The Role of Networks in Improving International Performance and Competitiveness: Perspective View of Open Innovation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Topic selection is of great significance, but the analysis process is too simple, lacking the source of questionnaire, reliability and validity analysis, exploratory analysis, etc

    1. line 259 to 268：It is suggested that the literature review of questionnaire design should be made into a table, which is more simple and eye-catching.     2.The presentation of the calculation process in this article is concise and comprehensive, It can be seen that the author is very familiar with SEM research methods.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The revisions have improved the paper. In my opinion it can be published in the current form.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The present version of the paper has addressed my previous concerns. errors in the English language seem to have been corrected and the whole text is clearer and presents an adequate level.

Also, the model presented on page 6, which explains the relationships among variables, has been preceded by some explanation as requested.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

I have gone through the revision. I find that the authors have formatted as per Sustainability journal style requirements, and some improvements have been made in language.  However, the concerns of motivation, theoretical position, and tying back of the results to the theoretical positioning have note been addressed. Kindly revert to my comments of  my earlier review. A lot needs to be done in the theoretical front end of the paper, discussions around the various mechanisms that drive the argumentation of your hypotheses, and the justifications of  the antecedents while developing your conceptual model, before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

I wish the authors all the luck going forward.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

There has been significant improvement in the article and its positioning now. The manuscript has to be copy edited well. There are glaring errors for example line 47, 'except' is in capital letters.  Besides there are a number of run off sentences in the manuscript that can easily corrected by a professional copyeditor. Wish you all the best.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Paper format is not standard, there are a lot of errors. The questionnaire design lacks references and evidence. The questionnaire design lacks references and evidence. Lack of measurement model. Causal analysis is too simple.

Reviewer 2 Report

The study is clear and the literature is up to date. I find the paper interesting and important for contemporary enterprises. Well done!

Reviewer 3 Report

The conceptual model presented on page 6 should be preceded by some explanation as for instance that the hypotheses have been integrated into a model presented below. The model cannot appear suddenly or unexpectedly without mentioning or introducing it before.    

This paper presents some errors in the English language as well as some stylistic issues as I will show below in order to help the authors understand what is wrong. However, I would recommend not only to fix these errors but also to have your paper proofread by a professional English native proofreader.

Errors found:

page 1, lines 40, 41: «In spite of the fact that small and medium-sized exporters (SMEs) pivotal roles in economic growth...». Suggestion: «In spite of the fact that small and medium-sized exporters (SMEs) play pivotal roles in economic 40 growth...» page 2, lines 85, 86: «Spontaneous cooperation potentially decreases transaction costs, and 85 offer opportunities...». Suggestion: «Spontaneous cooperation potentially decreases transaction costs and 85 offers opportunities...» Page 3, line 134: «In order words, ...». Suggestion: «In other words, ...» Page 6, line 251: «one month before the beginning the survey...». Suggestion: «one month before the beginning of the survey...» Page 6, lines 255, 256: «Among the 265 responses, six respondents were eliminated because they were not complete». In this case, it is not an error of the English language, but an error of the intended meaning. I believe (and hope!) that six respondents were not eliminated, but that «six questionnaires were eliminated because they were not complete». Page 10, lines 353, 354: «...had a significant positive effect on international network embeddedness, implying imply that a bigger difference...» Suggestion: «...had a significant 353 positive effect on international network embeddedness, implying that a bigger difference...»  Page 11, lines 394, 395: «...giving scholars, who interested in explaining network formation...». Suggestion: «...giving scholars, who are interested in explaining network formation...»  Page 11, lines 395, 396: «...is better accomplished by above mechanism.». Suggestion: «is better accomplished by the above  mechanism.» Page 11, lines 396-398: «As well, explaining network formation through three mechanisms such as reach, richness, and receptivity, Gulati et al. (2011)’s study might be developed by this study because it tried to explain the network formation by connecting physical mechanism with their study.». This sentence is confusing and needs to be rewritten in clear English. 

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript is an empirical analysis of the role of networks in the international performance of firms from South Korea, using SEM.

While the topic addresses a potential contribution to understanding the mechanisms that drive international performance, I had the following concerns with the manuscript.

First, the manuscript needs to be copy edited well using a professional copy editor. It is very difficult to follow most of the sections of the manuscript. The authors need to discuss upfront the motivation of the study. This is not articulated well in the introduction. Why is the study required at all in the first place? The introduction needs to be improved considerably, situated well in extant academic literature on internationalization of firms. The theoretical perspective around which the authors arguments are situated needs to be well articulated and supported. What is the research-based perspective that the authors are referring to in lines 97 to 103? Are they referring to ‘resource-based perspective’ here? The theoretical perspective that the authors suggest need to be adequately cited and supported well. Following ‘c’ the arguments of the hypotheses H1, H2 , and H3 need to be supported well. The arguments presently in the manuscript is more a representation of previous studies that show correlations among the constructs. The arguments have to represent a ‘causal relationship’ between the variables. Again, the mediation hypotheses are not proposed and supported well. The reportage of results needs to checked well before final submission. For example, please check lines 355 to 361. The reportage does not appear to be what the hypotheses seem to suggest. As such, the article is difficult to read as the various sections do not seamlessly follow one another. Overall, narratives in most of the sections need to be developed well clearly grounded in theory. The sections appear to be more a representation of tables and figures than discussions around them. The conclusion sections need to be developed well. The discussions need to revert to the initial questions raised at the beginning of the article and should revolve around how the findings have contributed to extant literature on internationalization of firms. Contribution to both theory and implications for practice need to be clearly articulated and discussed.

 

I wish the authors all the luck going forward.