PONE-D-24-21342Exploring the narrative landscape: the discursive construction of identity for Chinese enterprises in AfricaPLOS 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 Nov 21 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,

Muhammad Afzaal, PhD

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. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: “All relevant data are within the manuscript and in 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.

3. 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.

4. Please upload a copy of Supporting Information Figure 1 and 2 which you refer to in your text on page 44.

5. 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. 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: N/A

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: The authors have provided a relatively clear definition and theoretical background for "Corporate Identity" at the beginning of the literature review. However, the discussion on how scholars approach corporate identity from various perspectives could benefit from further elaboration. The statement, "Despite the extensive research on corporate identity across diverse fields such as economics, international relations, and journalism, there is a noticeable shortfall in applying discourse analysis methods to corporate identity studies," is too brief to capture the breadth of existing research. Offering more detail on how different researchers examine this concept across disciplines would help readers better understand the research context.

Similarly, the discussion of Kim and Rader’s corporate communication strategy typology requires further elaboration. I recommend incorporating more detailed information about the development background, theoretical underpinnings, and diverse applications of this typology in existing literature. This will provide readers with a clearer understanding of the theory's strengths and its relevance to your study.

In Section 5.1 Data Collection, it would be beneficial to include the specific methods used for data collection, such as whether the data was gathered through web crawling or manual copying and pasting. Additionally, presenting the data in a tabular format would enhance clarity. For example, you could include the number of texts and tokens collected from different types of corporates.

The sentence " delineates a primary identity unique to professional service and product providers, setting them apart from other sectors" is unclear. I recommend rephrasing it for clarity.

There are two concerns regarding the data presented in Table 4. First, although Category 1 includes the semantic domains A1.1.1 and I2.1, Table 4 only displays high-frequency words from the A1.1.1 domain. Please clarify whether the omission of data related to I2.1 was intentional or if it was an oversight in the "semtag" column. Second, please specify whether the terms "projects," "operation," and "production" are the highest frequency words within this semantic domain and provide their respective frequencies. If these terms are not the highest frequency words, please explain why they were selected for analysis.(Similarly, frequencies for high-frequency words in the other categories should also be included.

It would be helpful to provide a brief explanation of the calculation method used for the relative frequency presented in Table 2.

The analysis of high-frequency words in Section 6.1.2 could be more in-depth. A more thorough examination of specific verbs would be advantageous. For instance, analyzing the object of the verb "support" and the particular areas in which Chinese firms have provided assistance would enhance the depth of your analysis.

Table 5 is titled "Top 20 Keywords of Tagset Z2 [Geographical Names]." Generally, the term "keyword" denotes words that occur more frequently in the focus corpus compared to a general language or reference corpus. However, it appears that the use of "keywords" in your title may not align with this conventional definition. Could you please clarify how "keywords" is defined and applied in this context?

It appears that the methodology for assigning CSR and CAB scores to each company in Section 6.2.1 is not fully clear. I recommend offering a more detailed explanation and a specific example to clarify this process. For instance, how is a single CSR or CAB score determined for multiple texts collected from each company's website? Additionally, reporting on the reliability of the scores would be valuable. If the scoring involved multiple evaluators, including information on inter-rater reliability，such as Cohen's kappa coefficient， would strengthen the robustness of your analysis.

Reviewer #2: The study entitled “Exploring the narrative landscape: the discursive construction of identity for Chinese enterprises in Africa” examines the strategic employment of language in order to construct corporate identities and communication practices of Chinese companies in Africa. This study is a significant contribution as it provides an extensive comprehension of discursive identity construction of companies in cross-cultural context. Overall, this research article flows logically and the research undertaken is contextualized clearly. The introductory section offers relevant background of the study, highlighting the rationale and significance of this research. The further subsections of introduction also discuss the selected frameworks. The methodology used is described in detail and aligns with the research questions. Further, the results and discussion sections are up to the mark and reflect authenticity of this research. However, I would recommend some minor improvements before the publication. The following issues need attention:

• The authors are advised to cite some studies in section 3 “Three-dimensional model of critical discourse” and section 6.2.3 “State-owned vs Private Enterprises” in order to strengthen the arguments.

Afzaal, M. (2023). A corpus-based analysis of discourses on the belt and road 209 initiative: Corpora and the belt and road initiative (Vol. 10). Springer Nature.

Afzaal, M., Hu, K., Chishti, M. I., & Khan, Z. (2019). Examining Pakistan news media discourses about China-Pakistan economic corridor: A corpus-based critical discourse analysis. Cogent Social Sciences, 5(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2019.1683940

Wei, F. E. N. G., & WU, D. D. (2016). State-owned or Otherwise: Dialogic Construction of Corporate Identities by Chinese Banks on Sina Weibo. Intercultural Communication Studies, 25(2).

Fu, H., & Zhu, H. (2022). Discursive construction of corporate identity through websites: An intercultural perspective on the commercial banks of the United States and China. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 947012.

• Mention years of the selected frameworks in abstract.

• Avoid the frequent use of contraction (‘s) as in Line 44, 98, 104, 133, 140, 155, 157.

• It is suggested to initiate the paragraphs with articles or cohesive devices as in line 365, 408, 420, 456.

• Use article (the) in lines 451 (the example 25), 486 (the terms), 499, 500,515, 538, 550, 626, 661.

• Use plural form (the examples) in line 485

Re-structure lines 566-567, 716-717 and 583-586.

**********

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: Discursive construction review.docx

Exploring the narrative landscape: the discursive construction of identity for Chinese enterprises in Africa

PONE-D-24-21342R1

Dear Dr. Liu,

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,

Muhammad Afzaal, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: