Dear Dr. Liu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The assessments of reviewers are unanimous in their opinion that this article should receive revision, as stated in the reviewer reports.In line with the review details, it is deemed appropriate for the article to receive major revision.I invite you to resubmit your manuscript after addressing denoted reviewer comments, within the specified time period. Please be sure that your revised manuscript is covered all the points addressed by the reviewers in details.  

When revising your manuscript, please consider all issues mentioned in the reviewers' comments carefully: please outline every change made in response to their comments and provide suitable rebuttals for any comments not addressed. Please note that your revised submission may need to be re-reviewed.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 01 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.

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,

Burcu YILMAZ KAYA, 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.  Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

 [基金编号�19BTY060�项目名称�长三角户外运动产业跨界融合发展研究]. 

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.

3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [所有相关数据均在手稿及其支持信息文件中。]

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.

4. 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. 

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

Thank you for choosing PLOS ONE for possible publication of your valuable research.

The required number of reviewer opinions for this article has been provided. The assessments of reviewers are unanimous in their opinion that this article should receive revision, as stated in the reviewer reports. In line with the review details, it is deemed appropriate for the article to receive major revision.

I invite you to resubmit your manuscript after addressing denoted reviewer comments, within the specified time period.. Please be sure that your revised manuscript is covered all the points addressed by the reviewers in details.

When revising your manuscript, please consider all issues mentioned in the reviewers' comments carefully: please outline every change made in response to their comments and provide suitable rebuttals for any comments not addressed. Please note that your revised submission may need to be re-reviewed.

PLOS ONE looks forward to receive your revised manuscript.

[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: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

**********

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: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: I commend the authors on the production of a very detailed and well researched paper. As a runner myself, I found the technical details fascinating and informative. However, as an academic with a primary interest in innovation and entrepreneurship, I felt that the details provided on the specifics of the innovation of individual items too detailed. The paper is very long and if I had been less interested in the innovation around these running technologies, I would have switched off halfway through the paper. I think you need to decide on who your target groups is specifically and perhaps edit the paper accordingly.

The issues that are relevant, I feel are:

• The diffusion of innovation and the development trajectories (stages) of the market for these products. Linking this to the patent searches and the global development of running products is relevant and interesting.

• The stages of innovation of the products are also interesting, but too detailed. The point could have been made without such detailed accounts of the stages of innovation (although it did help me to understand why running shoes are so expensive).

• The protection of IP in China and the evolution of the process of IP protection was interesting and relevant.

• The paper makes the case for investment in this sector, which appears to be the main point of the paper. This brings me to the question of the purpose of the paper. If it is to inform ‘academics’ (researchers and student) in the process of innovation and patent development in China, using global running protection as a case in point, I feel its far too long. If it’s a pitch for development funding, then it makes its case well. The paper aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of global trends, but for what purpose? I feel this needs to be clearer, this is why I have suggestion minor revisions.

The paper is well written, and I wish you every success with your publication of this work.

Reviewer #2: Review Comments to the Author:

This manuscript presents a thorough and well-structured analysis of global innovation trends in running protective equipment using patent data. The segmentation into three distinct phases of technological development (nascent, accumulation, and rapid growth) is supported by strong data and narrative coherence. The use of IPC classification and the TOPSIS model enhances the analytical depth.

Strengths:

The study provides a replicable and practical framework for countries seeking to evaluate or build their own innovation ecosystem in the sports equipment sector.

It highlights China's growing role and offers policy suggestions, which could benefit both policymakers and industrial stakeholders.

The structure, language, and flow of the manuscript are clear and logical.

Suggested Minor Revision:

While the manuscript includes an excellent breakdown of valid vs. invalid patents (Figure 4), a brief reflection on how the high invalidation rate (over 50%) may affect the interpretation of total patent volume as an innovation indicator would strengthen the discussion. Specifically, clarifying whether trend charts and conclusions account for patent validity, citations, or other quality filters would enhance robustness.

I recommend this paper for publication after minor revision.

Reviewer #3: This manuscript addresses the technological evolution of running protective equipment based on global patent data collected from the Patsnap database. The topic is timely and relevant given the increasing interest in sports injury prevention and sportswear innovation. However, there are multiple critical issues that need to be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

Major Issues:

1. Data Collection Transparency and Reproducibility:

The manuscript lacks detailed information about how the patent data were collected. There is no disclosure of search queries, IPC codes, time filters, or keywords used in Patsnap. This makes the research irreproducible and undermines the validity of all quantitative results.

2. Assumption of Patent Volume as a Proxy for Innovation:

The authors repeatedly equate the number of patents with technological advancement without addressing the qualitative aspects of innovation. Defensive patents, duplicate filings, and low-quality submissions are not filtered or discussed.

3. Lack of Methodological Rigor in Technology Evolution Analysis:

The section on technological evolution (Figures 6–8) presents developmental trajectories without describing the analytical method used to derive them. There is no mention of citation networks, keyword co-occurrence, or other commonly used tools in patent mapping.

4. Inconsistent Use of Classifications:

IPC classifications are presented early on but are not consistently used to explain the technology evolution or policy suggestions. The analysis disconnects the quantitative classification data from the qualitative discussion in later sections.

5. Economic and Strategic Implications Lack Supporting Evidence:

Policy and industry recommendations are made based on broad assumptions rather than evidence directly derived from the data. For example, the argument that low patent validity rates indicate a lack of commercialization is not supported by further economic data, case studies, or firm-level analysis.

Minor Issues:

- Some sections are overly descriptive (e.g., product features from companies like Nike, Li Ning, or Waco), giving the impression of promotional content rather than neutral academic analysis.

- Figures lack explanatory captions and do not cite the specific patents or datasets they are based on.

- The time span from 1898 to 2023 is unnecessarily broad; data before the 1970s are too sparse to support meaningful analysis.

Suggestions for Improvement:

- Provide a detailed methodology for data collection and cleaning.

- Use network or text-mining-based methods to show technology convergence and evolution empirically.

- Evaluate patent quality using indicators such as citations, legal status duration, or family size.

- Strengthen the link between quantitative findings and qualitative recommendations.

Reviewer #4: The article seems a software analyzed than author, seek to have excel data verification to validate. The technology details are generic not citing proper patent documents, Global analysis is skeptical.. some reference of revenue generated by IP has to be explained how calculated for all these patents.. suggestion has to be trimmed down to exactly talk about subject matter technology and suggestion.. generic suggestion policy reforms is fine but talking protection equipment technology is essential and the final conclusion are very generic which needs to be specific to subject matter discussed

Reviewer #5: • This imbalance poses significant challenges to commercialization and limits the economic viability of innovations. Current R&D efforts are primarily focused on running shoes, sportswear, and knee pads. Focus on your research key results.

• This analysis aims to provide theoretical support for decision-making in technology R&D and patent strategies for China’s running protective equipment industry. Whereas the study does not provide theoretical support, therefore authors must align findings and aims of this research.

• In this study, the terms "Protective running gear" and "Running protective gear" were initially employed to conduct a search in the Patsnap global patent database. Logical ground is missing, could you please provide proper references and base, or is this methodology suitable for this study?

• It is recommended to add a proper section of methodology.

• From the perspective of legal status, a total of 1,519 patents in the field of running protective equipment are currently authorized and valid, accounting for 34.47% of all filings. Add citations for such numeric values in the whole manuscript.

• To ensure a scientifically rigorous assessment and accurately identify high-quality patent samples, the evaluation framework incorporates both subjective and objective factors. Whereas, subjective and objective factors must be stated here.

• In the initial applications of knee pads, functional limitations were evident due to coarse surface friction treatments and inadequate fixation mechanisms, resulting in frequent slippage and displacement among runners. To address these issues, Fige International Company (United States) developed an innovative knee brace featuring a double-layer structure with a specialized pad arranged in an overlapping composite configuration. It is recommended to add the specification of the knee brace by explaining how it overcomes the stated issues.

**********

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

Reviewer #4: Yes:  DARA AJAY

Reviewer #5: Yes:  Dr. Jamil Afzal

**********

[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: PONE-D-25-26987_reviewer_comments.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-26987 DARA.pdf

Research on the development trend of global running protection equipment technology from the perspective of patent measurement

PONE-D-25-26987R1

Dear Dr. Liu,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. 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,

Burcu YILMAZ KAYA, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: N/A

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Author more or less have addressed comments raised and supported statement with relevant references

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed. Therefore, I recommend this article for possible publication in this journal.

**********

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 #2: Yes:  Ashiqur Rahman Khan

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes:  Dr. Jamil Afzal

**********