PONE-D-24-11853Unveiling the Influence of Social Network Characteristics on Sustainable Performance in Small and Medium Enterprises: A Dynamic Capabilities PerspectivePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhang,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Thank you for submitting your manuscript titled "Unveiling the Influence of Social Network Characteristics on Sustainable Performance in Small and Medium Enterprises: A Dynamic Capabilities Perspective" to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration of the two reviewers' comments and a detailed review of the manuscript, I believe that the paper holds potential but requires significant revisions before it can be considered for publication.

Key Issues to Address:

Language and Readability: Both reviewers emphasized the need for thorough proofreading. The current manuscript contains numerous grammatical issues, long and convoluted sentences, and awkward phrasing. This significantly detracts from the clarity and professionalism of the paper. I recommend working with a professional language editor to revise the manuscript for readability and coherence.

Abstract and Introduction: The abstract should be revised to clearly state the study's purpose, motivation, and key findings. Similarly, the introduction lacks a clear explanation of the research motivation and the paper's contribution to the field. Please include a well-defined research question and discuss your contribution to the literature, as suggested by Reviewer 2.

Theoretical Framework: The theoretical model (Figure 1) needs further clarification. Reviewer 1 highlighted that the edges and their direction in the figure are unclear. A detailed explanation of the relationships between constructs should be added to the text. Moreover, before diving into the hypotheses, provide an overview of the theoretical analysis section for better comprehension.

Sampling and Methodology: The description of the sampling technique and the details of the questionnaire are insufficient. Reviewer 1 pointed out missing information about the sampling procedure and the questionnaire’s contents. Please provide detailed information about how the sample was selected, the representativeness of the sample, and the contents of the questionnaire. Tables detailing the sample characteristics and data collection process should be included for clarity.

Data Presentation and Analysis: Several tables, especially Table 3, are unclear and need to be restructured. Additionally, statistical results should be better explained. Reviewer 1 mentioned the need to explain model fit indices and the reliability coefficients in more detail. For instance, what does Cronbach's alpha of 0.916 imply for the study's reliability?

Literature Positioning and Contribution: As Reviewer 2 suggested, the paper's contribution to the literature needs to be articulated more clearly. This can be achieved by citing recent relevant studies (e.g., DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2019.123174) and positioning your findings within the broader context of social network theory and resource-based theory. Clearly outline what gap in the literature this paper fills.

Once these revisions are made, I believe the paper could make a significant contribution to the understanding of how social network characteristics affect sustainable performance in SMEs. I encourage you to resubmit the manuscript with these revisions for further consideration.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 01 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,

Meng Xi, Ph.D.

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 its 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.

[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: No

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: Summary: In this paper, the authors propose a "feature-behavior-performance" theoretical model based on social network theory and resource-based theory. The study focuses on exploring how enterprises can obtain heterogeneous resources required for innovation through the connection with other social subjects in the network with limited resources.”

My Conclusion: I believe the manuscript is very poorly written. The grammar is not up to the mark. The sentences are unnecessarily long and hard to follow. The sampling techniques are not discussed properly, and the questionnaire details have not been revealed. So, in its current form, the paper is confusing. However, if the authors change the language and address my comments below, the paper may be considered for potential publication at Plos One.

Comments: My comments are given below.

1. The sentences are too long which makes it very hard to comprehend. For example, in Abstract: “Based on social network theory and resource-based theory, a theoretical model of social network characteristics, resource patchwork and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) sustainable performance represented by social network scale and social network strength was constructed, and 220 questionnaire data were collected.” It is advised to break down such sentences into two or even three sentences for readability.

2. In Abstract: “Using hierarchical regression, bootstrapping, structural equation model and other methods to empirically explore the impact of social network structure and relationship dimension on SMEs sustainable performance.” What does the sentence mean? Correction needed.

3. In Introduction: “Enterprise fusion eventually appeared "bubble" and "homogenization" phenomenon, interaction effect declined seriously.” What does it mean? Correction needed.

4. “In recent years, academic circles have increasingly in-depth research on enterprise development performance.” Same problem as above.

5. “. The influence of different knowledge integration, resource acquisition, risk perception and other capabilities on enterprise development.” Same problem as above.

6. The problem with the sentences, as indicated above, persists throughout the paper. The authors are strongly advised to thoroughly proofread the entire paper for such issues.

7. The abstract is a little unclear. The purpose of the study should be defined in a much clearer way.

8. The same suggestion as above for the Introduction.

9. Section: “Theoretical analysis and research hypothesis”. Before going into the subsection, an overview of the section must be provided.

10. “Based on this, this paper will explore the scale and strength of social networks from two aspects.” What are the two aspects?

11. The theoretical model presented in Fig 1 is unclear. What do the edges indicate? Is there any direction associated with the edges? Fig 1 must be explained in detail.

12. What does the following sentence mean: “In line with the key and typical characteristics of case selection.”??

13. In Sample Selection, every representative enterprise must be mentioned.

14. “First of all, understand the basic situation of the enterprise and the problems of enterprise performance.” What does it mean?

15. “During the investigation, senior leaders and staff of performance departments were asked to adjust and modify the contents of the questionnaire.” What questionnaire? What are the contents of the questionnaire? What parameters were considered when designing the questionnaire?

16. “The research team went deep into the sample enterprises to investigate.” How many sample enterprises?

17. Section “Data collection and sample situation”, paragraph 2: The statistics should be presented in the form of a table.

18. Section “Empirical Analysis”. Same suggestion as given in comment 9.

19. “Considering the situational particularity of the enterprise, the measurement of key variables is modified on the basis of the mature scale abroad, and the description and language of the scale items are modified through the pretest, so as to ensure the reliability and validity of the scale and make the research conclusions more applicable.” The sentence is way too long. Extremely hard to follow and comprehend.

20. “The scale of social network was measured with 5 item scales, and the reliability coefficient was 0.916.” What are the 5 item scales? Where are they listed? What is the definition of the reliability coefficient? What does the number 0.916 mean here? What is the scale of the reliability coefficient? What are the good, bad and neutral values of the reliability coefficient?

21. “The social network strength was measured by a 6-item scale with a reliability coefficient of 0.911.” Same questions as above.

22. The same questions for resource bricolage, entrepreneurial dynamic capability and enterprise performance.

23. Is reliability coefficient the “Cronbach's a coefficient” as indicated afterwards in Section “Reliability and validity analysis”? I think the authors refer to Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The authors are advised to give complete details of this coefficient.

24. “the mean variance variation AVE”. Do the authors mean variance extracted?

25. The authors are advised to provide full form of an acronym where it is used first (for example, KMO, SRMR, etc.).

26. The n-factor models should first be discussed in detail and then the results should be presented. In its current form, it is extremely confusing.

27. “The results showed that compared with other models, the six-factor model constructed in this study (CMIN/DF=1.791, RMSEA=0.06, SRMR = 0.054,CFI=0.925, GFI=0.817, TLI=0.917) had the best fitting indexes, and all fitting indexes met the standard.” So, what does this result entail?

28. Table 3 is a mess and cannot be understood.

29. While I understand that p is the p-value, what is r?

30. Tables need to be placed round about where they are discussed. Besides, authors are advised not to spread the table over two pages. This needs to be managed.

Reviewer #2: This article addresses the issue of social network characteristics and resource particles that affect the sustainable performance of small and medium enterprises within the framework of social network theory and resource-based theory. The study needs to be revised according to the following points:

- There are many errors in the English of the study, it should be reviewed.

- The motivation of the study should be explained in the abstract section.

- There should be a space before the references in the text. For example [11], [12], [13], [14], [16], etc.

- Some studies that have attracted attention in recent years on social networks should be cited in the introduction section. Eg, doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2019.123174, 10.1126/science.abp9364, 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102621

- The organization of the paper should be added as a paragraph at the end of the introduction section.

- The contribution of this research to the literature should be clearly discussed in the introduction.

**********

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.

PONE-D-24-11853R1Unveiling the Influence of Social Network Characteristics on Sustainable Performance in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises : A Dynamic Capabilities PerspectivePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhang,

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 Feb 21 2025 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,

Meng Xi, Ph.D.

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: (No Response)

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: Overall, the authors have largely revised the paper and according to my suggestions and comments. There still are some persisting and new issues (minor) which the authors should address. My comments to address these issues are given below:

1. In Abstract, the first sentence is again too long to comprehend. Again, it is advised to break the sentence down. The authors are also advised to do this throughout the paper wherever applicable.

2. In Introduction, last paragraph, when the authors write, “The second section…”, the authors should instead write something like this: “The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section “Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development” provides a theoretical analysis and proposes research hypotheses.”

3. The authors must add the contributions of the study in bullet points in Introduction. Possibly before the last paragraph in Introduction.

4. In “Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development”, the last sentence of paragraph one, must be changed to something like, “In the subsequent sections, we discuss the proposed theoretical hypotheses.”

5. “Based on this, this study will explore the size and strength of social networks from two aspects.” Again, what are the two aspects? The authors in their response seem to suggest the two aspects are size and strength of social networks. So, the sentence must be changed accordingly. Presently, the sentence creates an unnecessary confusion.

Reviewer #2: The authors completed the revision by taking into account all suggestions. The article is acceptable as it is

**********

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.

Unveiling the Influence of Social Network Characteristics on Sustainable Performance in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises : A Dynamic Capabilities Perspective

PONE-D-24-11853R2

Dear Dr. Feng,

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,

Meng Xi, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: