Public Support of Private R&D–Effects on Economic Sustainability
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper investigates the effect of R&D subsidies on entreprises' innovative preformance in the Czech Republic based on data taken from official data bases 2011-2012.
What can be improved, in my opinion:
a) the goal of the research should be formulated more explicitely after the literature review is complete and after the gaps in knowledge are idenitified. Then it will be more clear to the reader why the paper has been written and where it is leading.
b) The paper lacks the Conclusion. In the conclusion it should be stated how the goal was reached, limitations and directions for further research should be outlined.
c) limitations are very important because the paper deals with rather specific data and with only one country.
d) in the Conclusion it should be also outlined for whom the results can be interesting. Are they interesting from the scientific point of view? Hardly, because similar research have been already conducted. Probably the paper is interesting to practitioners, so this should be definitely mentioned.
e) Novelty. There is not so much novelty in the topic. Is there any novelty in applying the method of analysis? Have you added anything new to the method? If so, please identify. The novelty s probably that the research is about Czech Republic. This should be mentioned as a strength or your paper, etc
Author Response
a) the goal of the research should be formulated more explicitely
after the literature review is complete and after the gaps in
knowledge are idenitified. Then it will be more clear to the reader
why the paper has been written and where it is leading.
Response: We agree, and we have added a deeper explanation of the paper’s goal right at the end of the literature review section (p.5) :
Obviously, the contemporary R&D support evaluation at the firm’s level brings very heterogeneous results, regardless of the observed output. Moreover, researchers often limit their studies to specific outcomes like patents, induced R&D expenditure (leverage effect) or performance indicators. However, when dealing with R&D support from the perspective of companies’ economic sustainability, we should address the whole causation chain. In this paper, we are trying to answer the question if the assumed causation: R&D support-innovation-competitiveness & economic sustainability really works. We simultaneously assess the effect of R&D support on patents (which serves as a rough proxy for innovation similarly to Bronzini and Piselli [35] or Hassana and Tuccic [43]) and on competitiveness as a necessary condition of economic sustainability for any company and consequently for sustainable economic growth. For R&D support to be truly effective in terms of economic sustainability, the beneficiaries should not only produce more patents but also have their competitiveness increased. Although our research is not entirely new, there is only a limited number of studies dealing with the connection of support and innovation and competitiveness. And, to date, no such study has been carried out for the case of the Czech Republic.
b) The paper lacks the Conclusion. In the conclusion it should be
stated how the goal was reached, limitations and directions for
further research should be outlined.
Response: True. The paper instead contains a „Discussion section“ that actually serves as a conclusion. We renamed the section to „Conclusion“ and extended the section to clearly address the conclusions and also limitations of our study along with directions for future research in the area.
c) limitations are very important because the paper deals with rather
specific data and with only one country.
Response: Yes, we agree and we added more information regarding the limitations of the study. We pointed out the limitations of our study mainly in the Data and Method section and added a further explanation of the limitations in the Conclusion section too.
d) in the Conclusion it should be also outlined for whom the results
can be interesting. Are they interesting from the scientific point of
view? Hardly, because similar research have been already conducted.
Probably the paper is interesting to practitioners, so this should be
definitely mentioned.
Response: We agree, we added a sentence regarding importance for R&D policy in the Czech Republic. Regarding the paper’s interest from a scientific perspective, we agree. However, to date, not much similar research has been conducted, as we pointed out in the literature review section. And yes, we absolutely agree that the paper is more important for practitioners – evaluators and policy makers. We have stressed this fact in the Conclusion section.
e) Novelty. There is not so much novelty in the topic. Is there any
novelty in applying the method of analysis? Have you added anything
new to the method? If so, please identify. The novelty s probably that
the research is about Czech Republic. This should be mentioned as a
strength or your paper, etc
Response: Well, as explained above, there are not many papers dealing with a similar topic. Of course, the methods are standard and well known, and there is no new scientific addition here. However, the novelty can be found in the combination of counterfactual design and addressing innovation and competitiveness at the same time. There are not many studies focusing on both issues, and usually the causation chain is simply assumed and taken for granted. And yes, this is the first attempt to evaluate R&D support and its impact on patents and competitiveness for the case of the Czech Republic. We have stressed this in the literature review section and the conclusion section as well.
Reviewer 2 Report
INTRODUCTION
The article develops very briefly the idea of sustainability in the company. I think that this concept has to be clearly reinforced.
The research gap is well identified although some works that have addressed this or similar issue should be referenced.
The 2 objectives of the work are too broad, they should be reoriented, since the results obtained do not give a complete answer to these objectives. Certainly, it is very difficult to discover if the R & D subsidies are generating a competitive advantage for the company, only with an analysis of the Propensity Score Matching techniques, so it would be more interesting to limit the objectives, keeping in mind the results obtained.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The review of the literature should not appear in the Introduction, but as a separate chapter. In addition, it should incorporate a greater number of references in the literature and the theoretical concepts underlying this study should also be addressed in this section. A theoretical framework that supports the research approach, perhaps Resources Based View (Barney, 1991) would fit with the approach of the article. We must also define the basic concepts used (Sustainability, sustainable economic growth, Public support, innovation, value added, performance, etc.)
DATA AND METHODS
About the data, although the size of the simple remove large, the period studied is very old, so the author could justify this.
The bigger concern of the work are the measurement scales. The indicator of innovation "registered patents" is very simple, this is not innovation. You could use a validate scale of literature such as Beck et al 2011. Also, it is not the clear definition of competitiveness.
DISCUSSION
The authors need to develop more deeply this section, trying to extract the contribution of the work.
Also, practical implications, conclusion, limitations and future research could be interesting to improve the final paper.
REFERENCES
Barney, Jay B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, Vol.17, Pp. 99–120
Beck, L., Janssens, W., Debruyne, M., & Lommelen, T. (2011). A study of the relationships between generation, market orientation, and innovation in family firms. Family Business Review, 24(3), 252-272
Núñez-Cacho, P.; Molina-Moreno, V.; Corpas-Iglesias, F.A.; Cortés-García, F.J. Family Businesses Transitioning to a Circular Economy Model: The Case of “Mercadona”. Sustainability 2018, 10, 538.
Author Response
INTRODUCTION
The article develops very briefly the idea of sustainability in the
company. I think that this concept has to be clearly reinforced.
Response: We agree. We added a deeper explanation of the economic sustainability of a company and its importance in the Introduction, the Data and Method, and the Conclusion sections. In our paper, we focus on economic sustainability – the ability of a company to stay in business as proposed by Doan and MacGillivray (2001). And we believe that economic sustainability is closely related to competitiveness – only competitive firms can stay in business for a long term. We have also changed the title of the article to be more explicit.
The research gap is well identified although some works that have
addressed this or similar issue should be referenced.
Response: We thank the reviewer for giving us tips for other relevant papers. We have eagerly read them and added their findings into our text. Honestly, we have tried to include all the papers we have found relevant, but of course we may have missed some papers dealing with the same topic. We are convinced, however, that there are not many papers dealing with both innovation and competitiveness/economic sustainability at the same time; we have referenced all that we found.
The 2 objectives of the work are too broad, they should be reoriented,
since the results obtained do not give a complete answer to these
objectives. Certainly, it is very difficult to discover if the R & D
subsidies are generating a competitive advantage for the company, only
with an analysis of the Propensity Score Matching techniques, so it
would be more interesting to limit the objectives, keeping in mind the
results obtained.
Response: We completely agree that the objectives and terms – sustainability, competitiveness and innovation in our case - are very wide, which makes any analysis difficult. And narrowing them makes perfect sense. We personally had a similar discussion with a reviewer in International Small Business Journal two years ago (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0266242617695382?journalCode=isbb) . There we finally came to an agreement based on narrowing competitiveness to performance indicators similar to those in this proposed paper. We have added a further explanation of competitiveness into the text in the Introduction section and explained the supposed relationship between competitiveness and economic sustainability. Regarding innovation and patents, we do the same in the Literature review section. Again, it is a big simplification to narrow innovation to patents, but it is a rather standard approach – see Hasan & Tucci (2010) for example. Such a simplification is often undermined by data availability (there is no closer proxy for innovation than patents in the Czech Republic).
LITERATURE REVIEW
The review of the literature should not appear in the Introduction,
but as a separate chapter. In addition, it should incorporate a
greater number of references in the literature and the theoretical
concepts underlying this study should also be addressed in this
section. A theoretical framework that supports the research approach,
perhaps Resources Based View (Barney, 1991) would fit with the
approach of the article. We must also define the basic concepts used
(Sustainability, sustainable economic growth, Public support,
innovation, value added, performance, etc.).
Response: We agree, we had the Literature review as a sub-chapter of the Introduction. We have changed it to become a separate chapter. We thank the reviewer for mentioning the influential work of Barney (1991), and we incorporated the findings into the Introduction section linking R&D to competitive advantage. We thank the reviewer for guiding us to this reference. The terms we use are now all explained in detail – we have thought that these are sometimes self-explanatory but after reading the text carefully again we agree with the reviewer – it is important for the reader to get at least short explanatory comment to any basic term we use.
DATA AND METHODS
About the data, although the size of the simple remove large, the
period studied is very old, so the author could justify this.
Response: Yes, the data might seem old, but we finished the research project in 2016 and subsequently had to negotiate with one of the data providers (Technology Agency of the Czech Republic) before we were allowed to publish the final results. Although we understand the reviewer’s concern, we are convinced that the older period does not undervalue the results.
The bigger concern of the work are the measurement scales. The
indicator of innovation "registered patents" is very simple, this is
not innovation. You could use a validate scale of literature such as
Beck et al 2011. Also, it is not the clear definition of
competitiveness.
Response: Yes, agreed and dealt with – see above. Patents are a really crude proxy for innovation, but, honestly, there is no better indicator available at present with sufficient coverage (see Hasan & Tucci 2010 for example). We have described the possible difference between innovation and patents and the pros and cons of using it as a proxy for innovation. Generally, we agree with the reviewer, but technically there is no other way to measure innovation in the Czech Republic.
DISCUSSION
The authors need to develop more deeply this section, trying to
extract the contribution of the work.
Also, practical implications, conclusion, limitations and future
research could be interesting to improve the final paper.
Response: Yes, the same comes from reviewer no 1., so we have tried to improve the conclusion section substantially including limitations (which were mentioned just briefly in the previous text) and aims for future research.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has greatly improved. All my comments and suggestions have been taken into account. In my opinion, the paper can be published as is now
Author Response
Thank you very much for your effort, you review was very helpful. We added some more explanation regarding the purpose of the research and its conclusion - reviewer 2 requested that (it is highlighted in blue).
Reviewer 2 Report
2 round of review of the paper: Public Support of Private R&D – Effects on Economic Sustainability.
Dear authors,
Thanks for your effort implementing the suggested changes. I think that the final result is goood, also the title of the paper is now better, fitting more with the Journal Sustainability, and clarifying the topic.
About the introduction, I would like to see the goal of the paper clearly here.
The section method is now ok, well organized, same for the results part.
About discussion and conclusión, need to be be more developed, explaining clearly the contribution of the paper, if the goal was reached, and perhaps could be useful to add limitations and future implications.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your effort, you review was very helpful. We added some more explanation regarding the purpose of the research and its conclusion (it is highlighted in blue in the final version of the paper). We believe that it is clear now. Limitations of our research were added into the second version of the paper. We thank you once again for very professional review.
