Human capital’s dual impact: Advancing innovation and technology diffusion in ASEAN-5 through the Nelson-Phelps-Romer Lens

Nguyen Ngoc Thach

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0333784

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 12, 2025
1 Aug 2025 Decision Letter - Rogis Baker, Editor Dear Thach Nguyen Ngoc, 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 Sep 14 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. 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. 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, Rogis Baker, 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 in your Competing Interests section: “The authors have no competing interests.” Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing the DOI/accession number of each dataset or a direct link to access each database. If your manuscript is accepted for publication, you will be asked to provide these details on a very short timeline. We therefore suggest that you provide this information now, though we will not hold up the peer review process if you are unable. 5. 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. 6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 7. 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? 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 Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: The paper presents a valuable contribution to the literature on technology diffusion and economic growth in ASEAN economies. However, to enhance its theoretical coherence, empirical rigor, and policy relevance, several areas require further refinement and clarification: 1. In 3.1 section, while the paper claims to integrate Romer’s Schumpeterian model into the Nelson-Phelps framework, it would benefit from a clearer and more explicit theoretical exposition of how the two are operationalized jointly in the model. A conceptual diagram could be helpful here. 2. Given the structural differences among the ASEAN-5 economies, more discussion on country-specific effects or sub-sample analyses would enrich the interpretation of the results and highlight policy implications tailored to individual countries. 3. In 4.2 section , the paragraph reports that human capital growth has opposing signs depending on the measure used, positive for primary schooling and Mincerian indicators, but negative for secondary, tertiary, and government spending on education, without offering a clear economic rationale. 4. In the conclusion part, The ASEAN region is highly heterogeneous , yet the paragraph treats it as a uniform entity. Reviewer #2: Adopting a Bayesian hierarchical approach, this manuscript investigates the dual role of human capital---fostering national innovation and facilitating the adoption of external technologies ---within an extended Nelson-Phelps technology catch-up framework, enriched by Romer's Schumpeterian growth model, using a panel dataset of five advanced ASEAN economies (ASEAN-5) from 1965 to 2019. The manuscript is technically sound, and the data supports the conclusions. The statistical analysis has been performed appropriately and rigorously. The author declared that all data are fully available without restriction. The manuscript is presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English. But there are some parts of the manuscript need to be modified: 1.The subsection of “Related empirical studies” presented the literature is somewhat dated , please supplement the latest literature. 2.In the model 14 and model 15, control variables have been divided into primary control variables and additional control variables. What is the meaning of doing so? Can the two control variables be combined? If they cannot be combined, please explain the reasons in the text. 3.The core explanatory variables and control variables are not distinguished in the table 1 (Definition of variables). 4.The proposal for developing human capital is not based on the results of the study and is disjointed from them. The author should make targeted recommendations closely related to the research results. ****** 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: reviewer comments 7.20.docx Attachment Submitted filename: comments.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0333784.r001
Revision 1
5 Sep 2025 Author Response Dear Respected Reviewers and Editors, Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions and comments. In response, we have thoroughly revised our manuscript. Please let us know if you have any further questions or additional feedback. Reviewer #1: The paper presents a valuable contribution to the literature on technology diffusion and economic growth in ASEAN economies. However, to enhance its theoretical coherence, empirical rigor, and policy relevance, several areas require further refinement and clarification: 1. In 3.1 section, while the paper claims to integrate Romer’s Schumpeterian model into the Nelson-Phelps framework, it would benefit from a clearer and more explicit theoretical exposition of how the two are operationalized jointly in the model. A conceptual diagram could be helpful here. Response: We have clarified this content in Section “Analytical framework” and for clarity, added a conceptual diagram in Fig 2 (please see green highlights on p. 6). 2. Given the structural differences among the ASEAN-5 economies, more discussion on country-specific effects or sub-sample analyses would enrich the interpretation of the results and highlight policy implications tailored to individual countries. Response: We have discussed more about country-specific effects in the Methodology and Conclusion sections (please see green highlights on pp. 13-14). 3. In 4.2 section, the paragraph reports that human capital growth has opposing signs depending on the measure used, positive for primary schooling and Mincerian indicators, but negative for secondary, tertiary, and government spending on education, without offering a clear economic rationale. Response: This finding arises from the traditional growth accounting framework, which has been shown to be misspecified (see green highlights on p. 19). We therefore rely on the estimates derived from the Nelson–Phelps catch-up model as our main results, which are reported in the second point of the conclusion (see green highlights on p. 22). 4. In the conclusion part, The ASEAN region is highly heterogeneous, yet the paragraph treats it as a uniform entity. Response: The conclusion of the study highlights the dual role of aggregate human capital in both fostering domestic innovation and facilitating the adoption and absorption of foreign technologies, with the former becoming increasingly important in the ASEAN context. Accordingly, two sets of policy measures are proposed: (i) common measures applicable to the ASEAN community (see yellow highlights on pp. 23–24) and (ii) country-specific measures tailored to each of the ASEAN-5 nations (see green highlights on p. 24). Reviewer #2: Adopting a Bayesian hierarchical approach, this manuscript investigates the dual role of human capital---fostering national innovation and facilitating the adoption of external technologies ---within an extended Nelson-Phelps technology catch-up framework, enriched by Romer's Schumpeterian growth model, using a panel dataset of five advanced ASEAN economies (ASEAN-5) from 1965 to 2019. The manuscript is technically sound, and the data supports the conclusions. The statistical analysis has been performed appropriately and rigorously. The author declared that all data are fully available without restriction. The manuscript is presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English. But there are some parts of the manuscript need to be modified: 1. The subsection of “Related empirical studies” presented the literature is somewhat dated, please supplement the latest literature. Response: We added the latest studies (please see green studies cited in the text). 2. In the model 14 and model 15, control variables have been divided into primary control variables and additional control variables. What is the meaning of doing so? Can the two control variables be combined? If they cannot be combined, please explain the reasons in the text. Response: Traditionally in growth literature, technology, broad capital, and labor have been regarded as the fundamental drivers of economic growth (e.g., Solow, 1956; Mankiw et al., 1992). Consequently, in diffusion models where the level or growth of human capital serves as the core independent variable, these factors are typically included as primary covariates (e.g., Benhabib & Spiegel, 1964), while variables such as institutions, openness, or geographical dummies are treated as supplementary controls. This distinction stems from an economic perspective but does not materially affect the econometric outcomes. However, to avoid unnecessary complexity for readers and to present our model more clearly, we include all of these variables as control variables (see blue highlights on pp. 13–14). 3. The core explanatory variables and control variables are not distinguished in the table 1 (Definition of variables). Response: We have revised Table 1 (p. 16). 4. The proposal for developing human capital is not based on the results of the study and is disjointed from them. The author should make targeted recommendations closely related to the research results. Response: The study identifies the dual contribution of aggregate human capital in fostering domestic innovation and facilitating the adoption and absorption of foreign technologies, with the former becoming increasingly significant in the ASEAN context. So, the study offers two sets of measurements: common and specific. i) Common measurements for the ASEAN region (please see yellow highlights on p. 23-24) ii) Specific to each ASEAN-5 country (please see green highlights on p. 24) Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviews.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0333784.r002
19 Sep 2025 Decision Letter - Rogis Baker, Editor Human Capital's Dual Impact: Advancing Innovation and Technology Diffusion in ASEAN-5 through the Nelson-Phelps-Romer Lens PONE-D-25-07521R1 Dear Ngoc, 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, Rogis Baker, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0333784.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Rogis Baker, Editor PONE-D-25-07521R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ngoc Thach, 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 You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. 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 Dr. Rogis Baker Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0333784.r004

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 .