Macro tax burden, FDI, and national innovation efficiency: A study on the impact of macro tax burden on national innovation efficiency

Xiaobo Shen; Pingsheng Dai

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0312451

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 22, 2024
13 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Mosi Rosenboim, Editor PONE-D-24-14404Macro tax burden, FDI, and national innovation efficiency: A study on the impact of macro tax burden on national innovation efficiencyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dai, 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 Sep 27 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, Mosi Rosenboim 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 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. Additional Editor Comments: Now I received reports from two judges. Please review the suggestions of both judges and correct the comments accordingly. Then I will return the revised article back to them for further review. Good Luck [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This is an interesting paper and a very decent data base. I enjoyed reading the work. I have the following few comments 1. The contribution of the paper should be better highlighted in the introduction section. 2. The literature is overall well synthesized, but i think the gap in the literature should come out more strongly 3, I appreciate the analysis of the mediation effect, but i think the paper will benefit more from a discussion of this effect from a still deeper theoretical perspective. Same for the threshold effect 4. The limitations of using SEM should also be discussed 5 The findings could also be better discussed in related to the literature 6 lastly the implications of the findings, both for theory and policy , merit more considerations Reviewer #2: Introduction “a too low tax burden not only weakens the government revenue, but also dilutes innovation incentives of the government’s tax credit policies” p.1 – Citation is required. Models When measuring the critical macro tax, one should consider the TSE index as well (see Shapir-Tidhar, M. H., Malul, M., & Rosenboim, M., 2023). I’d recommend adding the TSE index to the control variables, if feasible, to determine whether it affects the results. Variables In your model, you use the technological efficiency of innovation activity as a measurement of innovation efficiency (INN). Please refer to this measurement in your introduction. Is this measurement accepted in the literature? If so, please cite relevant studies. If not – please explain your rationale for choosing this measurement, and why you use this translog production (Again: Is it accepted in the literature? If so, please provide a citation for an article using this production. If not, please explain why you chose this production). Please clarify how you estimated the INN index from the TE. You wrote “calculate the innovation efficiency index (INN) according to the estimated coefficients and inefficiency values.” (p. 4). The transition between the TE variable and the INN is not so clear. Data In Table 2 (p. 6), please provide the names of the countries associated with the max/min values for each variable. Results: “In addition, a higher macro tax rate will help highlight the advantages of preferential policies for innovation, which can stimulate the enthusiasm of enterprises to invest in R&D, thereby accelerating the improvement of national innovation efficiency” (p.7) – please add a citation. Conclusion: “and indirectly contribute to a -0.022% increase in the innovation efficiency” (p. 10) – the sentence is confusing and seems contradictory. Is it increase or decrease? ****** 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.0312451.r001
Revision 1
28 Aug 2024 Author Response Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: This is an interesting paper and a very decent data base. I enjoyed reading the work. I have the following few comments: 1. The contribution of the paper should be better highlighted in the introduction section. 2. The literature is overall well synthesized, but I think the gap in the literature should come out more strongly. Response: thanks a lot for these two valuable comments. We have added the contributions of this paper and discussed the gap in the literature in the introduction section. Please see the colored text on pages 2. 3. I appreciate the analysis of the mediation effect, but i think the paper will benefit more from a discussion of this effect from a still deeper theoretical perspective. Same for the threshold effect. Response：Thank you very much for this suggestion. We have theoretically discussed the mediation effect of FDI and the threshold effect of tax burden in the revised manuscript (please see the colored text on page 4). 4. The limitations of using SEM should also be discussed. Response: thanks a lot for this good advice. We have discussed the limitations of SEM in the colored text on page 2. 5. The findings could also be better discussed in related to the literature Response: thank you very much for this suggestion. We discuss the main findings of this paper in a comparison with those of the existing literature. Please see the colored text on pages 7 and 8. 6. Lastly the implications of the findings, both for theory and policy, merit more considerations Response: Thank you very much. We have discussed the theoretical and policy implications of our findings. Please see the colored text on page 2 (paragraph 1). Reviewer #2 Introduction “a too low tax burden not only weakens the government revenue, but also dilutes innovation incentives of the government’s tax credit policies” p.1 – Citation is required. Response: thank you for this advice. We have added a citation for this statement (please see the reference “ Shapir-Tidhar et al., 2023” on page 1. Models When measuring the critical macro tax, one should consider the TSE index as well (see Shapir-Tidhar, M. H., Malul, M., & Rosenboim, M., 2023). I’d recommend adding the TSE index to the control variables, if feasible, to determine whether it affects the results. Response: Thank you very much for the valuable suggestion. Measuring the TSE Index requires access to categorical tax revenues, for example, in order to calculate the TSE index, Shapir-Tidhar et al. (2023) uses six categories of tax revenues from the OECD’s annual National Accounts. Unfortunately, we are unable to obtain the necessary data to calculate the TSE index for our sample countries (most of them are non-OECD member countries), so it is infeasible to add TSE into our model as a control variable. We hope we can try it in our future relevant research. Variables In your model, you use the technological efficiency of innovation activity as a measurement of innovation efficiency (INN). Please refer to this measurement in your introduction. Is this measurement accepted in the literature? If so, please cite relevant studies. If not – please explain your rationale for choosing this measurement, and why you use this translog production (Again: Is it accepted in the literature? If so, please provide a citation for an article using this production. If not, please explain why you chose this production). Response: thank you very much for this pertinent advice. We have referred to the technological efficiency of innovation activity as a measurement of innovation efficiency in the introduction section. This measurement is common in the literature, we have cited a relevant study. Similarly, using the translog production function form is very popular in literature when measuring the technological efficiency. We also have cited a relevant study (Gonzalez-Blanco et al., 2024. please see line 8 on page 2). Zeng JY, Ribeiro-Soriano D, Ren J. Innovation efficiency: a bibliometric review and future research agenda. Asia Pacific Business Review. 2021, 27(2):209-228. Please clarify how you estimated the INN index from the TE. You wrote “calculate the innovation efficiency index (INN) according to the estimated coefficients and inefficiency values.” (p. 4). The transition between the TE variable and the INN is not so clear. Response: Thank you very much for this good advice. Actually, we made a mistake in model (3) in the manscript. The lnTEit should be lnYit, and Yit is a measure of innovation output (measured by the number of granted patents). After estimating the model (3), we can calculates the TE by using inefficiency term of model (3) according to formula TE = exp(- ). As we have stated, the technological efficiency of innovation activity (TE) is a measurement of innovation efficiency (INN). Data In Table 2 (p. 6), please provide the names of the countries associated with the max/min values for each variable. Response: Thank you very much for this advice. We have added the names of the countries as required. Results: “In addition, a higher macro tax rate will help highlight the advantages of preferential policies for innovation, which can stimulate the enthusiasm of enterprises to invest in R&D, thereby accelerating the improvement of national innovation efficiency” (p.7) – please add a citation. Response: Thanks a lot for this advice. We have provided a citation in the revised manuscript (please see line 9 of the first paragraph on page 7). Conclusion: “and indirectly contribute to a -0.022% increase in the innovation efficiency” (p. 10) – the sentence is confusing and seems contradictory. Is it increase or decrease? Response: thank you very much for this comment. This sentence is confusing indeed. We have expressed this sentence as follows: “and indirectly contribute to a 0.022% decrease in the innovation efficiency by inhibiting FDI inflows”. Hope it is more clearly (please see the colored sentence on page 11). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312451.r002
8 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Mosi Rosenboim, Editor Macro tax burden, FDI, and national innovation efficiency: A study on the impact of macro tax burden on national innovation efficiency PONE-D-24-14404R1 Dear Dr. Dai, 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, Mosi Rosenboim Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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: I am overall happy with this version of the paper , Most of the comments have been adequately addressed Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312451.r003
Formally Accepted
11 Oct 2024 Acceptance Letter - Mosi Rosenboim, Editor PONE-D-24-14404R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dai, 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. Mosi Rosenboim Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312451.r004

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 .