PSTR-D-23-00058

International relations and technology diffusion: A worldwide analysis of adoption of energy, railway and satellite technologies

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation

Dear Dr. Bączyk,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Sustainability and Transformation. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Sustainability and Transformation'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.

Apologies for the delay in our review process, we have struggled to secure reviewers for your manuscript. We have now received one review and invite you to send a revised manuscript based on these comments and recommendations. We may well receive another review, and if so this will be sent later.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 30 days Mar 01 2024 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 SustainTransform@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pstr/ 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 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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Catherine Bale

Section Editor

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation

Journal Requirements:

1. 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 If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references.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.

2. Please amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

a. 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.”

b. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

If you did not receive any funding for this study, please simply state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.

3. Please include a title page at the beginning of your manuscript file that lists full author names and institute addresses. This should not be uploaded as a separate file.

4. Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format only and remove any figures embedded in your manuscript file. Please also ensure that all files are under our size limit of 10MB.

For more information about figure files please see our guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/sustainabilitytransformation/s/figures

https://journals.plos.org/sustainabilitytransformation/s/figures#loc-file-requirements

5. We have noticed that you have uploaded Supporting Information files, but you have not included a list of legends. Please add a full list of legends for your Supporting Information files after the references list.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Sustainability and Transformation’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

--------------------

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

--------------------

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. 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

--------------------

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

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation 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

--------------------

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: REVIEW for article “International relations and technology diffusion: A worldwide analysis of adoption of energy, railway and satellite technologies”

The article explores the question of how political and geographical proximity, as well as allyship between sovereign states affect their uptake of novel technological innovations. Engaging with new innovations in technology is seen to be beneficial for states as they can support both climate mitigation as well as adaptation. The study observes six overarching technologies: nuclear power, solar power, wind power, marine power, high-speed rail and telecommunication satellites. It is found that geographical proximity as well as allyship between countries enhances technological diffusion, while similar political systems do not seem to have an effect.

The study offers valuable insights on how and why technologies diffuse, and what can amplify faster uptake of technologies globally. The approach is interdisciplinary and relevant, using a theoretical political science lens on technological diffusion. Also, observing diffusion from a state-perspective instead of firms or individuals is interesting. Indeed, especially smaller, newer technologies than the one observed in the study are popping up rapidly, with more to follow – how these can be quickly distributed throughout the world to maximize gains and distribute them equally geographically is highly relevant. The method is explained comprehensibly. The evidence for the conclusions is clearly retrievable to the data used, and the study does not give any reason to be concerned about the use of ethical practices. The paper is well-written and structured, and the length of the paragraphs benefits readability.

Overall, I believe the study is relevant, original and should be published. However, there are a few points that I would like to raise in order to improve the argument, make the text more concise and ensure that readers follow throughout the paper.

First of all, the title seems to be a bit misleading. While definitely sounding interesting, I believe it is formulated too narrow compared to what the study actually does. The title talks about “international relations and technology diffusion” – however, international relations is just one of the variables looked at (the one about allyship), while the others, geographical and institutional proximity are not covered. One could maybe argue that institutional proximity links to international relations, too, but the mere geographical location of a country does not directly. You could leave the title as it is, but then mention that your focus is on allyship. Or change the title to convey more clearly what you are actually looking at.

This brings me to my second point: The study has an extremely big scope in general. Looking back, it would maybe have been better to reduce the scope a bit and only look at 2-3 innovations, or less independent variables. In the beginning, it can be hard for the reader to keep remembering what are actually all the things you look at. I would suggest a visualization, maybe under methods, that highlights the six technological innovations, and the three hypotheses.

The technological innovations chosen are without doubt relevant, however, I find them a bit generic. The question is: Are they not on such a broad and general level that, sooner or later, most countries would adopt them anyway? The answer to this can be no (as you showed with nuclear power), however, I think this should be discussed and explained. Also, you could mention which other, more niche but maybe promising innovations could be looked at in future studies, like heat pumps, and why you have decided not to take these smaller but nevertheless relevant innovations in your sample.

The theoretical framework is quite long and I’m not sure if all of it is actually needed for the argument the paper is trying to make. Reconsider especially lines 123 – 133, and 135-146; if they are necessary in that depth. Many of these points are not taken up again in the discussion.

The outcome of the control variables is actually highly interesting, and it is a pity that the scope is already so big and does not leave space to discuss them in more detail. Maybe mentioning them in the introduction or discussion is possible – or suggest future studies that could look into them in more detail.

As for the results chapter itself, I personally would directly start with what you found out: Put the hypotheses (now paragraph 2-4) first, and then follow with the other explanations. That is what the reader actually wants to know! The tables are quite technical. I would suggest to move them to the annex, and instead add an image/a data visualization in the article itself.

In general, I think the article could benefit from more visualizations, or maybe even a graphical abstract.

Please find a few more specific comments with the line number below:

12/13 The second part of this sentence is not really backed by the results and also not explained better later in the article. It seems like imitation does play a role, but only imitation from countries that are allies or geographically close. That the imitation questioned is about institutionally similar states is not clarified. Not sure if the last sentence of the abstract is necessary at all.

19 At this stage, it is not fully clear yet what “political proximity” refers to. I would suggest using institutional proximity or alike to make sure everyone follows.

49/50 Please add a source for this statement

129 Typo after “that”

448 - 463 As suggested above, change order with lines 465 to 495

553-555 What about economic ties? They are not mentioned here but could be an interesting factor in technological diffusion. Political alliance and economic ties often, but not always, overlap – see e.g., the Chinese exports.

--------------------

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.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

--------------------

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review_PSTR-D-23-00058.docx

International alliances and technology diffusion: a worldwide analysis of adoption of energy, railway and satellite technologies

PSTR-D-23-00058R1

Dear Mr. Bączyk,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'International alliances and technology diffusion: a worldwide analysis of adoption of energy, railway and satellite technologies' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Sustainability and Transformation.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

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 SustainTransform@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Sustainability and Transformation.

Best regards,

Catherine Bale

Section Editor

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

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

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Sustainability and Transformation’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. 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

**********

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

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation 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

**********

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 authors have satisfactorily addressed my comments. I especially liked the implementation of more visual elements. The recommendations that were not implemented by the authors have been explained in a sufficiently. Hence, I recommend the publication in PLOS Sustainability and Transformation.

**********

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.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********