Cost stickiness, absorbed slack and enterprise risks: Evidence from China

Qian Binhua; Yang Boyuan

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0315675

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 20, 2024
20 Jul 2024 Author Response Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315675.r001
31 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Chen-Wei Yang, Editor PONE-D-24-28797Cost Stickiness, Absorbed Slack and Enterprise Risks: Evidence from ChinaPLOS ONE Dear Dr.Qian, 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 Dec 15 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, Chen-Wei Yang 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 in your Funding Statement: “This paper is supported by National Social Science Foundation of China Key Project "Research on Group Evaluation Consensus Mechanism Based on Trust Relationship" (22ATJ003) , National Key Project of Statistical Research "Comprehensive Evaluation Technology and Intelligent Application Based on Social Network" (2021LZ33), and Ningbo Jinsui Tax Big Data Research Base "Research on Strategies to Promote Research and Development of Technological SMEs" . We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful remarks.” Please provide an amended statement that declares all the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 4. 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 (if provided): The manuscript titled "Cost Stickiness, Absorbed Slack, and Enterprise Risks: Evidence from China" presents a solid and well-structured study based on an extensive dataset of Chinese enterprises. Both reviewers find the research to be of value, but they offer constructive feedback on improving clarity, tone, and depth of discussion, as well as expanding on theoretical implications. We look forward to receiving a revised version that reflects these changes. 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: Dear Authors, • Use a more academic tone in the paper. For example, the abstract is full of “intriguing”, “enigmatic”, “captivated”, “delicately” etc. The same idea applies to the first paragraphs of the paper. It is not a novel, but a research paper and the tone should be more objective. It is not pleasant to read. • Some acronyms should be presented the first place they are mentioned (like HHI index). • For the results part - the comparison between enterprises, considering the industrial competitiveness is first introduced at page 13, and not as a premise for the hypotheses. I suggest that the fact that the enterprises are clustered should be part of the hypotheses’ development, thus changing them in order to incorporate this high/low competitiveness. • The multitude of variables used in the models makes the first part of the paper, although interesting, a little too simplistic. • Also, regarding the variables. The reference no. 65 is considered representative for the control variables. However, I cannot find it on Scholar or on Google (generic search). I recommend you find another paper which should complement this one, the relevance of the first one being a bit under question. • When presenting the results, other papers which sustain (or not) your findings should be part of the discussions. • The discussion part is missing. • The paper is interesting and has a lot of potential. Reviewer #2: The manuscript is technically sound. The research is well-structured and based on a large dataset of Chinese enterprises. The findings are rigorously tested using various empirical methods, including robustness tests and endogeneity checks. More comments: - A more detail on the theoretical implications of the results would strengthen the manuscript. - A clearer explanation of some of the statistical techniques used (e.g., interaction effects) would improve clarity. - The statistical methods used are appropriate, but the explanation of robustness checks and endogeneity tests could be expanded for clearer understanding. - Moderate language editing is required to simplify sentence structure and ensure clarity. - Suggestions for future research are lacking. ****** 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 ******** 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.0315675.r002
Revision 1
5 Nov 2024 Author Response Dear Chen-Wei, We are grateful for the opportunity to submit a revised version of our manuscript and appreciate the thorough and constructive feedback provided by you and the reviewers. We are now submitting the revised manuscript titled “Cost Stickiness, Absorbed Slack and Enterprise Risks: Evidence from China” for consideration for publication in PLOS ONE. In our revision, we have meticulously addressed all the suggestions and comments made by the reviewers and editor. The key changes and additions are as follows: 1. We have made careful revisions to each point raised by the reviewers, with all changes tracked and visible in the manuscript. 2.In accordance with the PLOS ONE style template, we have formatted the entire manuscript to ensure compliance with the formatting requirements of PLOS ONE. 3. We have issued a revised statement declaring all sources of funding or support received during the course of this study, and have included a statement in the updated funding declaration that "this research did not receive any additional external funding." 4. In compliance with the submission requirements, we have strictly adhered to the open data policy of PLOS ONE. 5. We have meticulously reviewed the reference list to ensure its completeness and accuracy, and to conform to the reference citation requirements of PLOS ONE. We are confident that this revised manuscript has addressed your concerns. Given the esteemed reputation of your journal, we earnestly hope that our paper may be granted the honor of publication within your esteemed pages. We eagerly await your feedback. Sincerely, Qian Binhua Zhejiang business technology institute, Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, China Enclosed: Responses to the comments from Reviewer 1 and 2. Rebuttal Letter Reply to Reviewer #1 Dear Reviewer, We are grateful for the time you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript and for your encouraging comments on its merits. We hope the following explanations and revisions have adequately addressed your concerns. In the remainder of this letter, we will discuss your comments individually and provide our corresponding responses. To facilitate this discussion, we will restate your comments in italic font and then present our responses to them. Comment 1: Use a more academic tone in the paper. For example, the abstract is full of “intriguing”, “enigmatic”, “captivated”, “delicately” etc. The same idea applies to the first paragraphs of the paper. It is not a novel, but a research paper and the tone should be more objective. It is not pleasant to read. Response 1: Your suggestion is highly relevant. In response, during the revision process of the manuscript, we have focused on refining the tone of the writing to express it in a more academic manner. We have rewritten the entire abstract, eliminating any exaggerated expressions and adopting an objective tone for communication. Similarly, the first paragraph of the paper has also been rewritten in an objective tone, aiming to provide a better reading experience for the readers. Comment 2: Some acronyms should be presented the first place they are mentioned (like HHI index). Response 2: Thank you for the detailed references. In response to this comment, we have conducted a review of the acronyms used within the paper. For expressions such as the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), we have provided a comprehensive definition at their first occurrence. Comment 3: For the results part - the comparison between enterprises, considering the industrial competitiveness is first introduced at page 13, and not as a premise for the hypotheses. I suggest that the fact that the enterprises are clustered should be part of the hypotheses’ development, thus changing them in order to incorporate this high/low competitiveness. Response 3: Your suggestions have been very instructive. We have included enterprise clustering as part of our hypothesis, adding a fourth point to the first hypothesis in Section 2.1: "Enterprises exhibit a tendency to cluster, which in turn influences the degree of cost stickiness." We have also refined the first hypothesis to: "H1: Cost stickiness is positively related to enterprise risk, and enterprises in different industries have varying levels of cost stickiness." Comment 4: The multitude of variables used in the models makes the first part of the paper, although interesting, a little too simplistic. Response 4: As you pointed out, the first part was somewhat simplistic. In response, we have enhanced the first part of the paper, providing a clearer definition of enterprise risks and further elaborating on the relationship between cost stickiness, absorbed slack, and enterprise risks. Additionally, we have included a more detailed discussion on how cost stickiness affects enterprise risks, thereby enriching the content of the first section. Comment 5: Also, regarding the variables. The reference no. 65 is considered representative for the control variables. However, I cannot find it on Scholar or on Google (generic search). I recommend you find another paper which should complement this one, the relevance of the first one being a bit under question. Response 5: Thank you for your review. We have identified an additional reference to replace the original reference number 65. The new reference is the paper titled "Using Accounting Earnings and Aggregate Economic Indicators to Estimate Firm-Level Systematic Risk," authored by Ball et al. and published in 2022. Comment 6: When presenting the results, other papers which sustain (or not) your findings should be part of the discussions. Response 6: Thank you for pointing out this issue. In the revised version, we have included other papers that either support or do not support our findings as part of the discussion, primarily in Section 4. Comment 7: The discussion part is missing. Response 7: Thank you for your careful review. We have added a Discussion section, as detailed in Section 5. Comment 8: The paper is interesting and has a lot of potential. Response 8: We appreciate your encouragement and assistance, and are pleased that our paper has received your approval. In summary, we would like to thank you for all your time involved and for this excellent opportunity for us to improve the manuscript. We hope you will find this revised version satisfactory. Sincerely, Qian Binhua Zhejiang business technology institute, Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, China Rebuttal Letter Reply to Reviewer #2 Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your time in reviewing the manuscript and for your encouraging comments on its merits. We also appreciate your clear and detailed feedback and hope the explanation has fully addressed your concerns. In the remainder of this letter, we discuss your comments individually and provide our corresponding responses. To facilitate this discussion, we first retype your comments in italic font and then present our responses to the comments. Comment 1: A more detail on the theoretical implications of the results would strengthen the manuscript. Response 1: We strongly agree with your point. We have provided a more detailed explanation of the theoretical implications of our findings, which can be found in Section 4. Comment 2: A clearer explanation of some of the statistical techniques used (e.g., interaction effects) would improve clarity. Response 2: We wholeheartedly agree with your opinion. In the revised manuscript, we have provided a more detailed explanation of the statistical methods used, including an elucidation of the three-step approach to mediating effects, which can be found in Subsection 4.6 ,in order to enhance the clarity and readability of the paper. Comment 3: The statistical methods used are appropriate, but the explanation of robustness checks and endogeneity tests could be expanded for clearer understanding. Response 3: We strongly agree with your viewpoint. In the revised manuscript, we have added explanations for robustness checks and endogeneity tests, which can be found in Subsections 4.4 and 4.5, respectively. Comment 4: Moderate language editing is required to simplify sentence structure and ensure clarity. Response 4: Thanks for your suggestions. We have thoroughly reviewed the entire paper, refining the language and simplifying the sentence structures to enhance clarity and improve readability. Comment 5: Suggestions for future research are lacking. Response 5: Your feedback is very constructive. In response, we have added Section 5 "Discussion" and Section 6 "Conclusion, Implications, and Limitations," where we suggest directions for future research: first, future studies could broaden their scope to include enterprises from various countries; second, future studies could extend the timeframe of their samples to determine the durability of these conclusions over time. In summary, we would like to thank you for all your time involved and for this excellent opportunity for us to improve the manuscript. We hope you will find this revised version satisfactory. Sincerely, Qian Binhua Zhejiang business technology institute, Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, China Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: 20241105Rebuttal Letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315675.r003
29 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Chen-Wei Yang, Editor Cost Stickiness, Absorbed Slack and Enterprise Risks: Evidence from China PONE-D-24-28797R1 Dear Dr. Qian, 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, Chen-Wei Yang Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The revised manuscript demonstrates significant improvements, and the authors’ responses are comprehensive and constructive. The paper is recommended for acceptance for publication. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315675.r004
Formally Accepted
4 Dec 2024 Acceptance Letter - Chen-Wei Yang, Editor PONE-D-24-28797R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Binhua, 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 Professor Chen-Wei Yang Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315675.r005

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 .