The application of virtual teams in the improvement of enterprise management capability from the perspective of knowledge transfer

Anqi Zhang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0264367

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 9, 2020
12 Jul 2021 Decision Letter - Alessandro Margherita, Editor PONE-D-20-35199 The Application of Virtual Teams in the Improvement of Enterprise Management Capability from the Perspective of Knowledge Transfer PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhang, 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 Aug 26 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If 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: http://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, Alessandro Margherita 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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 3. 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. 4. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical. [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: No Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know 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: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: This article covers the importance of virtual teams and the process of knowledge transfer. The article presents original ideas, for example, the representation of virtual teams as flat dynamic networks. Overall, the article could be better organized. The sections of the text need to be more developed and some of the sentences are not completely clear. For example, “The term “virtual” … refers to technology that does not exist but has physical functions.” Some ideas need clarification -- “Before the project is implemented, the project development team and the project manager need to be divided into a large business department to eliminate communication barriers.” Is this about a larger team or a division into smaller teams? Is the goal to divide or expand? What exactly is the paper suggesting as a solution? Regarding the Evaluation of R&D and innovation technology capabilities of virtual teams, the data used for the neural network is not available. The process of using a neural network is not described in detail. Data samples used to train the neutral network are missing. Six enterprises are listed in the “Evaluation of R&D and innovation technology capabilities of virtual teams”. There is no explanation of the choice of indexes used for the six enterprises. The methodology is difficult to analyze. Some common-sense indexes such as experience in the field, references from prior work or trust which could greatly influence a ranking of the enterprises are not mentioned in the evaluation. In conclusion, I think that a comparison between the case model using a neural network and the case model without the use of a neural network could help the reader understand the advantages of using neural networks for the evaluation. Reviewer #2: The authors should: 1) define more clearly the research gap (in the extant literature) already in the introduction 2) present in a more comprehensive way (e.g. using a chart/process) the research roadmap undertaken 3) distinguish better what, in section 2, represents theory background and which one are arguments/speculations deriving from the same 4) provide more background on the analysed case and justify selection of the same 5) build a section with clear theoretical advancements and practitioner implications of the study ****** 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.] 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264367.r001
Revision 1
9 Aug 2021 Author Response PONE-D-20-35199 The Application of Virtual Teams in the Improvement of Enterprise Management Capability from the Perspective of Knowledge Transfer PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhang, 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 Aug 26 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If 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:http://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 athttps://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Alessandro Margherita 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 Reply: We have referred to the links you provided to ensure that our manuscript meets the style requirements of PLoS One. 2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ Reply: We ensure that we have the ORCID and verify it with the Editorial Manager. 3. 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. Reply: We have confirmed that the title page is included in the main document and the author information is clear. 4. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical. Reply: We have confirmed that the title of the submission on the Internet is consistent with that in the 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? 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: No Reviewer #2: Partly Reply: Thanks for your review and comments to ensure that the results of this study support the corresponding conclusions. ________________________________________ 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: Yes Reply: Thanks for your recognition of this study. The statistical analysis method in this paper is suitable for the evaluation of technological innovation ability of enterprises. ________________________________________ 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: No Reviewer #2: No Reply: Thanks for the suggestion. The data in this study are all real survey data, so the data information is true and reliable. ________________________________________ 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 Reply: Thank you very much for your review and comments. ________________________________________ 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: This article covers the importance of virtual teams and the process of knowledge transfer. The article presents original ideas, for example, the representation of virtual teams as flat dynamic networks. Overall, the article could be better organized. The sections of the text need to be more developed and some of the sentences are not completely clear. For example, “The term “virtual” … refers to technology that does not exist but has physical functions.” Reply: Thanks for the suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have optimized the whole article and improved the expression of sentences. Some ideas need clarification -- “Before the project is implemented, the project development team and the project manager need to be divided into a large business department to eliminate communication barriers.” Is this about a larger team or a division into smaller teams? Is the goal to divide or expand? What exactly is the paper suggesting as a solution? Reply: In response to your questions, our explanation is: to extract project managers from different departments, build a more comprehensive department, so that the information barriers between departments can be eliminated. The purpose of this is to achieve information exchange and cross sectoral cooperation. Regarding the Evaluation of R&D and innovation technology capabilities of virtual teams, the data used for the neural network is not available. The process of using a neural network is not described in detail. Data samples used to train the neutral network are missing. Six enterprises are listed in the “Evaluation of R&D and innovation technology capabilities of virtual teams”. There is no explanation of the choice of indexes used for the six enterprises. The methodology is difficult to analyze. Some common-sense indexes such as experience in the field, references from prior work or trust which could greatly influence a ranking of the enterprises are not mentioned in the evaluation. In conclusion, I think that a comparison between the case model using a neural network and the case model without the use of a neural network could help the reader understand the advantages of using neural networks for the evaluation. Reply: Thanks for the careful reading. We have refined the application of neural network according to your suggestion, and added a more detailed explanation, including the corresponding data input in neural network. Reviewer #2: The authors should: 1) define more clearly the research gap (in the extant literature) already in the introduction Reply: Thanks for the careful reading. We have improved the introduction to emphasize the differences between this study and the existing literature. 2) present in a more comprehensive way (e.g. using a chart/process) the research roadmap undertaken Reply: The research process of this paper is carried out according to the order of each section, which has been clearly reflected in the paper. 3) distinguish better what, in section 2, represents theory background and which one are arguments/speculations deriving from the same Reply: Those are great suggestions. The second section of the original content has been divided, the theoretical basis and research methods are described separately. 4) provide more background on the analysed case and justify selection of the same Reply: Thanks for the careful reading. We have added more detailed information to this case study. 5) build a section with clear theoretical advancements and practitioner implications of the study Reply: Those are great suggestions. We have added a separate section to analyze the theoretical and practical significance of this study. ________________________________________ 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.] 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. ________________________________________ In compliance with data protection regulations, you may request that we remove your personal registration details at any time. (Remove my information/details). Please contact the publication office if you have any questions. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264367.r002
27 Sep 2021 Decision Letter - Alessandro Margherita, Editor PONE-D-20-35199R1 The Application of Virtual Teams in the Improvement of Enterprise Management Capability from the Perspective of Knowledge Transfer PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhang, 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. It is not really clear at what extent the authors have addressed all the comments provided by the two reviewers. If we look at the amendments made in the revised text (i.e. the red coloured parts), it seems that the revisions are quite limited for a double "major revision". Also the explanations provided by the authors are not enough detailed to let understand where and how they brought changes to the original version. The authors are thus required to go once again through all the reviewers' comments and to provide a more extended and convincing discussion of the revision work undertaken. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 11 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If 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, Alessandro Margherita Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264367.r003
Revision 2
19 Jan 2022 Author Response I have uploaded the latest revised manuscript, please check it！ Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264367.r004
10 Feb 2022 Decision Letter - Alessandro Margherita, Editor The Application of Virtual Teams in the Improvement of Enterprise Management Capability from the Perspective of Knowledge Transfer PONE-D-20-35199R2 Dear Dr. Zhang, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 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, Alessandro Margherita Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264367.r005
Formally Accepted
15 Mar 2022 Acceptance Letter - Alessandro Margherita, Editor PONE-D-20-35199R2 The Application of Virtual Teams in the Improvement of Enterprise Management Capability from the Perspective of Knowledge Transfer Dear Dr. Zhang: I'm 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 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@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. Alessandro Margherita Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264367.r006

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 .