Peer Review History
Original SubmissionAugust 25, 2019 |
---|
PONE-D-19-22374 Research on an Evolutionary Game Model and Simulation of a Cluster Innovation Network Based on Fairness Preference PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Cao, 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. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Oct 27 2019 11:59PM. When you are 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. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Luo-Luo Jiang, 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 http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly ********** 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: Yes 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: Yes ********** 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: In this manuscript, the authors concern a cluster innovation network based on based on game theory and the fair preference theory, and investigate cooperation level and cooperation income in evolution process of cluster innovation network subjected to fair preference and return intensity. Although the numerical results are interesting, I do not recommend the manuscript for publication in its present form. I can reconsider my decision if a number of issues listed below are properly addressed. 1.What is the BBV model? This manuscript investigates cluster innovation network constructed by BBV model, but there is no introduction about the model in the INTRODUCTION. 2.The first sentence in 3.2 Construction of Game Model shows that whatever the strategy Sx chooses, the investment of enterprise x is always zero. Please check it. 3.Figure.2(b) shows a nonmonotonic behavior of fc vs. α at r=2, while there is a monotonic behavior in Figure.3(b) for r=2. The results are inconsistent. Please check the numerical results. 4.The manuscript is written very poorly, strongly lacking clarity in presentation. For example: (1)In Page2, “....and have find that in...” → “....and have found that in...”. (2)In Page9, “...the greater the inhibitory effect on enterprise cooperation level are...” → “...the greater the inhibitory effect on enterprise cooperation level is...”. (3)In Page10, “...improvement of preference in the terms of the breadth...” → “...improvement of preference in terms of the breadth...”. (4)There have some inaccurate subscripts in the Eqs.(8) and (9). (5)Some sentences are repeated, i.e., “...Sx is the enterprise x game strategy ( Sx=1 means cooperation, Sx means non-cooperation). ..”, which has been mentioned in the first paragraph in Construction of Game Model. Please check the full manuscript. A through improvement of English is necessary. Reviewer #2: Review report for “Research on an Evolutionary Game Model and Simulation of a Cluster Innovation Network Based on Fairness Preference” by Li et al. This paper studies an evolutionary game model of a cluster innovation network based on a spatial public goods game and the theory of fairness preference, where the network is constructed by the weighted evolutionary BBV model. Using network-based simulations, the authors found that an increase in the weight coefficient, gain coefficient and degree of differentiation between previous income and current investment can effectively promote improvements in the level of enterprise cooperation. Moreover, the increase in regulation and gain coefficients can promote enterprise cooperation while the increase in the differentiation in the breadth and depth of enterprise cooperation will hinder enterprise cooperation. The cooperative environment of cluster innovation networks is an important issue that deserves further investigation. I found that this paper considers an interesting problem, the structure is well organized, and the paper is well written. However, there are some issues that hinder the acceptance of this paper in its current form. In the following, I would like to give some comments and suggestions, which may help the authors improve the quality of their paper. 1, In the abstract, the authors directly go the introduction of methods and results. However, I think some introduction of general background regarding this topic should be added. Moreover, the authors are suggested to introduce their motivations after the background introduction. Furthermore, at the end of the abstract, it would be better to highlight the implication and application of their results. 2, In the introduction section, the authors present that “cluster innovation networks have the characteristics of a weighted scale-free network[8], so a simulation network based on the weighted evolution BBV model can simulate the real cluster innovation network well[9]”. I think it is not clear enough to the readers that whether cluster innovation networks have the characteristics of a weighted scale-free network. It would be better if the authors can explain more regarding this point. 3, On page 2, the authors present that “Some scholars also find that fixed static network structures such as rule networks[16], world networks[17] and scale-free networks[18] can also promote cooperation under certain conditions[19]”. I think “world networks[17]” should be “small-world networks[17]”. Moreover, in the follow sentence, “Santos[20] also found that the fairness preference of innovative subject cooperative behavior can greatly affect the level of cooperation in BA network”. It should be written as “Santos et al. [20] also found that xxx”. 4, In Figure, the sentences “Previous Income、Cooperation Breadth” and “Current Investment、Cooperation Depth” should be revised. In English, there is no “、” but “,”. The authors should replace “、” by “,” in these two sentences. 5, In section 3.2 Construction of Game Model, the authors present that “it participates in $k_x + 1$ neighborhoods centered on itself and neighbors, and its total investment is 0”. I think the total investment is 1 instead of 0. The authors should check this. 6, Before Equation (6), the sentence “as the center and directly connected enterprises) according to formula (6)”. I think Equation is more usually used than formula, and formula (6) should be replaced by “Equation (6)”. The same applies to the following sections, such as “Formula (7) shows that” and “Formula (8) shows that”. The authors are suggested to go through the paper and fix this problem. 7, Below Equation (7), the sentence “Among these variables, $\\bar{D_{x,y}}(t_n)$is the normalized value of $D_{x,y}(t_n) $, $t_n$ is the number of rounds of the public goods game (only if all nodes in the network have a round of game to end the round of game)”. The readers may wonder which kind of normalization that the authors used. I thinks it would be better to add more details. 8, For the following sentences, “the revenue of enterprise x(i)” and “denotes the degree value of enterprise y(i)”, it would be better to separate them into two sentences. It would be hard to distinguish x(i) from x and i. 9, In section 4.1 Simulation steps, the authors set an initial cooperation level as of 50%, i.e., the network cooperation density being 0.5. The authors may wonder how this parameter affects the results, and what happens if the initial cooperation level is set as 40% or 60%. Moreover, the cluster innovation network is with N=100 nodes, where I wonder how the network size affects the results. Maybe the authors want to add one or more figures to show the network size effects. 10, In Figure 2 and Figure 3, I found a lot of fluctuations in the results. The authors present that “each data point is the average of simulation results after 50 independent experiments”. I think it would be better to increase the times of independent experiments. Maybe 500 is a better choice to avoid fluctuations and make the results more reliable. Moreover, the resolution of these two figures should be remarkably enhanced, and more detailed captions should be added to explain these figures. 11, For the sentence “this paper uses Ruguo Fan [34] and Li [39] as references for the study of the weight coefficient, and implements three mechanisms to correspond to the three weight coefficients”. I think it would be better to revise “Ruguo Fan [34] and Li [39]” because it is not a typical reference style. 12, In the reference section, many papers published in Chinese are referred, such as Refs [1],[7],[8],[17], [23],[33],and [35], however, these papers are usually invisible to the international community. I wonder if these works are follow ups of some very related international studies, and some of them can be replaced by references published in English journals. I will let the authors to decide. ********** 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 to be viewed.] 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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
Revision 1 |
PONE-D-19-22374R1 Research on an Evolutionary Game Model and Simulation of a Cluster Innovation Network Based on Fairness Preference PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Cao 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. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Dec 26 2019 11:59PM. When you are 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. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Luo-Luo Jiang, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE [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: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: (No Response) ********** 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: The revised manuscript reads much better, is significantly improved and looks suitable for publication in Plos One. Reviewer #2: Review report for “Research on an Evolutionary Game Model and Simulation of a Cluster Innovation Network Based on Fairness Preference”. I would thank the authors for considering my previous comments and suggestions in revising their manuscript. I think the new version has been well improved. Before the consideration for publication, however, the authors are suggested to address the following two issues. 1. For all figures, the labels of axis (as well as titles) are currently so small that it is very hard for the readers to pick up the information. The authors are suggested to remarkably increase the font size in all figures. 2. Regarding my previous comment (9) “In section 4.1 Simulation steps, the authors set an initial cooperation level as of 50%, i.e., the network cooperation density being 0.5. The authors may wonder how this parameter affects the results, and what happens if the initial cooperation level is set as 40% or 60%. Moreover, the cluster innovation network is with N=100 nodes, where I wonder how the network size affects the results. Maybe the authors want to add one or more figures to show the network size effects”, I don’t think the authors tried their best to answer my question. Firstly, in their reply, they presented that “When adjusting the network cooperation density (0.4 or 0.6), it does not have a substantial impact on the change of cooperative behavior, only prolongs the network evolution time”. However, I failed to find any figure in their reply that can support their claim. Secondly, the authors presented that “due to the figures 2.3 and 2.4 doesn’t reflect the trend of cooperation level over time. Therefore, the influence of network cooperation density and network scale on cooperation behavior can’t be reflected in this paper”. However, I could not find “figures 2.3 and 2.4”, and I am curious about the effects of the network scale and cooperation density other than the trend of cooperation level over time. Thirdly, the authors presented that “the relationship between network scale and cooperation behavior over time has been reflected in another article "the game simulation research on knowledge transfer evolution of cluster innovation network under different network scales".”. However, I failed to find this referred article in web of science or using Google Scholar. I wonder if there is really a paper, and if this paper should be cited in the main text. ********** 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 to be viewed.] 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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
Revision 2 |
Research on an Evolutionary Game Model and Simulation of a Cluster Innovation Network Based on Fairness Preference PONE-D-19-22374R2 Dear Dr. Cao, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication. Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, 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 enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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. With kind regards, Luo-Luo Jiang, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-19-22374R2 Research on an Evolutionary Game Model and Simulation of a Cluster Innovation Network Based on Fairness Preference Dear Dr. Cao: I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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. For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE. With kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Luo-Luo Jiang Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
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 .