regarding the current value attributed to the manuscript. We are committed to enhancing its worth and impact significantly. In response to this feedback, we will rigorously revise and augment the content, focusing on enriching the study's contribution, depth, and significance within the field. These revisions aim to substantially elevate the value and relevance of the present version, ensuring it makes a meaningful and notable contribution to the academic discourse." 11.Besides, the value of research model is limited. Answer: "We understand the feedback regarding limitations in the value of our research model. We are dedicated to fortifying the model's efficacy and robustness by revisiting its components, refining its structure, and incorporating additional elements where necessary. These enhancements aim to bolster the model's capacity to capture complexities, offer comprehensive insights, and deliver more substantial value within our research. We are committed to ensuring that the revised model contributes significantly to the study's overall strength and impact." Reviewer #2: The paper seems good, but: a. improve the initial part (intro e literature) - see below for suggestion Answer : We have meticulously revised the introduction section to emphasize the inherent value and contributions offered by our manuscript. Our focus was on elucidating how this research fills a notable gap in the field, providing unique insights into ESG reporting. The updated introduction now explicitly outlines the contributions of our study, illustrating its significance in advancing knowledge and offering novel perspectives. By integrating this clarification, we aim to provide readers with a clear understanding of the distinctive contributions and relevance of our work within the broader academic discourse." b. improve the methods with some scheme/figures Answer: Thank you for the suggestion to enhance the methods section with scheme/figures. We recognize the value of visual aids in clarifying complex procedures. To improve comprehension, we're actively working on incorporating schemes or figures into the methods section. These visual representations will effectively illustrate our research methodology, data collection processes, or analytical frameworks. By doing so, we aim to provide readers with a more accessible and comprehensive understanding of our research methodology." c. improve the final part with some managerial and scientific implications Answer: "Thank you for emphasizing the significance of including managerial and scientific implications in the final section. We understand the value of providing practical and academic insights derived from our research findings. In response to this feedback, we are actively working on enriching the final part by incorporating specific managerial implications to offer practical applications for businesses or relevant stakeholders. Additionally, we will expand on the scientific implications, discussing how our findings contribute to the advancement of knowledge within the field and identify potential future research directions. This addition aims to provide a more comprehensive conclusion, catering to both practical and academic interests." d. realize a professional proofreading Answer: "We appreciate the feedback regarding language polishing and clarity within the manuscript. In response, we have engaged professional native English speakers to meticulously refine the language and improve the overall clarity of the manuscript. This step aims to ensure that the content is presented in a coherent and comprehensible manner, meeting the linguistic standards expected for publication REFRENCES SUGGESTED 10.1504/IJMFA.2016.081854 Does a Board Characteristic Moderate the Relationship between CSR Practices and Financial Performance? Evidence from European ESG Firms Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 2021, 14(8), 354 Andewi Rokhmawati & Ardi Gunardi & Matteo Rossi, 2017. "How Powerful is Your Customers Reaction to Carbon Performance? Linking Carbon and Firm Financial Performance," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 7(6), pages 85-95 10.1504/IJMFA.2022.123895 ESG and corporate financial performance: the mediating role of green innovation: UK common law versus Germany civil law EuroMed Journal of Business, 2022, 17(1), pp. 46–71 Exploring the moderating role of social and ethical practices in the relationship between environmental disclosure and financial performance: evidence from esg companies Sustainability (Switzerland), 2022, 14(1), 209 The effect of corporate social responsibility and the executive compensation on implicit cost of equity: Evidence from French ESG data Sustainability (Switzerland), 2021, 13(20), 11510 The effect of corporate social responsibility practices on tax avoidance: an empirical study in the French context Competitiveness Review, 2022, 32(3), pp. 326–349 The effects of business ethics and corporate social responsibility on intellectual capital voluntary disclosure Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2021, 22(7), pp. 1–23 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Plos One reviewer Comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299707.r002
24 Jan 2024 Decision Letter - José Antonio Clemente Almendros, Editor PONE-D-23-34370R1Green R & D investment, ESG Reporting, and Corporate Green Innovation PerformancePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Rauf, 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 09 2024 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, José Antonio Clemente Almendros, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE [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: (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: No 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 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 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 and editor, First of all, many thanks for inviting me to review the manuscript titled “Green R& D investment, ESG Reporting, and Corporate Green Innovation Performance” (# PONE-D-23-34370R1) submitting to PLos One again. After reading it by myself, the revised version of the manuscript is too much improved, I still point out these issues, although the topic is interesting and important. 1.The abstract is ok now. 2.The keywords is ok now. 3.In the introduction section, the literature upon the topic “Green R& D investment and Corporate Green Innovation Performance” , the following can be cited, I suggest that Yi, R., Wang, H., Lyu, B. and Xia, Q. (2023). "Does venture capital help to promote open innovation practice? Evidence from China", European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-03-2021-0161 Ullah, S., Ahmad, T., Lyu, B., Sami, A., Kukreti, M. and Yvaz, A. (2023), "Integrating external stakeholders for improvement in green innovation performance: role of green knowledge integration capability and regulatory pressure", International Journal of Innovation Science, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-12-2022-0237 4.The section of literature review and hypothesis development should be updated. The authors can cite the following literature, I suggest that Rui Yi, Sangsang Liu & Bei Lyu (2023) A bibliometric and visualization analysis of Artisan entrepreneurship, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, early access. DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2023.2290152 Bei Lyu, Rui Yi, Guangcan Fan, Yuezhou Zhang.(2023). Stakeholder network for developing open innovation practice of China’s manufacturing enterprises. Heliyon, 9, e13192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13192 5.Before “3. Data Collection, Quantification, and Study Methodology”, the authors should add the fig. of research model. 6.The authors should add more into the standard empirical research steps that need indeed, for example, the authors should illustrate the definition of the variables in ONE table. 7.The discussion section is missing, however, it is very important, that is the finding of the manuscript comparing with the previous studies. That is the value of the manuscript. So, the authors should add the section. 8.The authors should check all the references’ format based on Plos One’s papers published in the journal of Plos One. 9.The language over the whole manuscript should be polishing strictly again by native English speakers again. 10.The authors should also pay more attention to the format of all the tables and figures. Therefore, based on the quality and contribution of the manuscript, I should “Major Revision” and welcome the revised submission in the future. All the best ! Good Luck ! Jan 19, 2024 Reviewer #2: Thank you for you revision. The paper is ready to publication. It is interesting and well 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: Matteo Rossi ******** [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.0299707.r003
Revision 2
9 Feb 2024 Author Response Reviewer #1: Dear authors and editor, First of all, many thanks for inviting me to review the manuscript titled “Green R& D investment, ESG Reporting, and Corporate Green Innovation Performance” (# PONE-D-23-34370R1) submitting to PLos One again. After reading it by myself, the revised version of the manuscript is too much improved, I still point out these issues, although the topic is interesting and important. 1.The abstract is ok now. 2.The keywords is ok now. 3.In the introduction section, the literature upon the topic “Green R& D investment and Corporate Green Innovation Performance” , the following can be cited, I suggest that Yi, R., Wang, H., Lyu, B. and Xia, Q. (2023). "Does venture capital help to promote open innovation practice? Evidence from China", European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-03-2021-0161 Ullah, S., Ahmad, T., Lyu, B., Sami, A., Kukreti, M. and Yvaz, A. (2023), "Integrating external stakeholders for improvement in green innovation performance: role of green knowledge integration capability and regulatory pressure", International Journal of Innovation Science, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-12-2022-0237 4.The section of literature review and hypothesis development should be updated. The authors can cite the following literature, I suggest that Rui Yi, Sangsang Liu & Bei Lyu (2023) A bibliometric and visualization analysis of Artisan entrepreneurship, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, early access. DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2023.2290152 Bei Lyu, Rui Yi, Guangcan Fan, Yuezhou Zhang.(2023). Stakeholder network for developing open innovation practice of China’s manufacturing enterprises. Heliyon, 9, e13192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13192 Answer: We have incorporated the references you suggested into the revised manuscript. These additions significantly contribute to strengthening the theoretical and empirical foundations of our study. 5.Before “3. Data Collection, Quantification, and Study Methodology”, the authors should add the fig. of research model. Answer: We have added the visual representation of the research model as Figure 1 6.The authors should add more into the standard empirical research steps that need indeed, for example, the authors should illustrate the definition of the variables in ONE table. Answer: Table 1: Definition of Variables," has been included in the research article. This table provides a clear and organized overview of the definitions of each variable involved in our study. 7.The discussion section is missing, however, it is very important, that is the finding of the manuscript comparing with the previous studies. That is the value of the manuscript. So, the authors should add the section. Answer: Within the discussion, we specifically underscore the significance of our findings in relation to existing literature. We aim to clearly articulate the manuscript's value by elucidating how our results contribute to the broader understanding of the subject matter. 8. The authors should check all the references’ format based on Plos One’s papers published in the journal of Plos One. Answer: We appreciate your careful review of our manuscript and your constructive feedback. 9.The language over the whole manuscript should be polishing strictly again by native English speakers again. Answer: We understand the importance of presenting our research in clear and polished language, and we are committed to delivering a manuscript that meets the highest linguistic standards. If there are specific areas or passages that you believe require further attention, please do not hesitate to point them out, and we will address them promptly. 10.The authors should also pay more attention to the format of all the tables and figures. Answer: We appreciate your meticulous review of our manuscript and the valuable feedback regarding the formatting of tables and figures. Recognizing the significance of clear and well-organized visuals in enhancing the manuscript's presentation. Therefore, based on the quality and contribution of the manuscript, I should “Major Revision” and welcome the revised submission in the future. Answer: Thank you for your thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for providing constructive feedback. We appreciate your insightful comments on the quality and contribution of our work. We understand the importance of making significant improvements to meet the standards of the journal. We acknowledge the "Major Revision" recommendation and are committed to addressing all the suggested revisions in a comprehensive manner. Your feedback is invaluable, and we believe that the enhancements will significantly strengthen the manuscript. We are grateful for your positive consideration and the opportunity to submit a revised version in the future. We will diligently work on incorporating the recommended changes and ensuring that the manuscript aligns with the expectations of the journal. If there are specific aspects you would like us to focus on or if you have additional guidance, please feel free to provide further instructions. We look forward to the opportunity to resubmit a refined version of our manuscript. Thank you once again for your time, feedback, and consideration. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Plos One reviewer Comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299707.r004
15 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - José Antonio Clemente Almendros, Editor Green R & D investment, ESG Reporting, and Corporate Green Innovation Performance PONE-D-23-34370R2 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, José Antonio Clemente Almendros, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299707.r005
Formally Accepted
17 Mar 2024 Acceptance Letter - José Antonio Clemente Almendros, Editor PONE-D-23-34370R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhang, 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 Dr. José Antonio Clemente Almendros Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299707.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 .