PONE-D-24-08354The impact of top management team tenure heterogeneity on innovation efficiency of declining firmsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Huang,

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 Jul 08 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,

Ahmed Elamer

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

This study was funded by the National Office for Philosophy and Social Sciences (CN) (Grant No. 20BGL044)

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 uploading your study's underlying data set. Unfortunately, the repository you have noted in your Data Availability statement does not qualify as an acceptable data repository according to PLOS's standards.

At this time, please upload the minimal data set necessary to replicate your study's findings to a stable, public repository (such as figshare or Dryad) and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a list of recommended repositories and additional information on PLOS standards for data deposition, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

4. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

Additional Editor Comments:

Please consult more literature from our journal and some of the following:

Guo, B., Pang, X., & Li, W. (2018). The role of top management team diversity in shaping the performance of business model innovation: a threshold effect. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 30(2), 241-253.

Hambrick, D. C., Cho, T. S., & Chen, M. J. (1996). The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms' competitive moves. Administrative science quarterly, 659-684.

Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference?. Strategic management journal, 10(S1), 107-124.

Ullah, F., Jiang, P., Elamer, A. A., & Owusu, A. (2022). Environmental performance and corporate innovation in China: The moderating impact of firm ownership. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 184, 121990.

Ullah, F., Jiang, P., & Elamer, A. A. (2024). Revolutionizing green business: The power of academic directors in accelerating eco‐innovation and sustainable transformation in China. Business Strategy and the Environment.

Ullah, F., Jiang, P., Mu, W., & Elamer, A. A. (2023). Rookie directors and corporate innovation: evidence from Chinese listed firms. Applied Economics Letters, 1-4.

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

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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: Abstract

While the abstract effectively introduces the topic of the study and outlines the key factors under investigation, there is room for improvement in terms of providing more specific details about the methodology and findings. Enhancing the abstract with additional information on the study's contributions and practical implications could further engage readers and provide a more comprehensive overview of the research.

Introduction

The introduction could benefit from providing more context on the specific industry or region under study to help readers understand the applicability of the findings. Including information about the industry or industries represented in the sample could enhance the relevance of the study to practitioners in those sectors.

The transition from the general discussion of declining firms to the specific research objectives related to TMT tenure heterogeneity could be smoother.

Literature Review and Hypotheses

If the literature review heavily relies on secondary sources such as literature reviews and meta-analyses, there may be a risk of missing out on recent primary studies or unique perspectives. Incorporating a balance of primary and secondary sources can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the research domain.

The literature review and hypotheses section may be limited in scope, focusing primarily on TMT tenure heterogeneity and ownership concentration. Expanding the discussion to include related concepts or alternative explanations could enrich the theoretical framework and offer a broader perspective on the research topic.

If there are inconsistencies or conflicting findings in the literature, the section should address these discrepancies and provide a nuanced analysis of how the current study aims to contribute to resolving or clarifying such inconsistencies.

The conclusion and implications

The study's conclusions mainly focus on the immediate impact of TMT tenure heterogeneity and ownership concentration on innovation efficiency in declining firms. A weakness lies in the absence of a long-term perspective on how these factors may evolve over time and their sustained effects on the firm's innovation capabilities. Incorporating a longitudinal analysis could offer deeper insights into the dynamics of leadership and ownership structures in driving innovation outcomes.

The study's conclusions and implications are drawn from a specific context (A-share listed manufacturing firms in Shanghai and Shenzhen from 2015 to 2019). The lack of generalizability to firms in other industries or regions limits the broader applicability of the findings. Including a more diverse sample of firms or conducting comparative analyses across industries could enhance the study's relevance to a wider range of organizations.

While the study offers practical implications for declining firms, there is limited discussion on the potential challenges and barriers that organizations may face in implementing the recommended strategies. Addressing the practical hurdles associated with TMT changes, ownership restructuring, and innovation initiatives could provide a more realistic roadmap for firms seeking to improve their innovation efficiency.

The conclusion and implications section could benefit from exploring alternative solutions or strategies beyond TMT tenure heterogeneity and ownership concentration. Considering additional factors or approaches that could impact innovation efficiency in declining firms would enrich the practical insights offered and provide a more holistic view of the challenges and opportunities for organizational recovery.

**********

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: Yes: Hammad Bin Azam Hashmi

**********

[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: Comments_PONE-D-24-08354.docx

The impact of top management team tenure heterogeneity on innovation efficiency of declining firms

PONE-D-24-08354R1

Dear Dr. Huang,

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,

Fawad Ahmed

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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 #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

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 #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 #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is a well-crafted and thoroughly researched piece of work. The authors have successfully addressed the comments and suggestions raised in the previous draft, demonstrating their commitment to improving the quality and rigor of the manuscript. I commend the authors for their diligent work and the substantial improvements made. Overall, this is a commendable contribution to the field, and I congratulate the authors on their successful efforts.

**********

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 #2: Yes: Dr. Amjad Iqbal

**********