The wave-particle duality of corporate financial metrics

Wen Zhu; Junmin Lyu; Xiangyuan Li; Zhuming Chen

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0336976

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 27, 2025
2 Oct 2025 Decision Letter - Dipendra Karki, Editor Dear Dr. zhu, 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 Nov 16 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 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, Dipendra Karki, 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 the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.” At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within 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 repository name and 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. In the online submission form, you indicated that [Readers who require the raw data and the derived variables (means, standard deviations, rates of change, jump-year indicators, and cumulative jump counts) may request them from the corresponding author.]. All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 6. 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. 7. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. You should list all authors and all affiliations as per our author instructions and clearly indicate the corresponding author. 8. 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. 9. 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: Dear Author/s Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled “The Wave-Particle Duality of Corporate Financial Metrics” to PLOS ONE. The study addresses an important issue in corporate finance and has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to the literature. Both reviewers recognized the significance of your work, though they emphasized the need for improvement. Before the manuscript can be considered for publication, a few issues must be addressed: • The introduction does not adequately connect the wave–particle duality concept to corporate financial indicators. The title promises a strong conceptual framing, but the explanation of quantum dynamics (fluctuations, abrupt jumps) is brief. The review needs to be expanded with recent and relevant studies (particularly post-2020) to establish the current gap in the literature. So, additional clarity on theory-based and theoretical contributions is required to establish the novelty of this research. • The manuscript uses both ROE and ROA for firm performance, but the rationale is not well explained. ROE might be sufficient for performance analysis in some cases, particularly when comparing similar companies in the same industry, examining long-term trends, and understanding its components. Authors should clarify why both are necessary. • Draw a clear and concise hypothesis for testing. • While panel data is established, the manuscript should describe the population, sampling frame, and chosen sampling method. Reliance on annual panel data may underrepresent high-frequency dynamics and systemic shocks. Reviewer 2’s concern about missing volatility patterns is valid and should be discussed as a limitation. • The multivariate regression (Model 10) shows an adjusted R² of 0.430, which reflects relatively modest explanatory power. Authors should acknowledge this limitation and discuss possible model improvements. • Analysis and discussion mainly reiterate findings. A stronger theoretical foundation is required. We encourage you to carefully address the points above, along with the feedback from both reviewers, in preparing a revised version. We look forward to receiving your revised version. Decision: Minor Revision Academic Editor [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: I appreciate the authors’ efforts in preparing this manuscript. The manuscript is methodologically sound and clearly presented, with robust data and appropriate statistical analysis. To further enhance the work before publication, the authors may wish to consider the following suggestions: 1. As a suggestion for the literature review, the authors could consider adding more recent, directly relevant studies, for example: Alharbi, S.M., et al. (2024). How does climate policy uncertainty determine green innovation adoption? New perspectives from the BRICS. Journal of Economic Asymmetries. Alharbi, S.M., et al. (2023). Financial markets and environmental risks: unveiling the impact of climate uncertainty. Research in International Business and Finance. Aït-Sahalia, Y., & Jacod, J. (2012). Analyzing the spectrum of asset returns: Jump and volatility components in high frequency data. Journal of Economic Literature. Aït-Sahalia, Y., Jacod, J., & Li, J. (2012). Testing for jumps in noisy high frequency data. Journal of Econometrics. 2. Providing a more integrated discussion of the empirical results in relation to the policy context. 3. Including clear definitions for all variables directly in table notes to improve clarity for readers. 4. Strengthening the explicit link between the main findings and the wave particle duality framework in the discussion section. I believe these minor adjustments could further improve the clarity and contribution of the manuscript. Reviewer #2: The manuscript is well established however requires some improvements as provided below. The predictive models still struggle with extreme outlier years, limiting robustness in capturing rare but critical financial shocks. Reliance on annual panel data excludes high-frequency dynamics, potentially underestimating volatility and systemic risks. Practical recommendations for firms and regulators are often too broad and lack detailed implementation guidance. The causal mechanisms behind the link between macroeconomic events and jump dynamics are not rigorously tested, remaining at a correlational level. Future research directions, while ambitious, are presented vaguely without clear methodological pathways. Heavy reliance on physics analogies may risk conceptual oversimplification when applied to financial realities. ****** 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 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Comments to the authors_PONE-D-25-40877.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0336976.r001
Revision 1
21 Oct 2025 Author Response Dear, Academic Editor and two Reviews, We sincerely thank the Academic Editor and both reviewers for their careful evaluation and insightful comments. All suggestions have been thoroughly addressed in the revised manuscript, with changes highlighted in red. Below we provide a detailed, point-by-point response. A. Response to the Academic Editor Editor Comment 1 The introduction does not adequately connect the wave–particle duality concept to corporate financial indicators. The title promises a strong conceptual framing, but the explanation of quantum dynamics (fluctuations, abrupt jumps) is brief. Please strengthen theoretical clarity and update references with post-2020 studies. Response: We have substantially expanded the theoretical explanation in Section 1 (Introduction) and Section 2 (Literature Review). The revision explicitly distinguishes ROA as the “wave” component—representing continuous operational efficiency—and ROE as the “particle” component—representing discrete policy- or capital-driven shocks. In addition, we incorporated recent co-authored studies by Alharbi et al. (2025) on financial-policy uncertainty and green innovation to reinforce the post-2020 relevance of the framework. We also retained Aït-Sahalia & Jacod (2012) and Aït-Sahalia, Jacod & Li (2012) as foundational methodological references on jump-diffusion modeling, forming the theoretical bridge between financial discontinuities and the proposed dual-state model. Editor Comment 2 The manuscript uses both ROE and ROA for firm performance, but the rationale is unclear. Please clarify why both are required. Response: This point is clarified in Section 2 (Literature Review). ROA reflects continuous operational changes (“wave”), whereas ROE captures discrete leverage and valuation shocks (“particle”). Employing both indicators allows the model to describe the coexistence of continuous and discontinuous behaviors that characterize real-world firm dynamics. Editor Comment 3 Draw clear and concise hypotheses for testing. Response: Two explicit hypotheses have been added at the end of Section 1, and a new Figure 1 (Hypothetical Framework) summarizes how continuous fluctuations (σₜ) and discrete jumps (Iₜvₜ) jointly influence profitability under the wave–particle duality paradigm. Editor Comment 4 Describe the population, sampling frame, and chosen sampling method. Annual data may underrepresent volatility; please discuss this limitation. Response: Section 4 (Empirical Analysis) now specifies that the sample includes 805 A-share manufacturing firms (2009–2024) from the CSMAR database, verified with audited annual reports. The Conclusion explicitly acknowledges that annual data may smooth high-frequency volatility and indicates that future studies will adopt quarterly or event-window datasets to capture short-term dynamics. Editor Comment 5 Model 10 shows adjusted R² = 0.430, which is modest. Please acknowledge this limitation. Response: Acknowledged in Section 5 (Results and Discussion) and reiterated in the Conclusion. The moderate R² reflects the complexity of nonlinear financial processes and the realistic balance between model generality and explanatory power. Editor Comment 6 A stronger theoretical foundation is required to link findings and the wave–particle duality framework. Response: The theoretical linkage has been strengthened throughout Sections 2, 5, and 6 (Conclusion). We clarify that wave–particle duality is used as a conceptual modeling metaphor rather than a physical analogy, unifying continuous (ROA) and discrete (ROE) behaviors within corporate financial systems. B. Response to Reviewer #1 Comment 1 Add more recent, directly relevant studies (Alharbi et al., 2025; Aït-Sahalia & Jacod 2012). Response: Done in Section 2 (Literature Review). We added Alharbi et al. (2025) as a recent co-authored contribution on policy uncertainty and innovation dynamics and maintained Aït-Sahalia & Jacod (2012) and Aït-Sahalia, Jacod & Li (2012) as key methodological references on jump processes. Together these strengthen both the temporal relevance and theoretical continuity of the literature base. Comment 2 Provide a more integrated discussion of empirical results in relation to the policy context. Response: Expanded in Section 5 (Results and Discussion). ROE/ROA jump frequencies are now explicitly linked to major Chinese policy episodes—2015 deleveraging, 2018 environmental reforms, and 2020–2021 pandemic shocks—demonstrating how macro shocks generate “particle” states while stabilization restores “wave” dynamics. Comment 3 Include clear definitions for all variables directly in table notes. Response: In Table 4 of the original paper, we provide the definitions of all variables that enter the regression model, but to facilitate readers' reading, we provide additional explanations for each variable that appears in the regression results in Tables 6 and 7. Comment 4 Strengthen the explicit link between the main findings and the wave–particle duality framework. Response: Clarified in Sections 5 and 6 (Conclusion), where ROA is interpreted as wave-like and ROE as particle-like behavior. This explicit mapping empirically validates the dual-state dynamics central to the proposed framework. C. Response to Reviewer #2 Comment 1 The predictive models still struggle with extreme outlier years, limiting robustness. Response: Acknowledged in Section 5 (Discussion) and the Conclusion. Residual heavy-tailed patterns persist in extreme years; future research will refine jump-threshold calibration and employ event-based samples for enhanced robustness. Comment 2 Reliance on annual panel data excludes high-frequency dynamics. Response: Addressed in the Conclusion. We note that annual aggregation can smooth intra-year volatility and propose the use of quarterly or event-window data to better capture high-frequency wave–particle transitions. Comment 3 Practical recommendations for firms and regulators are too broad and lack detailed guidance. Response: Expanded in the Conclusion, now offering concrete recommendations: • Firms should monitor ROA–ROE divergence as an early-warning signal of structural imbalance; • Regulators may track jump proportions as indicators of sectoral stress; • Investors can incorporate jump risk alongside volatility in portfolio allocation. Comment 4 The causal mechanisms behind the link between macroeconomic events and jump dynamics are not rigorously tested. Response: The Conclusion clarifies that current analyses are correlational and proposes future application of instrumental-variable and event-study designs to identify causal relationships. Comment 5 Future research directions are presented vaguely without clear methodological pathways. Response: The Conclusion now outlines four explicit extensions: (1) adoption of higher-frequency data, (2) cross-industry validation, (3) integration of behavioral-finance perspectives, and (4) AI-driven interpretable modeling (e.g., contrastive GNNs, attention-based LSTMs). Comment 6 Heavy reliance on physics analogies may risk conceptual oversimplification. Response: We sincerely appreciate this insightful comment. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified that the “wave–particle duality” is not used as a literal physical analogy but as a conceptual framework that integrates continuous (wave-like) and discrete (particle-like) dynamics in corporate finance. Specifically, in Section 2.3 (Interdisciplinary and Complex Systems Approaches) and the last paragraph of Section (Conclusion), we emphasize that this framework serves as a modeling metaphor rather than a physical parallel. Its purpose is to unify two empirically observed states of financial behavior— (1) gradual, continuous fluctuations (e.g., operational efficiency changes in ROA), and (2) sudden, discrete jumps (e.g., policy or restructuring shocks affecting ROE). This clarification reduces the risk of oversimplification and instead highlights the interdisciplinary advantage of using physical metaphors to describe complex adaptive financial systems. The revised version thus presents the duality framework as an integrative modeling lens—consistent with Reviewer #2’s caution—rather than a literal application of quantum mechanics. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers..docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0336976.r002
3 Nov 2025 Decision Letter - Dipendra Karki, Editor The Wave-Particle Duality of Corporate Financial Metrics PONE-D-25-40877R1 Dear Dr. ZHU, 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, Dipendra Karki, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Dear Authors, Thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript to PLOS ONE. I appreciate the time and effort you devoted to addressing the reviewers’ and editor’s comments with clarity and detail. After carefully evaluating your revision and responses, I am pleased to accept your manuscript for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations to you and your co-authors on this achievement, and thank you for choosing PLOS ONE as the venue for your research. With best regards, Dr. Dipendra Karki Academic Editor PLOS ONE Reviewers' comments: - Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Decision Letter to Authors.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0336976.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Dipendra Karki, Editor PONE-D-25-40877R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhu, 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. Dipendra Karki Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0336976.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 .