Does High-Tech Industry Agglomeration Promote Its Export Product Upgrading?—Based on the Perspective of Innovation and Openness
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
There should be some additional explanation of the estimation methods used, and the models used, as well as the software package. It would help the interpretation of the quality of the results.
Some conceptual clarification could also help, such as openness. How do you define it and measure it.
The paper has an overall problem of style and clarity, with long sentences and sometimes words that lack precision. I indicate a few; but what is needed is a global review of the text.
The review of the literature could be broader and beyond the Aghion et al model. At this point there is not much discussion of the literature.
I would expect the name of the author in the sentences on page 7 (number 24 to 26) and in other places where that might happens.
An interpretation of the table 1 is lacking.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
You have submitted your manuscript to the journal Sustainability. However, your manuscript makes no contribution to the field of Sustainability. The word sustainable does not appear in your manuscript. The word sustainability does not appear in your manuscript. There are no hypotheses, no propositions, no reasoning related to sustainability in this manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is very solid research focused on an interesting a relevant topic.
The authors tested their assumption that industry agglomeration promoted export product upgrading.
The methodology looks appropriate and the results reasonable. However, I would like to suggest a few improvements, listed below.
1. Missing identification of the research limitations
2. The claimed "innovation and openness" perspective is limited. I was expecting reasonable background research that could match the open innovation factors with the sustainable development of the aggregation.
3. Better engagement with existing literature (some relevant papers are missing), see the below as an example. A systematic assessment by using compelling keywords could lead to the identification of a better framework
- Ge, Y. (2009). Globalization and industry agglomeration in China. World development, 37(3), 550-559.
- Liu, X., & Zhang, X. (2021). Industrial agglomeration, technological innovation and carbon productivity: Evidence from China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 166, 105330.
- Hong, J., Yu, W., Guo, X., & Zhao, D. (2014). Creative industries agglomeration, regional innovation and productivity growth in China. Chinese Geographical Science, 24(2), 258-268.
- Yang, N., Hong, J., Wang, H., & Liu, Q. (2020). Global value chain, industrial agglomeration and innovation performance in developing countries: insights from China’s manufacturing industries. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 32(11), 1307-1321.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Your response to my previous review is: Thank you very much for your valuable comments on my article. According to your comments, due to the lack of contribution to the theme of sustainability, this paper has made the following modifications: 1. This paper adds the elements of open innovation, further discusses the mechanism of open innovation for the sustainable development of agglomeration (refer to page 2), and further emphasizes the sustainable importance of industry agglomeration. 2.This paper has added relevant discussions on sustainable development at the beginning (Introduction) and the end (recommendations). Refer to pages 2 and 19.
The revisions that you have made are not sufficient to relate your manuscript to the field of sustainability. In particular, there are now shallow mentions of sustainability on two pages. To relate your manuscript to sustainability in terms of open innovation, then at the beginning of your manuscript you should provide a review of the literature concerned with dynamics between open innovation and sustainability. In doing so, you should identify the gap in that literature that your manuscript addresses. Subsequently, at the end of your manuscript, you should state to what extent your study has addressed the gap and what further research is required. Also, you should revise the Abstract to make clear that your manuscript addresses interactions between open innovation and sustainability. In these additions, you should make clear what aspect(s) of sustainability your study addresses: economic, environmental, social, institutional? This should include consideration of any potential trade-offs between these different aspects of sustainability. After having done this, your manuscript will be situated in the field of sustainability and can make a contribution to the field.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Following the second round of revisions, the manuscript is now related to sustainability.
Author Response
Thank you for your comment
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.
