The Interactive Effect of Government Financial Support and Firms’ Innovative Efforts on Company Growth: A Focus on Climate-Tech SMEs in Korea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of the paper is innovative and the processing of the paper is in accordance with current state of knowledge in scientific community.
The literature sources are contemporary, so the literature review forms an adequate basis for the upcoming research.
The title is well formulated and it covers the content of the paper.
The abstract contains main required components.The paper is written in accordance with traditional IMRD (introduction, methodology, results, discussion) structure of scientific papers.
The methods are stated clearly, but it is not possible to consider them as sufficient as the main formulas of statistical tests are missing. Discussion in its traditional structure should be enriched by constructive comparison of results of own research with contemporary state of knowledge formulated so far.
The level of the author’s knowledge is satisfying. It is obvious that authors are well oriented in the topic and that they use appropriate terms.
Writing style is clear and understandable and it is declared that authors have enough experience with publishing in journals indexed in world reputable databases.
Overall, I was interested to read this manuscript.
The scientific value of the paper should be highlighted by critical construction of framework conditions of research outcome´s application as well as detected barriers and future prospective of research.
Authors should develop their discussion and provide a clear theoretical contribution to the knowledge.
I wish the authors the best of luck with their future research.
Author Response
Please, see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Some of the sources appear to be outdated, given the ambitions of the article.
There are minor linguistic inaccuracies, chiefly pertaining to the use of tenses (present perfect / past tense, most notably). Punctuation (such as the use of the comma) should also be improved - e.g. line 198.
Author Response
Please, see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx