Does the Choice of IJV under Institutional Duality Promote the Innovation Performance of Chinese Manufacturing Firms? Evidence from Listed Chinese Manufacturing Companies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
As one of the reviewers, I read your article and I enjoyed your informative introduction. however I beleive reading your article is difficult. you need to provide the reader some short but useful explanations about terms such as going out strategy, going global, OFDI etc.I had to refer to some external sorces for better understanding. I know it is a research not a book, but you can make your article more understandable for more variety of readers by make it more clear. Also it is needed to refer to the time periods of changes, such as moving from developing countries to developed countries.
The problem statement is not clear and understandable problem statement and there is no research questions. then, in the conclusion there is no clear answer to this problem statement.
Sampling must be justified. why the period of 2003 to 2015 is proper period? if it is, I think there is a need to point out to the specific periods that apply to the going out and going global strategies in the introduction.
The literature is poor and needs to be enroched.
I also suggest you to break apart conclusion to 1.discussion, 2. conclusion, 3. suggestions for future researches, 4. Research limitations. you need to compare the findings of this research with previous related researches and show what gap does your research fill and what is its contribution? for this, a rich literature review is needed.
Best of luck
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript(ID: sustainability-898764). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We haves tudied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are tracked in the paper.
The main correctionsin and the responds to the reviewer’s comments, Please see the attachment.
Special thanks to you for your comments and suggestions.
If there is any thing else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know.
Thank you and best regards.
Yours sincerely
2020.08.18
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Does the International Joint Venture under the Influence of Dual Institution Promote the Innovation Performance of Chinese Manufacturing Enterprises?—Evidence from Listed Chinese Manufacturing Companies
Review of the paper: “ Does the International Joint Venture under the Influence of Dual Institution Promote the Innovation Performance of Chinese Manufacturing Enterprises?—Evidence from Listed Chinese Manufacturing Companies”.
In this paper the author(s) analyze I JV choice of Chinese enterprises under the dual-institution environment response, and the effect and potential problems of IJV choice on innovation efficiency
The paper is well written and it deals with an interesting topic. Also, the literature review seems fine and updated. The methodology, relying on instrumental variables, seems well conducted. I have some suggestions that I hope the authors find useful:
- First of all, I would recommend reducing the length of the abstract. It seems very long, when it should be concise and precise.
- I would also recommend splitting the very long paragraph of the introduction into smaller ones, and adding a last one with the structure of the paper.
- I would recommend not starting section 2 saying “Western scholars…” because also non Western scholars have pointed out similar findings. Perhaps a more precisely way of saying would be, “Research focused on Western firms….”
- The wording of H3 is weird to me. First, the expression “on the whole” is not clear what it intends to express. Second, the word “staged” is also not clear. I would recommend rephrasing this hypothesis.
- In H4 and H5, you don´t need to say “If H3 is established…” you are just presenting your model based on theoretical arguments.
- In methodology section, I think 243 samples should be replaced with 243 observations.
- Since this paper is submitted to a Special Issue on the topic of Institutional Quality, it would be advisable for the author(s) to discuss more how their findings are related to this topic.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript(ID: sustainability-898764). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We haves tudied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are tracked in the paper.
The main correctionsin and the responds to the reviewer’s comments, Please see the attachment.
Special thanks to you for your comments and suggestions.
If there is any thing else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know.
Thank you and best regards.
Yours sincerely
2020.08.18
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you very much for your amendments. I think this version of your manuscript is more readable. Breaking of long paragraphs was a good idea. My main concerns are met with your new sections.
I have no more comments.
Best of Luck
Reviewer 2 Report
The author(s) have correctly implemented my suggestions and the paper has improved and can be published.
