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: 

Please address the comments below from the three reviewers along with the academic editor.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 12 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 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 Eltweri, 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. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

 [This research was funded by the Research Project of Humanities and Social Sciences of Colleges and Universities in Guizhou, grant number 2024RW96, “Research on the problem of ‘financing difficulties’ and ‘expensive financing’ of small and medium-sized enterprises in Guizhou”.]. 

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.

4. 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.

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

This paper presents a novel and methodologically sound evolutionary game model to analyse the strategic interactions between technology-based SMEs and banks in the context of intellectual property pledge financing. A key innovation is the introduction of the “end-of-period value conversion coefficient”, which attempts to model the willingness to perform financial obligations.

The theoretical framework is robust, and simulations are thorough. However, some key areas including parameter transparency, empirical contextualisation, presentation clarity, and data/code availability, require attention to meet PLOS ONE’s criteria for scientific validity, reporting transparency, and accessibility. Below are the principal areas where revisions are necessary to elevate the manuscript to a publishable standard:

The current title is too long and unwieldy, reducing accessibility and search engine optimisation. I suggest shortening and clarify the title in line with the 2nd reviewer recommendation

The manuscript uses subjectively assigned parameter values (e.g., penalty costs, return rates) without adequate empirical or theoretical backing. The author must consider add a Table or Appendix justifying parameter choices. As well as consider sensitivity ranges where values are hard to justify precisely.

The manuscript lacks information about data/code availability, which is required by PLOS ONE for transparency and reproducibility. The authors should upload the MATLAB code used for simulations to a repository.

The model is purely theoretical and simulation-based. Hence, some conclusions imply real-world policy implications without empirical backing. Therefore, the authors must clearly state in the Discussion that conclusions are theoretical and require empirical validation. As well as suggesting future work to calibrate the model using real data from Chinese IP pledge financing programs or banks.

Several critical equations are unnumbered or embedded in long, dense paragraphs. Therefore, authors must number all equations for ease of reference. And add brief intuitive explanations or summaries after each key equation set. Or perhaps consider using figures or diagrams to represent the game tree or model structure.

The figure captions lack detail, and variable meanings are not consistently clarified. Authors must ensure all axis labels are complete. In addition, expand captions to interpret the figures.

While the literature review is substantial, it could benefit from more recent international literature on IP financing or trust-based SME financing strategies. I suggest that author must incorporate newer references from 2022 onwards. Include Fintech and SME trust modelling, IP collateral valuation challenges and Game-theoretic applications in finance.

The manuscript refers to practical relevance but lacks concrete recommendations. In addition add a dedicated section (or at least a paragraph in the Conclusion) with practical implications which should include threshold values for policy intervention; How banks or governments might use the coefficient “k” and Incentive design for SME trustworthiness

Finally, the English is mostly clear, but some technical and mathematical sections are difficult to follow, shorter sentences and more active voice, rephrase dense mathematical paragraphs with bullets or boxed summaries where possible.

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Reviewer #1: Your manuscript is a well-structured and technically rigorous study on IP pledge financing using evolutionary game theory. It is suitable for publication after minor revisions, particularly:

Strengthening the justification for parameter assignments.

Providing a data availability statement.

Improving readability in mathematical sections

Reviewer #2: 1. Title Clarity

Suggested revision: The title is long and dense. Consider rephrasing slightly for clarity and international accessibility.

Proposed title: Evolutionary Game Model for Intellectual Property Pledge Financing: Evidence from End-of-Period Value Conversion in SME-Bank Interactions

2. Abstract: The abstract lacks numerical context for key parameters and simulation results.

Suggested revision: Add specific numerical outcomes from the simulations (e.g. thresholds for the coefficient where ESS is achieved) to support claims.

Example: “When the value conversion coefficient exceeds 1.15, cooperation becomes evolutionarily stable...”

3. Terminology Clarification

The term "end-of-period value conversion coefficient" is introduced early but not clearly explained until later.

Suggested revision: Define this term succinctly and mathematically in the abstract or early in the introduction, ideally with an equation or variable symbol (e.g. λ) for consistency.

4. Literature Review

The literature section does not include recent empirical work on IP pledge valuation mechanisms.

Suggested revision: Add 1–2 references from the last 2–3 years focusing on financial valuation of IP in emerging markets or fintech applications in SME lending.

5. Figure Annotations

Figures lack detailed captions and axis labels are not always intuitive (e.g. "repayment willingness" as a Y-axis).

Suggested revision: Include full mathematical labels (e.g., "Probability of strategy adoption: Repayment (p)") and clearly describe what the curves represent in the caption.

6. Numerical Simulation Parameters

Parameter values for simulation (e.g., payoff matrix elements, initial population proportions) are buried in the text.

Suggested revision: Add a dedicated table summarising all input parameters for the numerical simulation, with justifications or citations if applicable.

7. Grammar and Style

Several sentences contain grammatical errors or awkward phrasing.

Examples & Fixes:

“To improve the market efficiency of intellectual property pledge financing...” → “This study aims to improve the efficiency of IP pledge financing...”

“...construct the end-of-period value conversion coefficient of pledged property to measure the comparative relationship...” → “...define a conversion coefficient to measure the ratio between pledged IP value at maturity and total loan repayment.”

8. Policy Implications Section

The policy section is too generic.

Suggested revision: Include specific recommendations, such as “Development of national IP valuation guidelines” or “Incentives for banks offering IP-backed financing.”

9. Mathematical Consistency

Equation numbers are inconsistent and sometimes missing.

Suggested revision: Ensure all key equations are numbered and referenced in the text for easy traceability.

Reviewer #3: In the second line of the first paragraph, SMEs are not specifically explained.

The article uses past and past perfect tenses, which may indicate machine translation.

The references include Chinese literature, and I suggest changing them to English.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Peer review - Game theory.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: Academic editor comments PONE-D-24-56353.docx

Evolutionary Game Model of Intellectual Property Pledge Financing Between Technology-based SMEs and Banks Based on the EVCC

PONE-D-24-56353R1

Dear Dr. Zhang,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Ahmed Eltweri, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Dr. Zhang,

Thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript entitled "Evolutionary Game Model of Intellectual Property Pledge Financing Between Technology-based SMEs and Banks Based on the EVCC" (ID: PONE-D-24-56353R1) to PLOS ONE.

I have reviewed your responses to the reviewers’ comments and the revised manuscript in detail. The revisions have addressed all substantive concerns raised in the initial review, including clarification of the EVCC definition, incorporation of numerical thresholds into the abstract, improvements to mathematical clarity, addition of recent literature, clearer figure annotations, inclusion of a parameter summary table, enhancement of the policy implications section, and corrections to language and formatting.

The manuscript is now clear, complete, and meets the journal’s publication criteria. I am pleased to inform you that your article is accepted for publication in PLOS ONE in its current form.

Our production team will be in touch with you regarding proofs and final publication details. Please ensure that all final files, including figures and supplementary materials, are ready for transfer to production.

On behalf of the editorial board, I thank you for choosing PLOS ONE as the outlet for your work and look forward to seeing your contribution published.

Congratulations on this achievement.

Kind regards,

Dr Ahmed Eltweri

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments: