Enhancing the energy level of regional digital innovation ecosystems: A configuration perspective

Rong Huang; Shuai Mao

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0309229

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 6, 2024
25 Apr 2024 Decision Letter - Ashfaque Ahmed Chowdhury, Editor PONE-D-24-05031Enhancing the Energy Level of Regional Digital Innovation Ecosystems: A Configuration PerspectivePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mao, 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 Jun 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, Ashfaque Ahmed Chowdhury, Ph.D., FHEA, FIEB Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "RH is supported by The Society Community Building Program of Hubei Association of Higher Education(https://www.hahe.org.cn/). Research on the Collaborative Evolution Path of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education Ecosystem in Local Universities (Grant No.: 2023XD104)" Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "This work was supported by the Society Community Building Program of the Hubei Association of Higher Education. Research on the Collaborative Evolution Path of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education Ecosystem in Local Universities (Grant No.: 2023XD104)" We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "RH is supported by The Society Community Building Program of Hubei Association of Higher Education(https://www.hahe.org.cn/). Research on the Collaborative Evolution Path of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education Ecosystem in Local Universities (Grant No.: 2023XD104)" Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. 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. 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: 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: 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: I think the author's literature is very interesting, but improving it can further enhance its quality. The specific modification suggestions are as follows: 1. Highlight the research focus and findings in the introduction section 2. Based on existing literature, attempt to propose research hypotheses 3. Further detailed description of the fsQCA method. Recommend this article to the author for learning https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12020053 4. Attempting to explain the hidden meanings of different configuration results using theory Reviewer #2: Reviewer's Report The paper titled "Enhancing the Energy Level of Regional Digital Innovation Ecosystems: A Configuration Perspective" explores the mechanisms of "energy level" in regional digital innovation ecosystems. This study, by integrating the "architects" theory, Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA), and Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA), examines the impact of different types of architects and digital innovation habitats on the energy levels of these ecosystems across 30 provinces in China. The main findings indicate that while no single antecedent condition can significantly affect the energy level alone, core innovation actors and digital infrastructures emerge as key factors. The paper identifies multiple concurrent causal relationships among architects and outlines three core configuration paths that drive high energy levels, classifying them as "core actor-infrastructure" driven. The article has its innovative aspects, but it still has shortcomings: First, the article provides a review and introduction to "regional innovation ecosystems." However, the term changes from "regional innovation ecosystems" to "regional digital innovation ecosystems" lacks clarity. The authors also do not explain what "regional digital innovation ecosystems" are or how they differ from "regional innovation ecosystems." This part should be clearly introduced before Figure 1. Second, rather than calling Figure 2 a theoretical model, it is more accurately described as the analytical framework of this article, based on the theoretical foundations in Section 2. I believe it should be placed in Section 3 instead of Section 2. Third, the section on data collection and indicator selection needs to be more detailed and specific. For example, the statement "data from 2018-2020 is chosen for the antecedent conditions" is vague. Specifically, which data from which year was used? Fourth, the author raised many questions in line 82 that need to be addressed in the conclusion section. Finally, although the author spends much space introducing and explaining the "Architects" Theory, I do not understand what distinguishes it from the general actors in an innovation ecosystem, or what additional value using the "Architects" Theory provides. Additional Points: On page four, the author's mention that "Concurrently, the advent of digital technology has revolutionized traditional economic models, giving rise to innovation actors" might confuse the reader. It is unclear whether the term "giving rise" refers to an increase in the number, type, or capabilities of innovation actors, and why. In line 89, the statement "Review of the literature reveals that research on the development paths of regional innovation ecosystems generally progresses through three stages" could be ambiguous. It might lead some readers to think it refers to the development of regional innovation ecosystems themselves rather than the evolution of research on them, which is often divided into three stages. At the end of line 106, it feels necessary to clarify which approach the paper uses. Any references to literature that are in Chinese should have "(in Chinese)" added after them to indicate the language of the sources. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PLOS ONE.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309229.r001
Revision 1
3 Jun 2024 Author Response Respond to Reviewer #1: 1. Highlight the research focus and findings in the introduction section. Response: We sincerely thank you for your thorough review and insightful suggestions regarding our paper. After receiving your feedback, we carefully reviewed the introduction section of our manuscript. We recognized that our initial presentation of the research focus was overly broad and that we had omitted a summary of the research findings. Following your recommendations, we have now included detailed descriptions of the research focus and main findings in the introduction section. These revisions aim to clarify the core content of our research. The specific changes are as follows: The research focus(L134): To address the research gaps mentioned above, this study will establish a framework for analyzing the architects of regional digital innovation ecosystems based on the "architects" theory. It will adopt a configurational perspective and utilize NCA along with fsQCA, which integrates quantitative and qualitative approaches, to analyze 30 provinces (cities, districts) in China. The aim is to explore the multiple simultaneous causal relationships and diverse configurational paths through which different combinations of influencing factors contribute to the elevation of the energy level of regional digital innovation ecosystems. The research findings (Line142): First, individual architects are not prerequisites for achieving a high energy level in the regional digital innovation ecosystem. However, core innovation actors and digital infrastructures emerge as pivotal conditions. Numerous concurrent causal relationships interconnect core innovation actors, collaborative innovation actors, digital governance actors, regulatory innovation actors, digital infrastructure, and digital innovation environments, forming a complex web of interrelated components. Second, the study reveals that the "core actor-infrastructure" pathway elevates the energy level of regional digital innovation ecosystems. A synergy between core innovation actors with high innovation levels and well-developed digital innovation infrastructure not only achieves a high energy level but also compensates for deficiencies in other antecedent conditions. Third, digital governance actors are identified as pivotal bottlenecks influencing the energy level. The results of the NCA demonstrate that the presence of digital governance actors is the sole necessary condition to attain a 10% energy leve. This emphasizes the fundamental role of digital governance actors in boosting the energy level. Finally, configuration pathways leading to a non-high energy level emphasize the importance of four key elements: core innovation actors, collaborative innovation actors, digital governance actors, and digital innovation environment. Without these, achieving a high energy level is unattainable, regardless of other conditions. Additionally, to provide readers with a better understanding of the paper's framework, we have included an overview of the article's structure at the end of the introduction (Line 162). The structure of this article is as follows: Section 2 provides the theoretical foundation and research hypotheses, Section 3 outlines the research methodology, variable selection, and data sources, Section 4 presents and discusses the research findings, Section 5 summarizes the research conclusions and contributions, and provides further research directions. We hope these revisions adequately reflect the focus and findings of our research. Thank you again for your valuable suggestions, which have helped clarify the direction of our study. 2. Based on existing literature, attempt to propose research hypotheses. Response: We sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback. In response to your review comments, we have re-examined the impact of architects on the enhancement of energy level of regional digital innovation ecosystem. We reviewed relevant literature and referenced the works of B. Liu et al. (2023), Owen, Vedanthachari, & Hussain (2023), Valavanidis (2020), Castañón & Bustamante (2021), Bejjani, Göcke, and Menter (2023), Makori (2023), Alqasa and Talat (2023), and Vaidian et al. (2022). Based on existing literature, we have proposed several potential research hypotheses to enhance the academic value and practicality of our paper. The specific hypotheses are as follows (Line 295): Hypothesis 1: Core innovation actors can effectively enhance the energy level of regional digital innovation ecosystems. Hypothesis 2: Collaborative innovation actors play a significant role in enhancing the energy level of regional digital innovation ecosystems. Hypothesis 3: Digital governance actors can effectively enhance the governance level of regional digital innovation ecosystems. Hypothesis 4: Regulating innovation actors play an important moderating and supporting role in the enhancement of the energy level of regional digital innovation ecosystems. Hypothesis 5: Digital infrastructures provide platform support for the elevation of the energy level of regional digital innovation ecosystems. Hypothesis 6: The digital innovation environment provides environmental security for the enhancement of the energy level of regional digital innovation ecosystems. These efforts have allowed us to gain a deeper understanding of the current academic progress on related issues. By proposing research hypotheses, we have not only provided direction for our study but also established a clear framework for data analysis and interpretation of results, thereby enhancing the structure of the paper. Thank you again for your patience and assistance. 3. Further detailed description of the fsQCA method. Recommend this article to the author for learning https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12020053. Response: We sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestions. Following your advice, we reviewed relevant literature and in the "3.1 NCA and fsQCA" section (Line 369), we referenced the research findings of Dou Z & Sun Y. (2024) to elaborate on the fundamental principles (Line 376). We highlighted that "The fsQCA utilizes a fuzzy membership calibration method to transform data into any numerical representation within the [0-1] interval, effectively avoiding the loss of data information during processing. It can be applied not only to categorical sample data but also to continuous data", and "The fsQCA method can detect multiple concurrent causal relationships and reveal the complex relationships among various actors' influences on the elevation of the energy level of regional digital innovation ecosystems from a holistic perspective", It identifies "which configurations of conditions lead to the occurrence of the outcome variable, and which configurations of conditions lead to the non-occurrence of the outcome variable." Which perfectly aligns with the multi-path research process of elevating the energy level of regional digital innovation ecosystems. For NCA (Line391), we referenced the findings of Dul, et al. (2023) and added, "NCA tests the necessity of conditional variables by employing two techniques: the Ceiling Envelope with Free Disposal Hull (CE-FDH) and Ceiling Regression with Free Disposal Hull (CR-FDH). This approach not only identifies the necessary conditions leading to the outcome variable from a quantitative perspective but also quantifies the magnitude and bottleneck degree of these necessary conditions." Thank you once again for your suggestions. 4. Attempting to explain the hidden meanings of different configuration results using theory. Response: We sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestions. Upon receiving your feedback, we carefully reviewed the manuscript and found that the explanation of the configuration results lacked theoretical support, appearing somewhat vague and hollow. Therefore, following your advice, we made some modifications to the manuscript, attempting to explain the configuration results of the elevation of the energy level of regional digital innovation ecosystems using endogenous growth theory, knowledge spillover theory, and resource-based theory, to enhance the interpretative power of the research results. The modified content is as follows (Line 704): According to endogenous growth theory, core innovation actors within a regional digital innovation ecosystem spontaneously absorb and learn from external resources, transforming them into their own innovation momentum. By leveraging their digital innovation capabilities, these actors create a spillover effect that enhances the ecosystem's ability to harness endogenous power and effectively match external R&D resources. Meanwhile, knowledge spillover theory suggests that the enhancement of regional innovation capacity relies not only on substantial investment in local R&D elements but also on the spatial flow of these elements, which brings in external innovation resources. However, in the absence of financial support and knowledge element mobility, most innovation actors within the ecosystem struggle to achieve breakthrough technological innovations. Digital infrastructure, exemplified by cloud platforms, maintains open data circulation channels through advantages such as cross-temporal and spatial information dissemination, data sharing, and low-cost information access. This creates an environment conducive to knowledge spillover, enhances the ease of knowledge acquisition in the region, and promotes the diffusion efficiency of knowledge spillover, thereby driving digital technology innovation. Ultimately, this leads to a high energy level of in the regional digital innovation ecosystem. Resource-based theory posits that a company's sustainable competitive advantage is built on a collection of valuable, rare, and inimitable resources. With robust regional digital infrastructure, the leverage effect of digital technology encourages innovative entities to increase long-term investments in upgrading digital software and hardware. This reduces the uncertainty risks caused by information asymmetry, lowers the marginal cost of knowledge dissemination, and mitigates the spatial and local limitations of knowledge spillover. Ultimately, this enhances the energy level of the regional digital innovation ecosystem. We hope that through these modifications, we can better explain the potential implications of different configuration results and enhance the depth of the research as well as the persuasiveness of the conclusions. Once again, we thank you for your guidance and support. We look forward to your further feedback. Respond to Reviewer #2: First, the article provides a review and introduction to "regional innovation ecosystems." However, the term changes from "regional innovation ecosystems" to "regional digital innovation ecosystems" lacks clarity. The authors also do not explain what "regional digital innovation ecosystems" are or how they differ from "regional innovation ecosystems." This part should be clearly introduced before Figure 1. Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. Based on your suggestions, we have made corresponding modifications and provided additional explanations in the manuscript. Now, let me provide detailed explanations of the specific changes: First, based on the studies of scholars such as Chen & Cai (2023), Li & Rao (2023), and Yi et al. (2023), we have defined the "regional digital innovation ecosystem" (Line 60) as follows: a regional digital innovation ecosystem refers to a complex, dynamic system characterized by the generation, application, and diffusion of digital innovation within a specific spatial and temporal context. This system operates within a digital ecological framework and functions through the competition and cooperation of digital innovation-related actors engaged in value co-creation. In this definition, constraining the regional digital innovation ecosystem within specific geographical and temporal boundaries implies that its activities and impacts can be identified and analyzed within a defined framework. The term "Digital ecological framework" denotes that the ecosystem operates within a digitalized environment, relying on digital technologies, platforms, and infrastructure such as the internet, cloud computing, and big data. "Competition and cooperation" suggest that actors within the ecosystem engage in both competitive and cooperative relationships, fostering efficiency through competition while facilitating resource sharing and value co-creation through cooperation. "Complex" underscores that the regional digital innovation ecosystem is a complex system comprising numerous interconnected elements and participants, whose operational mechanisms and outcomes are challenging to fully anticipate and manage. "Dynamic" highlights that the ecosystem exhibits dynamic characteristics, continuously evolving with changes in time and space, reflecting the influence of various factors such as technological advancements, shifts in market demand, and policy adjustments. Collectively, these characteristics delineate a regional digital innovation ecosystem grounded in digital technologies and platforms, propelled by the competitive and cooperative interactions of diverse actors to foster innovation. Second, we have delineated the distinctions between "regional digital innovation ecosystems" and "regional innovation ecosystems" (Line 64): Compared with the traditional regional innovation ecosystem, the regional digital innovation ecosystem is supported by digital technology with convergence characteristics, which facilitates a closer symbiotic relationship of mutual synergy among constituent elements such as innovation actors and innovation resources. Furthermore, the driving effect of regional digital innovation ecosystems on regional innovation development has become more pronounced due to the enabling role and platform effect of digital innovation. According to the above content, the primary distinction between the regional digital innovation ecosystem and the regional innovation ecosystem lies in technological support. The regional innovation ecosystem predominantly relies on physical infrastructure and traditional technologies, whereas the regional digital innovation ecosystem is supported by convergent digital technologies. Influenced by these different technological supports, regarding collaborative relationships, the regional innovation ecosystem primarily interacts through physical space and traditional methods, resulting in relatively loose collaborative relationships among innovation actors. Conversely, the regional digital innovation ecosystem, facilitated by digital technology, fosters more closely interdependent relationships and cultivates tighter symbiotic relationships among its actors. Regarding driving forces, the regional innovation ecosystem mainly depends on the accumulation and input of traditional industries and offline resources, whereas the regional digital innovation ecosystem achieves faster innovation diffusion and application primarily through digital technology and platforms, exerting a more significant driving force on regional innovation development. With the above supplements, we aim to enhance the coherence of the paper's logic and the clarity of the research objects. Once again, thank you for your thorough review and constructive suggestions on our paper, which have made it more comprehensive and rigorous. We eagerly anticipate your further feedback. Second, rather than calling Figure 2 a theoretical model, it is more accurately described as the analytical framework of this article, based on the theoretical foundations in Section 2. I believe it should be placed in Section 3 instead of Section 2. Response: Thank you very much for your constructive suggestions. We have found that renaming "Figure 2" to "Analytical Framework" is indeed more accurate. Following your advice, we have made modifications to the relevant content to better reflect the nature and position of Figure 2. The specific changes are as follows: Regarding the description of Figure 2, we have revised the title of Figure 2 to "Analytical Framework" (Line 516) to more accurately describe its role in the article. Regarding the positioning of Figure 2, we have moved Figure 2 from section 2.2 to " https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309229.r002
10 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Ashfaque Ahmed Chowdhury, Editor PONE-D-24-05031R1Enhancing the Energy Level of Regional Digital Innovation Ecosystems: A Configuration PerspectivePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mao, 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 Aug 24 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, Ashfaque Ahmed Chowdhury, Ph.D., FHEA, FIEB 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: 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: 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 made revisions based on the review comments and returned to the relevant issues. This research work is worthy of recognition Reviewer #2: Overall, the paper has seen significant improvement and has effectively addressed the issues I raised in the previous version. The revisions have greatly enhanced the clarity and coherence of the manuscript. However, from the subheadings, it appears that Section 4 is more focused on analysis and results rather than just the analysis process. I suggest the author review and refine the subheadings to accurately reflect the content of each section. This will help in better organizing the manuscript and guiding the reader through the findings. ****** 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.0309229.r003
Revision 2
20 Jul 2024 Author Response Respond to Reviewer #1: 1.The author made revisions based on the review comments and returned to the relevant issues. This research work is worthy of recognition Response: Thank you for all your constructive suggestions which improved the quality of our paper. Thank you so much. Respond to Reviewer #2: 1.Overall, the paper has seen significant improvement and has effectively addressed the issues I raised in the previous version. The revisions have greatly enhanced the clarity and coherence of the manuscript. However, from the subheadings, it appears that Section 4 is more focused on analysis and results rather than just the analysis process. I suggest the author review and refine the subheadings to accurately reflect the content of each section. This will help in better organizing the manuscript and guiding the reader through the findings. Response: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. In the fourth section of our manuscript, the content indeed includes the results of the analysis, so having "Analysis" as the title alone is neither comprehensive nor accurate. We appreciate your suggestion and have changed the title of the fourth section to "Analysis and results." Following your advice, we have revisited all the subtitles in the manuscript. We reviewed papers on the PLOS ONE website that adopted similar research methodologies., and referred to the paper structures of scholars such as Huang, Y., Li, K., & Li, P. (2023), Gong, Z., Wang, Y., & Li, M. (2024), Wang, Q., Gao, Y., Cao, Q., Li, Z., & Wang, R. (2023), Miao, Z., & Zhao, G. (2023), and Pappas, I. O., Kourouthanassis, P. E., Giannakos, M. N., & Chrissikopoulos, V. (2016). Based on these references, we have re-examined and modified all the subtitles in our manuscript to better reflect the content of each section. Additionally, we have adjusted the capitalization of all subtitles (including figure and table captions) according to the journal's submission requirements, hoping to better align with the journal's standards. The specific adjustments are as follows: The original fourth section "Analysis" has been changed to "Analysis and results". The fifth section "Conclusions" has been changed to "Conclusions, implications, and prospects". Specifically, "Concluding Remarks" has been changed to "Conclusions". " Contributions and Practical Implications" has been changed to "Theoretical and practical implications". "Limitations and Future Directions" has been changed to "Limitations and prospects". The adjusted structure of the manuscript is as follows: "Section 1, Introduction Section 2, Theoretical foundation and research hypothesis Section 3, Materials and methods Section 4, Analysis and results Section 5, Conclusions, implications, and prospects" We hope that these changes accurately reflect the content of the study and help readers quickly grasp the research framework of the paper. Once again, we sincerely thank you for your suggestions, which have made our paper's structure clearer and more reasonable. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309229.r004
8 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Ashfaque Ahmed Chowdhury, Editor Enhancing the Energy Level of Regional Digital Innovation Ecosystems: A Configuration Perspective PONE-D-24-05031R2 Dear Dr. Mao, 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, Ashfaque Ahmed Chowdhury, Ph.D., FHEA, FIEB Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309229.r005
Formally Accepted
13 Aug 2024 Acceptance Letter - Ashfaque Ahmed Chowdhury, Editor PONE-D-24-05031R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mao, 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. Ashfaque Ahmed Chowdhury Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309229.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 .