Interregional circulation of credit resources and company innovation

Xinglin Liu; Yu Chen; Yan Xiong; Yanlin Wu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0309022

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 18, 2023
8 Apr 2024 Decision Letter - Hai Long, Editor PONE-D-23-42502Interregional circulation of credit resources and company innovationPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Liu, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 23 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, Hai Long Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ. 3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.] Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. Additional Editor Comments: The manuscript has to be English proofread by experts and attach the Editing certificate. [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: 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: 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: The research addresses a relevant and significant topic. The title of the article accurately reflects its content and objectives. The introduction is comprehensive, providing context for the research and clearly stating its purpose. The study's goal is well-defined, and the individual sections are logically organized. The literature review is detailed and follows a logical order. The paper references 69 sources, primarily articles, which are robust and valuable, largely reflecting current research—a critical aspect for the paper's relevance. The cited works were not only appropriately selected but also critically analyzed. Citation of sources is accurate and consistent. The research methods employed by the author are suitable and empirically sound. The findings and conclusions presented offer significant insights for policymakers. I recommend that this article be published after necessary minor improvements are made. Here are some recommendations I would like to offer to the authors: 1. The abstract is very brief, reducing its informative value. Expanding the abstract to include the research methods would be beneficial. 2. References to the sources of statistical data must be provided. 3. Discussion should contain a more thorough comparison of the results of the conducted research with those of the preceding studies. It is important to indicate where the outcomes align with, or diverge from, previous research. They are currently written in a manner similar to a literature review. 4. The conclusions of the study need to be clarified. Specifically, the Conclusion section states: "The results prove that the nonlocal loans encourage companies to increase R&D investment.” However, it is crucial to note that a correlation study does not establish causality but rather identifies a statistical association. 5. It would be desirable to include DOI (if available) in the list of references for articles. Reviewer #2: Please show the real problem , questions and objective in one section. Add recent studies. Present theoritical background Present limitations Present implication Hypothesis should be rewritten , heading should only show variables Present something about China industry DV SECTION must be expanded. Draw agraph showing relationships Show roubtness test ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309022.r001
Revision 1
4 Jun 2024 Author Response Dear Editor(s) and Reviewer(s), Thanks for your careful comments. We have attached great importance to them. Recently, the paper has been revised and submitted. The responses to your comments and the specific changes are presented as follows. Responses to Reviewer 1 Comment: The abstract is very brief, reducing its informative value. Expanding the abstract to include the research methods would be beneficial. Response: The content of the abstract has been extended. The Abstract emphasizes the difference between past research and this study at first. Then, the data source and methodology are briefly introduced. Next, research objectives and results are explained. Moreover, the results from the Discussion part highlight the role of nonlocal loans in supplementing disposable capital and the increase in innovation output. Finally, policy implications are provided. Details can be shown as follows. Although the impact of interest rates, repayment periods, and loan scales on loan consequences has been extensively studied, little attention has been paid to the geographical distance involved in loan transactions. This study collects the addresses of borrowing companies, listed companies, and banks. Nonlocal loans can be distinguished because the regional segmentations in the lending industry reflect the features of provincial boundaries. Using data from Chinese A-share listed companies from 2007 to 2022, this research explores the causes of nonlocal loans and their impact on company innovation. Nonlocal loans address the lack of local credit resources rather than financial constraints, supplementing disposable capital. This interregional circulation of credit resources facilitates innovation, particularly in financially undeveloped areas. This study excludes the possibility of research and development (R&D) manipulation and recognizes the increase in innovation output. The findings have implications for credit resource allocation and balanced regional development. Comment: References to the sources of statistical data must be provided. Response: The data sources and sample composition are introduced in detail. Besides, the dataset related to this paper would be provided in the Supporting Information and submitted to the system. Comment: Discussion should contain a more thorough comparison of the results of the conducted research with those of the preceding studies. It is important to indicate where the outcomes align with, or diverge from, previous research. They are currently written in a manner similar to a literature review. Response: The comparison results between this study and other findings can be provided at the beginning of the Discussion part. Current research widely criticizes the drawbacks of nonlocal loans but does not explain their occurrence. This study acknowledges the disadvantages of nonlocal loans in terms of repayment period, interest rate, and scale. While other findings introduce the condition of credit traps, this study highlights the function of nonlocal loans as supplementary capital, especially in financially undeveloped areas. The interregional circulation of credit resources can promote more balanced and inclusive regional development. For the positive effect of nonlocal loans on company innovation, some challenges are posed while some literature demonstrates that companies in areas with sufficient credit obtain fewer nonlocal loans but more innovation output. This article does not emphasize that nonlocal loans have more advantages than local loans but rather confirms the financing ability of the companies and the supplement of nonlocal loans to disposable capital. Some literature provides similar viewpoints that the circulation of credit resources may facilitate the adoption and diffusion of new technologies. Please view the details in the revised manuscript. Comment: The conclusions of the study need to be clarified. Specifically, the Conclusion section states: "The results prove that the nonlocal loans encourage companies to increase R&D investment.” However, it is crucial to note that a correlation study does not establish causality but rather identifies a statistical association. Response: It may not be coherent to directly show the positive effect of nonlocal loans on company innovation. The structure of this paper can be adjusted. The cause of nonlocal loans can be placed in the baseline results. Then, the positive effect of nonlocal loans can be indicated. The findings suggest that companies are compelled to seek nonlocal loans when the provincial financial development level is comparably low. When the lack of local credit resources is eased, the supplementary funds of nonlocal loans encourage companies to increase R&D investment. Moreover, company innovation in financially developed areas does not highly rely on nonlocal loans, but the innovation enthusiasm of companies in financially undeveloped areas could be greatly mobilized by the injection of nonlocal loans. We improve the coherence and logic of the explanation in the Conclusion part. Besides, we understand that the simultaneous presence of dependent and independent variables may imply a statistical association instead of a strong causality. Consequently, the value of a dependent variable in the next period can be estimated. Regressions in the revised manuscript obtain the effect of nonlocal loans on the current and future financing strategies of companies. This approach could be more understandable. The results are consistent with the original manuscript. Furthermore, this paper excludes the possibility of R&D manipulation and emphasizes the growth in the innovation output, especially the invention patents. Overall, the causality between nonlocal loans and company innovation can be improved. Comment: It would be desirable to include DOI (if available) in the list of references for articles. Response: The DOI has been added to the references. Responses to Reviewer 2 Comment: Please show the real problem , questions and objective in one section. Response: The Introduction Section presents the background of market segmentation and the advocation of the cross-provincial allocation of credit resources at first. Then, it provides a brief literature review and concludes the research gaps. Next, the research objectives of this paper are introduced. The findings and contributions are reported consequently. Comment: Add recent studies. Response: The literature review is inadequate in the previous manuscript. More recent studies have been added to the Introduction part of the revised manuscript. Moreover, we supplement some findings about recent studies and compare the difference between them and our research in the Discussion part. Past literature widely criticizes the drawbacks of nonlocal loans but does not explain their occurrence. This study highlights the function of nonlocal loans as supplementary capital, especially in the financially undeveloped areas. Some challenges are posed while some literature demonstrates that companies in areas with sufficient credit obtain fewer nonlocal loans but more innovation output. It is noteworthy that this article does not emphasize that nonlocal loans have more advantages than local loans but rather confirms the financing ability of the companies and the supplement of nonlocal loans to disposable capital. Comment: Present theoritical background Response: We have adjusted the Hypothesis Section, which mainly includes the causes of nonlocal loans, the effect of nonlocal loans on company innovation, and the influence of interest rate liberalization policy. The analysis is based on the resource dependence theory. The theory posits that organizations are interdependent with their external environment. They can adjust the degree of this dependence through various strategic options. In the context of corporate financing, companies may seek nonlocal bank loans if the credit resources provided by local banking institutions are insufficient to meet their operational or innovative needs. Then, we analyze the economic consequences of nonlocal loans. When explaining the results, we refer to the polarization theory. Without external intervention, the polarization effect will dominate the market and trigger the stratification of the economy. However, the findings of this paper reject the application of the polarization policy in China and confirm the interregional circulation of credit resources. The positive effect of nonlocal loans on companies in financially undeveloped areas helps to relieve the imbalance in regional economic development. The economic background has been reported in the Introduction Section. We highlight the market segmentation in China. Referring to the “Guideline on Accelerating the Construction of Shanghai International Financial Center and Providing Financial Support for the Integrated Development of the Yangtze River Delta”, the Chinese government tends to encourage the cross-provincial allocation of credit resources to balance the regional development. Hence, we introduce the topic of this paper. Comment: Present limitations Response: The limitations of past literature can be found in the Introduction part. Firstly, past research explores the effect of loans on innovation in terms of interest rate, loan scale, repayment period, and credit market accessibility [16, 17]. The geographic distance for loan business has received limited consideration. Secondly, the shortage of remote loan business has been emphasized while the reasons that companies obtain the loans have not been discussed deeply. The limitations of this paper are presented in the Limitations and prospects Section. The results are limited to Chinese A-share listed companies which are comparably large and mature. It could be more difficult for small companies to obtain nonlocal loans, then the effect of nonlocal loans might be questionable. Moreover, there might be some restrictions on the interregional circulation of credit resources in other countries, so the situation in this paper may not be widely applicable. Comment: Present implication Response: The implication of this paper is reported in the Conclusions and implications Section. The long geographic distance increases the difficulty in evaluating the loan default risk of the companies. Closer cooperation is required to be built for the banks in different regions. Sharing the regulatory information could be efficient and rigorous to identify high-quality companies in financially undeveloped areas, which helps banks provide financial support pertinently. In addition, the collaboration between banking institutions and China National Intellectual Property Administration could be improved, which makes it easier for banks to recognize innovative companies with great potential in financially undeveloped areas. Comment: Hypothesis should be rewritten , heading should only show variables Response: Both the contents and the headings of the Hypothesis development Section have been modified. We decide to propose the cause of nonlocal loans at first, from the perspective of financial development level and financing constraints. Then, the effect of nonlocal loans on company innovation can be analyzed. Next, the influence of loan interest rate liberalization policy can be considered. The logic chain may be more fluent. The analysis might be comparably ambiguous for the positive and negative effects of nonlocal loans on company innovation in the original manuscript. We have carefully adjusted the expression and made differentiated analyses. The overall expression of the Hypothesis development Section can be more coherent in the revised manuscript. Comment: Present something about China industry Response: Admittedly, industry research can reflect the condition of loan businesses in detail. We have tried to make some pie graphs to show the statistical results by industry and year. The results are strongly consistent in that the manufacturing and real estate industries have a remarkable proportion of loan businesses. Besides, the heterogenous analysis based on industries cannot be appropriately explained as the significance of the core explaining variable varies. Overall, we decide to describe the comprehensive condition of the loan business in China. In Figure 1, the shrink of loan business from 2019 to 2021 can be explained by the economic downturn caused by the Corona Virus Disease 2019. With the economic recovery in China, the expansion of the loan business has happened in 2022. In the Introduction Section, we highlight the special policy announced by the Chinese government. In February 2020, China issued a “Guideline on Accelerating the Construction of Shanghai International Financial Center and Providing Financial Support for the Integrated Development of the Yangtze River Delta” (Guideline). The Guideline encourages the cross-provincial allocation of credit resources. It aims to balance and meet the credit needs of companies in various provinces. Based on that, this paper sheds light on the interregional circulation of credit resources. Comment: DV SECTION must be expanded. Response: We place the cause of nonlocal loans in the baseline results. Then the content of the Discussion could be insufficient. We estimate the effective paths of nonlocal loans and observe the results of R&D manipulation and R&D output. This Section further strengthens the findings in the baseline results. The baseline results indicate that the main cause of nonlocal loans is the lack of local credit resources. The Discussion Section confirms that the capital replenishments stimulate companies in financially undeveloped areas to add R&D investment, which helps to relieve the imbalance in regional economic development. Moreover, the increase in R&D investment is not an opportunistic behavior for tax incentives. The injection of nonlocal loans contributes to more innovation output, especially for invention patents. This article does not emphasize that nonlocal loans have more advantages than local loans but rather highlights the financing ability of the companies and the supplement of nonlocal loans to disposable capital. Comment: Draw a graph showing relationships. Response: The information might be insufficient if a graph is designed to show the significance of coefficients only. Then, we decide to draw a graph to indicate the borrowing situation of Chinese companies from 2007 to 2022. It can be found in the Descriptive results. Figure 1 intuitively reports the growth and the fluctuation of loan businesses in China. For the overall trend, credit resources have been increasingly important to company financing. The number of companies with loan business experienced considerable growth in 2013. The loan interest rate liberalization policy has led to fewer financing costs since 2013. Then, companies are more willing to participate in the loan business. The shrink of loan business from 2019 to 2021 can be explained by the economic downturn caused by the Corona Virus Disease 2019. With the economic recovery in China, the expansion of the loan business has happened in 2022. The comparison results in Figure 1 indicate that companies are less likely to receive nonlocal loans. Although the policy has deepened the financial reform, the market segmentation in the loan business still exists. Comment: Show roubtness test. Response: The original manuscript sets the robustness test after the baseline results in the Main empirical results. It may be a misunderstanding. Then, we place the part in a separate section in the revised manuscript. The robustness tests contain the Reciprocal causation test, Selection bias test, and Alternative estimation of nonlocal loans. Results support the main findings of this paper. Apart from the modification above, some adjustments have been made. Firstly, the revised manuscript has been adjusted to meet PLOS ONE's style requirements. Secondly, the ORCID ID for the corresponding author has been supplemented. Thirdly, the dataset has been uploaded. Fourthly, we have polished the paper and improved the overall coherence of the writing. The manuscript has been English proofread by experts. The Editing certific Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: responses.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309022.r002
16 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Hai Long, Editor PONE-D-23-42502R1Interregional circulation of credit resources and company innovationPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Liu, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: Two reviewers have accepted the manuscript for publication, but one of the reviewers suggested an English proofreading. Please make an English editing with a professional institution and resubmit it with an English editing certificate. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 30 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, Hai Long Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. 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: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The author has taken my comments into account. The manuscript meets the journal's requirements. I recommend the article for publication. Reviewer #2: Required changes are met. The checking of English should be verfied. The writing style must be also checked by the journal ****** 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 ******** [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.0309022.r003
Revision 2
25 Jul 2024 Author Response Dear Reviewer(s), Thanks for your careful comments. We have attached great importance to them. Recently, the paper has been revised and submitted. The responses to your comments and the specific changes are presented as follows. Responses to Reviewer 1 Comment: The author has taken my comments into account. The manuscript meets the journal's requirements. I recommend the article for publication. Response: Thanks for your positive feedback on the manuscript. We appreciate you taking the time to provide constructive comments during the review process. It has helped us to improve the quality and clarity of the work. Responses to Reviewer 2 Comment: Required changes are met. The checking of English should be verfied. The writing style must be also checked by the journal. Response: We have adopted proofreading and editing services. Two editors from Cambridge Proofreading LLC have corrected the grammar and improved the readability of the text. The proofreading and editing certificates have been submitted to the system as separate files labeled 'Other'. Moreover, we have made some adjustments to ensure the manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements. We have checked the heading type and font. We have used the PACE tool to check the figure and convert it to the accepted format. Then, we have uploaded the figure separately. Consistent with the requirements, the manuscript can be presented in double-spaced paragraph format. Additionally, we have changed the in-text citations from the hyphen (-) to the en-dash (–), e.g., [1-2] -> [1–2]. As for references, the journal name should be used as an abbreviation. We have modified it. The Supporting information is required to be listed at the end of the manuscript in the template file. But it appears before the References in the published articles. After careful consideration, we ensure that the revised manuscript meets the requirements of the PLOS ONE style templates. The templates can be found at the links below. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf. We refer to published literature for some formats not mentioned in the template files. For example, The first letter is capitalized for “Supporting information”, while all words have their first letters capitalized for “Author Contributions”. Thanks for your valuable feedback. It enhances the clarity and comprehensiveness of our research. It also assists us in fulfilling the necessary requirements of the journal more effectively. We sincerely hope that the revised manuscript can be accepted for publication. Kind regards, Xinglin Liu Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309022.r004
1 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Hai Long, Editor Interregional circulation of credit resources and company innovation PONE-D-23-42502R2 Dear Dr. Liu Xinglin, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Hai Long Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309022.r005
Formally Accepted
9 Aug 2024 Acceptance Letter - Hai Long, Editor PONE-D-23-42502R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Liu, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now 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. Hai Long Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309022.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 .