PONE-D-23-38488Simulation study on symbiotic evolution of digital innovation ecosystemsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wu,

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 Feb 10 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.

Best regards,

Prof. (Assist.) Donato Morea, 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. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following: 

● The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

● A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

● A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

4. 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.

5. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

6. Please upload a copy of Figure 1-6. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text.

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: 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 “Simulation study on symbiotic evolution of digital innovation ecosystems” 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.

1.The title does not provide a core theme of the topic.

2.Please specify the source of the simulation data.

3.The language of this manuscript needs help from native speakers.

4.Please underscore the scientific value-added to your paper in your abstract. Your abstract should clearly state the essence of the problem you are addressing, what you did and what you found and recommend. That would help a prospective reader of the abstract to decide if they wish to read the entire article.

5.Introduction. This a very vague statement. These sentences do not provide any information on how the concept could be conceptualized? - The Introduction should have 1) a concise but complete justification of the topic's importance both academically and practically, and 2) an explanation of the gaps both in research and practice. Please review appropriate literature in the Introduction, with the research question clearly arising from that review.

6.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? What it requires, what are the new technologies, some recent issue highlights the importance. See the following: New Energy-Driven Construction Industry: Energy development in rural China towards clean energy system: Utilization status, co-benefit mechanism and countermeasures. Frontiers in Energy Research..

7.-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.

8.-More importantly, the choice of the questionnaire questions 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. For example, what is connection of upgrading path of manufacturing enterprises from the value perspective. See the following: Developing a conceptual partner matching framework for digital green innovation of agricultural high-end equipment manufacturing system toward agriculture 5.0: A Novel Niche Field Model Combined With Fuzzy VIKOR. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 924109.

9.-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).

See the following: "Incentive Mechanism for the Development of Rural New Energy Industry: New Energy Enterprise–Village Collective Linkages considering the Quantum Entanglement and Benefit Relationship", International Journal of Energy Research. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/1675858.

A stochastic differential game of low carbon technology sharing in collaborative innovation system of superior enterprises and inferior enterprises under uncertain environment, https://doi.org/10.1515/math-2018-0056

10.The authors should emphasize the important role of digital technology in future research. See the following: The Interaction Mechanism and Dynamic Evolution of Digital Green Innovation in the Integrated Green Building Supply Chain. Systems 2023, 11, 122. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11030122.

11.Please consider this structure for manuscript final part.

-Discussion

-Conclusion

-Managerial Implication

-Practical/Social Implications

12.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.

Reviewer #2: The introduction effectively outlines the focus on the symbiotic evolution of digital innovation ecosystems, setting the stage for the simulation study. However, there is a need for more explicit articulation of the research objectives and the specific research questions that the simulation aims to answer. Providing this clarity would enhance the reader's understanding of the study's purpose.

The paper briefly mentions the use of simulation but lacks a thorough justification for this methodology. Why was simulation chosen over other research methods? A more explicit discussion on the advantages and limitations of simulation in the context of studying digital innovation ecosystems would strengthen the research design.Simulation studies are heavily reliant on accurate validation and calibration processes. The paper should elaborate on how the simulation model's outputs were validated against real-world data or existing theoretical frameworks. A robust validation process enhances the reliability of simulation results.To connect innovation.See the following. Exploring the Effect of Buyer Engagement on Green Product Innovation: Empirical Evidence from Manufacturers. Business Strategy and the Environment. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2631

Interorganizational collaboration for innovation improvement in manufacturing: The mediating role of social performance, International journal of innovation management, https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919620500498.

While the paper mentions the simulation study's key findings, a more detailed presentation and discussion of these results are needed. How do the observed patterns or outcomes align with existing theories or expectations? A thorough analysis of the simulation results would contribute to the paper's significance and impact.The paper could benefit from a discussion of the practical implications of the simulation findings. How can stakeholders in digital innovation ecosystems apply the insights derived from the simulation to enhance collaboration, innovation, or sustainability? This discussion will enhance the paper's relevance to practitioners and policymakers.The paper needs a more robust integration with existing literature on digital innovation ecosystems. How do the simulation findings align with or challenge existing theories or empirical studies in this field? A comparative analysis would provide a richer context for interpreting the simulation results.

The conclusion should include a section on future research directions. Identifying potential areas for further exploration based on the simulation study's limitations or unanswered questions would contribute to the ongoing scholarly conversation on digital innovation ecosystems.

The paper is generally well-written, but attention should be given to clarity and readability. Complex terms or concepts should be explained, and the logical flow of the paper should be enhanced for easier comprehension.In summary, while the paper addresses an intriguing topic, improvements in articulating research objectives, justifying the simulation methodology, detailing model development, validating and calibrating the simulation, presenting key findings, discussing practical implications, comparing with existing literature, suggesting future research directions, and enhancing clarity would significantly strengthen the overall quality of the manuscript.

**********

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.

Multi-group symbiotic evolutionary mechanisms of a digital innovation ecosystem: Numerical simulation and case study

PONE-D-23-38488R1

Dear Dr. Wu,

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,

Prof. Donato Morea, Ph.D.

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: I find the topic of your research highly interesting, and I appreciate the effort you have put into presenting your work in a clear and concise manner. Your research is valuable to our readership, and I believe it will make a meaningful contribution to the field. The overall quality of your work, along with the thoroughness of your revisions, has led to its acceptance. I commend your dedication to improving the manuscript and effectively addressing the reviewers' comments.

**********

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: No

**********