Network Position Advantage and Technological Innovation of China’s New Energy Vehicle Based on the Perspective of Network Theory
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this research, the authors conducted a network analysis based on China's new energy vehicle and using the network theory. Even though the authors have interesting results, I feel that the paper is not integrated in the current literature, neither in terms of its theoretical foundations nor in terms of similar papers focusing on China's new energy vehicle industry.
Lines 35-36: As far as I know, a strong correlation is between two variables, but I don't know how a strong correlation characterizes new energy vehicle industry, or between which variables.
Lines 58-59: "different network structures play different roles at different stages of technological innovation" - the sentence is so general that noone has doubt about it, but I am not sure what the authors meant with this
Lines 64-65: The authors claim that "many existing studies" explored the impact of overall network on tech. innovation, however, they only cite one article (and that is quite outdated).
Lines 70-74: Previously studies did NOT ignore the regulatory effect of the overall network's characteristics, see e.g. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc4030023 or DOI:10.1145/3292425.3292431
Lines 75-78: "Many studies", but not a single reference?
Lines 79-84: Not a single reference for all these claims?
Lines 92-128: A large list of terms and theories without defining these, I am not sure whether this is the theoretical basis or a list of theories that have impressed the authors to conduct research. In addition, I am not sure if the strategic niche management theory fully explains the phenomenon of new vehicle industry. As suggested by, Liu and Kokko in https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.046 this is basicly a process of market shaping, which is more general and more generalizable than the stratgic niche management theory, and I would re-construct the theory section focusing on the missing link between product innovation (new energy vehicles) and market shaping (creating the market) with approaches such as Jaworski et al. (2000) "Market-driven versus driving markets" and Erkut (2016) "Product innovation and market shaping, bridging the gap with cognitive evolutionary economics".
Hypothesis development, methods and results are relative straight-forward, although I believe that methods section needs to be more clear, especially for those who did not conduct such a research themselves.
What is not OK is the Discussion section - it is very short, does not say anything new and it reflects the same problem the authors have in the Introduction part of the article - it does not really integrate results into the current literature on the topic, and does not interpret these within the current debate.
The Conclusion section has some implications for management, but does not discuss any limitations of the study and/or contributions to the academic debate.
I believe that the article can be reconsidered for publication after the authors carefully consider the abovementioned points. I wish them best of luck with their astonishing research.
Author Response
Dear Professor.
We deeply appreciate the time and effort you’ve spent in reviewing our manuscript (Network Position Advantage and Technology Innovation of China's New Energy Vehicle: Based on the Perspective of Network Theory). Your comments are really helpful and thoughtful. Thus, we have revised the manuscript, following your comments exactly.
Point 1: In this research, the authors conducted a network analysis based on China's new energy vehicle and using the network theory. Even though the authors have interesting results, I feel that the paper is not integrated in the current literature, neither in terms of its theoretical foundations nor in terms of similar papers focusing on China's new energy vehicle industry.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for reminding us on this point. We have revised the paper to introduce relevant literature on innovation management and innovation network of the new energy vehicle in section 1(please find it in lines 88-122). Meanwhile, we have updated the literature.
Point 2: Lines 35-36: As far as I know, a strong correlation is between two variables, but I don't know how a strong correlation characterizes new energy vehicle industry, or between which variables.
Response 2: Sorry, perhaps we did not explain this problem clearly in the paper. The correlation here mainly refers to the high relationship which show the complex and close technical and economic relations among the organizations in the new energy vehicle industry. Because our statements are unclear, it may lead to ambiguity, and we have made some adjustment in the paper. Please find it in lines 66-67.
Point 3:Lines 58-59: "different network structures play different roles at different stages of technological innovation" - the sentence is so general that noone has doubt about it, but I am not sure what the authors meant with this
Response 3: We thank the reviewer for asking us to clarify on this point, and we make a further explanation of this sentence. The main purpose of this sentence is to explain the importance of time dimension. Because the existing research has different views on the influence innovation network structure on technology innovation. Some scholars think that high-density network is beneficial to promote the innovation performance, while some scholars support the view that sparse network is conducive to forming innovative ideas. In response to this controversy, scholars have found that it may be due to the time dimension that different structures have different characteristics at different stages of technology innovation. Therefore, we should pay attention to the important role of time in studying the impact of innovation network on technology innovation.
Point 4: Lines 64-65: The authors claim that "many existing studies" explored the impact of overall network on tech. innovation, however, they only cite one article (and that is quite outdated).
Response 4: We agree with the reviewer’s comment. Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we now add some new literature in the first paragraph in line 134.
Point 5: Lines 70-74: Previously studies did NOT ignore the regulatory effect of the overall network's characteristics, see e.g. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc4030023 or DOI:10.1145/3292425.3292431
Response 5: We thank you for pointing out our shortcomings. Following your suggestions, we have adjusted the statement, and also put forward the reason why we consider the effect of the overall network. In lines 141-143, we improved the original sentence as “However, less consideration is given to the moderating effect of the characteristics of the whole network which makes the entity have a close relationship with other within the network and distinguishes this network from others (Yang et al 2018)”.
Point 6: Lines 75-78: "Many studies", but not a single reference?
Response 6: We appreciate your advice about our reference. We have added some literature and please find it in line 134.
Point 7: Lines 79-84: Not a single reference for all these claims?
Response 7: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we added the literature which is related to the relationship between entities within the network and the technology innovation in line 139.
Point 8: Lines 92-128: A large list of terms and theories without defining these, I am not sure whether this is the theoretical basis or a list of theories that have impressed the authors to conduct research. In addition, I am not sure if the strategic niche management theory fully explains the phenomenon of new vehicle industry. As suggested by, Liu and Kokko in https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.046 this is basicly a process of market shaping, which is more general and more generalizable than the stratgic niche management theory, and I would re-construct the theory section focusing on the missing link between product innovation (new energy vehicles) and market shaping (creating the market) with approaches such as Jaworski et al. (2000) "Market-driven versus driving markets" and Erkut (2016) "Product innovation and market shaping, bridging the gap with cognitive evolutionary economics".
Response 8: Sorry, we didn’t state this theory clearly in the original paper, so we now make a explanation of it, and we put forward the reason why we choose the Strategic niche management theory and the technological niche.We also have adjusted it in our paper (lines 198-211).
Strategic niche management which is based on niche view is an analytical method and model of technology innovation. The basic elements of strategic niche management are technological niche and market niche. Technological niche represents the protection space in an emerging technology’s innovation and development, and the ability of an entity to adapt a technology to the external environment (Agnolucci & Mcdowall 2007). It is also a manifestation of the entity’s technological competitiveness. When technological niche matures, market niche will be formed in the appropriate time. In this process, new technology will be constantly improved, related infrastructure, auxiliary technology and supporting policies will be improved to meet the needs of potential users (Huang, Ding & Cui 2016). It can be seen that strategic niche management provides a new analytical model and tool for the promotion and application of new technology (Liu, Zhang & You 2015). Therefore, the theory of strategic niche management is consistent with our research issues. Meanwhile, the reason why we pay attention to the technological niche in strategic management niche is that one of the key factors for restricting the sustainable development and rapid promotion of China’s new erengy vehicles is the technical difficulties. Therefore, the development of this industry cannot be separated from technological breakthroughs.
Point 9: Hypothesis development, methods and results are relative straight-forward, although I believe that methods section needs to be more clear, especially for those who did not conduct such a research themselves.
Response 9: We have made correction according to your comments and have described the method in detail (lines 453-464). We have showed three steps. Firstly, descriptive statistics and correlation analysis of variables were performed to determine whether there was a correlation between the variables, and this was the foundation of the regression analysis. Secondly, choose the regression models. An F-test, BP test, and a Hausman test were performed with appropriate regression models. The F-test compared a fixed-effects model with a mixed-effects model. The BP test compared a random-effects model with a mixed-effects model. And the Hausman test compared a fixed-effects model with a random-effects model. Consequently, technological niche’s ecostate was analyzed using a mixed-effects model, and technological niche’s ecorole was analyzed using a fixed-effects model. Thirdly, we used the least square method to deal with the models, and tested the main effect and moderating effect progressively. Moreover, to avoid multicollinearity in the model, the squared term of the variable was centered, and the inflation factor (VIF) was used to judge whether harmful multicollinearity existed between the variables.
Point 10: What is not OK is the Discussion section - it is very short, does not say anything new and it reflects the same problem the authors have in the Introduction part of the article - it does not really integrate results into the current literature on the topic, and does not interpret these within the current debate.
Response 10: We have rewritten this part from two aspects. On one hand, we have adjusted the conclusion which is based on the results. On the other hand, we have added some discussions about interesting findings in our paper, such as the non-profit nature of these entities in the new energy vehicle network, and the loose coupling characteristics of this network (lines 536-580).
Point 11: The Conclusion section has some implications for management, but does not discuss any limitations of the study and/or contributions to the academic debate.
Response 11: As reviewer suggested that this paper lacks of the contributions and limitations, we have added them and some future research direction in section 7 (lines 612-636).
The main contributions of this paper are reflected in two aspects. First of all, considering the duality and contingency of the innovation network location comprehensively, we pay attention to the combination of dynamic evolution and spatial structure of innovation network. Moreover, we introduce moderating variable to find out the relationship between the innovation network location and technology innovation in different situations.
The main limitations of this study are as follows. Our research on the role of innovation networks in this paper mainly focuses on structural variables. Hence, we will consider the impact of the changeable position of different entities on technology innovation.
We appreciate the helpful comments from you, thank you again.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Despite research seems to be robust, the litrarature used is too old for year 2019.
It is highly recommende to include the newest sources into review of literature, what would allow to provide broader context of clusters' functioning peculiarities, and make the paper more atractive to its readers.
There are some suggestions:
Line 37-38 could be complemented by sources:
Žižka, M.; Hovorková Valentová, V.; Pelloneová, N.; Štichhauerová, E. 2018. The effect of clusters on the innovation performance of enterprises: traditional vs new industries, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 5(4): 780-794. http://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2018.5.4(6)
Monni, S.; Palumbo, Tvaronavičienė, M. 2017. Cluster performance: an attempt to evaluate the Lithuanian case, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 5(1): 43-57. http://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2017.5.1(4)
Hilkevics, S. Hilkevics, A. 2017. The comparative analysis of technology transfer models, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 4(4): 540-558. http://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2017.4.4(11)
Razminienė, K.; Tvaronavičienė, M. 2018. Detecting the linkages between clusters and circular economy, Terra Economicus, 16(4):50-65 http://doi.org/10.23683/2073-6606-2018-16-4-50-65
Author Response
Dear Professor
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript (Network Position Advantage and Technology Innovation of China's New Energy Vehicle: Based on the Perspective of Network Theory). The comments are valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have made corrections carefully.
Point 1: It is highly recommende to include the newest sources into review of literature, what would allow to provide broader context of clusters' functioning peculiarities, and make the paper more atractive to its readers.
Line 37-38 could be complemented by sources:
(1)Žižka, M.; Hovorková Valentová, V.; Pelloneová, N.; Štichhauerová, E. 2018. The effect of clusters on the innovation performance of enterprises: traditional vs new industries, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 5(4): 780-794. http://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2018.5.4(6)
(2)Monni, S.; Palumbo, Tvaronavičienė, M. 2017. Cluster performance: an attempt to evaluate the Lithuanian case, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 5(1): 43-57. http://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2017.5.1(4)
(3)Hilkevics, S. Hilkevics, A. 2017. The comparative analysis of technology transfer models, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 4(4): 540-558. http://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2017.4.4(11)
(4)Razminienė, K.; Tvaronavičienė, M. 2018. Detecting the linkages between clusters and circular economy, Terra Economicus, 16(4):50-65 http://doi.org/10.23683/2073-6606-2018-16-4-50-65 。
Response 1: We have rewritten this part and added the literature in section 1 for enriching the research on the influence of the innovation network on the technology innovation and increasing the description of the cluster in new energy vehicle industry (lines 54-164).
For example, we have used the first literature to describe the effect of the networks on the innovation performance. “Moreover, innovation networks depend on the entities and the social environment which networks exist in, and will show different characteristics in different industries and industrial environments, and also have different effects on the innovation outputs (Žižka et al 2018)”.
We have added the literature (2) and (4) to enrich the research of the network’s development mechanism which is aggregating innovation resources, promoting the transformation of scientific and technological achievements, and improving innovation efficiency. (lines 116-120)
We have used the third literature to prove the technology transfer is diverse. “These networks have diverse entities whose technical and economic relations are more complex and close, and the technology transfer within networks is more frequent and the models are flexible (Hilkevics, and Hilkevics, 2017).” (lines 66-68)
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript entitled “Network Position Advantage and Technology Innovation of China's New Energy Vehicle: Based on the Perspective of Network Theory” is quite clear and rational.
The manuscript has included interesting ideas and concepts. The approach followed looks useful and the results are promising.
However, the following issues should be addressed before considering the manuscript for publication.
· The structure (outline) of the paper could be given at the end of the introductory chapter 1
· In chapter 2, the literatures review must be better contextualized and be more convincing. In order to be valid, this paper must include a proper analysis of the relevant literature and then make a comparison with the authors' approach.
· Change Figure 3 by 2
· The main contribution of this manuscript should be compared with other similar empirical studies.
· What are the main limitations of this approach?
· Please describe the data collection in more detail.
· The authors should discuss in detail the innovations of this paper and the contribution to this research field.
· As usual a final thorough proof-reading is recommended.
I would however encourage the author to pursue his efforts in improving the paper for publication since the topic of the research is highly relevant.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Dear Professor
Thank you very much for your comments about our paper ((Network Position Advantage and Technology Innovation of China's New Energy Vehicle: Based on the Perspective of Network Theory). We have checked the manuscript and revised it according to the comments.
Point 1: The structure (outline) of the paper could be given at the end of the introductory chapter 1
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for reminding us on this point. We have revised the paper to add the outline of the paper in section 1 (lines 164-168).
Point 2: In chapter 2, the literatures review must be better contextualized and be more convincing. In order to be valid, this paper must include a proper analysis of the relevant literature and then make a comparison with the authors' approach.
Response 2: Sorry, because we don’t explicitly state our expression in the paper, so we have adjusted the literatures review and the theoretical basis of this paper. The section 2 is mainly theoretical basis, and we have added a proper analysis of the relevant literature in the section 1. We also have explained the difference between this paper and the other research, and the difference is the perspective and data. In this paper, we comprehensively consider the time dimension and cross-section dimension of the innovative network, so we use panel data which shows the combination of static and dynamic characteristics of the networks (related research focuses on the static characteristics of innovative networks) (lines 88-122). Meanwhile, we have put forward the applicability of the theory of social network analysis and strategic niche management. (lines 170-219)
Point 3: Change Figure 3 by 2.
Response 3: Sorry, we have already revised this mistakes.
Point 4: The main contribution of this manuscript should be compared with other similar empirical studies.
Response 4: As reviewer suggested that we have added the contributions in the section 7.
The main contributions of this paper are reflected in two aspects.
First of all, considering the duality and contingency of the innovation network location comprehensively, we pay attention to the combination of dynamic evolution and spatial structure of innovation network. It breaks through the limitation of only using cross-section data to study the network location in the empirical research. Moreover, we introduce moderating variable to find out the relationship between the innovation network location and technology innovation in different situations.
Point 5: What are the main limitations of this approach?
Response 5: Following your suggestion, we have added the limitations as following. (lines 629-636).
The main limitations of this study are as follows. Our research on the role of innovation networks in this paper mainly focuses on structural variables. However, incorporating an entity’s attributes (profitability attributes, equity attributes, etc.) into this analysis is unclear. Hence, we will consider the impact of the changeable position of different entities on technology innovation. In addition, the paper has not yet paid attention to the influence of innovation networks on the cultivation of new energy vehicle market and market innovation. How to promote the technological niche to the market niche and what role the different subjects in the innovation network will play in the kind of change needs further follow-up and improvement.
Point 6: Please describe the data collection in more detail.
Response 6: We agree with the comment of the reviewer Even though we described the data collection in the section 4, we did not state it clearly, so we have an explanation in this section. We have added the description of the data selection and cleaning. (lines 357-360)
Point 7: The authors should discuss in detail the innovations of this paper and the contribution to this research field.
Response 7: We thank you for asking us to clarify on this point, and we make a further statement of the contribution. We have made a detailed description about the contributions in the section 1 and section 2. (lines 88-122, lines 170-219.). In section 1 and 2, we have explained the difference between this paper and the other research. Through this way, we have put forward the contribution of our paper, such as: paying more attention to time dimension, defining the influence of borders more clearly and using better variables.
Point 8: As usual a final thorough proof-reading is recommended.
Response 8: It is really important as reviewer suggested that we should have a thorough proof-reading of this paper. In the process, we have corrected some problems and adjusted some statements.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I do not see any significant improvements from the authors that directly addresses my critique. The sources cited in the revised version do not reflect the current state of art literature. Language is hardly understandable. Especially regarding the strategic niche theory, the authors’ reply is neither satisfactory nor understandable. Under these conditions I do not see the point of a revised version. I would highly recommend the authors to deal with market shaping and product innovation theories instead of focusing on strategic niche theory, as I stated in my previous review report, based on Jaworski et al (2000) and Erkut (2016).
Author Response
Dear Professor.
We deeply thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript (Network Position Advantage and Technology Innovation of China's New Energy Vehicle: Based on the Perspective of Network Theory). The comments are valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have made corrections carefully
Point 1: I do not see any significant improvements from the authors that directly addresses my critique. The sources cited in the revised version do not reflect the current state of art literature. Language is hardly understandable. Especially regarding the strategic niche theory, the authors’ reply is neither satisfactory nor understandable. Under these conditions I do not see the point of a revised version. I would highly recommend the authors to deal with market shaping and product innovation theories instead of focusing on strategic niche theory, as I stated in my previous review report, based on Jaworski et al (2000) and Erkut (2016).
Response 1: We are so sorry that we did not meet your requirements. As reviewer suggested that we have made three adjustments.
First, we rewrited the introduction. In this section, we mainly introduced the importance and the problems of new energy vehicles. From the problems existing in the industry, we put forward the significance of the market orientation and its key role in the technology innovation and innovation network. (in section 1)
Second, we readjusted the theory. As you suggested, we removed the Strategic niche management theory, and added the market orientation theory which provided a perspective on explaining the formation of the network, the characteristics of the innovation, and the relationship between the innovation network and the technology innovation. (in section 2.1)
Third, we revised the improper parts, such as highlighting current literature about new energy vehicle, adding the contribution, readjusting the abstract and correcting some language problems.
We appreciate the helpful comments from you, thank you again.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Taking into account the comments of previous reviews, the authors have made a great effort to improve it and the main weaknesses are solved. The paper is now more consistent and is quite interesting and informative to most readers.
Thus, in my opinion, the paper is recommendable for publication.
Author Response
Dear Professor
We deeply appreciate the time and effort you’ve spent in reviewing our manuscript (Network Position Advantage and Technology Innovation of China's New Energy Vehicle: Based on the Perspective of Network Theory). Your comments are really helpful and thoughtful.
Point 1: Taking into account the comments of previous reviews, the authors have made a great effort to improve it and the main weaknesses are solved. The paper is now more consistent and is quite interesting and informative to most readers.
Response 1: Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
After carefully considering the new version, I believe that it has good improvements and can be published in present form.
