Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper needs the following improvements:

The abstract, as is, does not provide a concise account of the work and conclusion of the research study. The research ideas could have been more effective through elaborative and concise sentences. In addition, it needs to be more structured and synthesized for research clarity. 

The introduction section should provide relevant contextual ideas and background leading to research studies and additional literature to explain why it is important for this research study.

It is important to add more details regarding the research data collection, analysis, and interpretation of results.

The authors should provide a brief description of the methods of data employed and their application and appropriateness for data analysis.

The results were not well-presented to readers to understand the focus of the research study.

The results must be interpretive rather than just descriptive and connect the research results with relevant literature citations for validity and reliability as, for example, Table 4. Moderating role of cultural diversity is not analyzed.

Good luck!

Author Response

Comment 1: The abstract, as is, does not provide a concise account of the work and conclusion of the research study. The research ideas could have been more effective through elaborative and concise sentences. In addition, it needs to be more structured and synthesized for research clarity

Author's response:

（1）After reviewing a wide range of papers published on Sustainability, we have adjusted the structure of the abstract following the “research background-research process-research results-research significance” order.

（2）We have provided more details about the “research process” and “research results”.

（3）We have refined the language of the abstract.

Detailed list of revisions:

Page 1，lines 8-28

Comment 2: The introduction section should provide relevant contextual ideas and background leading to research studies and additional literature to explain why it is important for this research study.

Author's response:

（1）In the first and second paragraphs of the “introduction” section, we have added some basic realistic backgrounds, indicating the necessity and urgency of this research, so as to reflect the practical significance of this paper.

（2）We have added more details to the literature review and put forward the research questions of this paper more reasonably in view of the shortcomings of the existing literature.

（3）We have revised the research contributions of this paper to explain the possible significance of this research from both theoretical and practical aspects.

Detailed list of revisions:

（1）Page 2，lines 48-88

（2）Page 4，lines 184-202

（3）Page 5，lines 208-218

Comment 3: It is important to add more details regarding the research data collection, analysis, and interpretation of results.

Author's response:

（1）In the “research design and data sources” section, we have added more details about the data collection process and described the measurement methods of key variables in the research model in detail. In addition, we have added descriptive statistics of the relevant data (Table 1).

（2）In the “results analysis” and “further analysis” sections, we have refined the explanation for the benchmark regression results to provide a detailed analysis of the possible causes of these results.

Detailed list of revisions:

（1）Page 12，lines 458-467

（2）Page 13，lines 490-501

（3）Page 14，lines 515-528

（4）Page 14-15，lines 551-565

（5）Page 15-16，lines 587-599

（6）Page 17-22

Comment 4: The authors should provide a brief description of the methods of data employed and their application and appropriateness for data analysis.

Author's response:

（1）In the “research design and data sources” section, we have introduced the measurement methods of the relevant key variables involved in this paper in detail first, along with the explanation for the applicability of these methods and related references.

（2）In the “robustness check” and “further analysis” sections, we have added some details to better explain the data and justify the choice of the research methods.

Detailed list of revisions:

（1）Page 11-12，lines 400-439

（2）Page 16，lines 610-622

（3）Page 17，lines 624-631

（4）Page 18，lines 687-699

（5）Page 20，lines 780-788

Comment 5: The results were not well-presented to readers to understand the focus of the research study.

Author's response:

（1）In the “results analysis” section, we have refined the interpretation of the benchmark regression results and carried out a detailed analysis of the possible reasons for these results.

（2）In the “further analysis” section, we have re-summarised the research results and compared the relevant results with the previous findings to highlight the research focus of this paper.

（3）In the “main conclusions and countermeasures” section, we have added a paragraph of discussion, so as to make it easier for readers to understand the key points and innovations of this paper.

Detailed list of revisions:

（1）Page 14，lines 515-528

（2）Page 14-15，lines 551-565

（3）Page 15-16，lines 587-599

（4）Page 17，lines 639-653

（5）Page 17-18，lines 667-678

（6）Page 19-20，lines 741-765

（7）Page 21-22，lines 820-858

（8）Page 22，lines 860-884

Comment 6: The results must be interpretive rather than just descriptive and connect the research results with relevant literature citations for validity and reliability as, for example, Table 4. Moderating role of cultural diversity is not analyzed

Author's response:

（1）We have rearranged the content of the “results analysis” section and discussed the deeper implications of the results.

（2）We have attempted to associate the results of this paper with the previous findings and added some explanations for the results.

Detailed list of revisions:

（1）Page 14，lines 515-528

（2）Page 14-15，lines 551-565

（3）Page 15-16，lines 587-599

（4）Page 17，lines 639-653

（5）Page 17-18，lines 667-678

（6）Page 19-20，lines 741-765

（7）Page 21-22，lines 820-858

Reviewer 2 Report

It is very interesting paper! It presents important issue regarding importance of spatial structure on innovation performance. In my opinion some sections may be improved:

1.    The methodology and data set shuold be better and clear presented. Before the table 2 should be introduced howinnovation efficiency and innovation gap were calculated

2.    The conlusion on relation between cultural diversity and the distance between cities on innovation gap (U or " inverted U " ) should be better introduced and support by results

3.    In the references there is majority of chineese research – to include worlwide research on economic development would be beneficiant for the paper.

Author Response

Comment 1: The methodology and data set shuold be better and clear presented. Before the table 2 should be introduced howinnovation efficiency and innovation gap were calculate.

Author's response:

（1）We have introduced the measurement methods of the spatial structure index, innovation efficiency index, and innovation gap index in detail and added some references to justify the use of these methods.

（2）We have supplemented the description of the data processing process and added descriptive statistics of the relevant data.

Detailed list of revisions:

（1）Page 11-12，lines 400-439

（2）Page 13，lines 490-500

Comment 2: The conlusion on relation between cultural diversity and the distance between cities on innovation gap (U or " inverted U " ) should be better introduced and support by results.

Author's response:

（1）At the beginning of sections 5.2 and 5.3, we have added existing research on the impact of cultural diversity and inter-city distance on regional innovation, so as to better introduce these two moderating variables.

（2）In sections 5.2 and 5.3, we have deepened the description of the results of the moderating effect of cultural diversity and inter-city distance and compared them with the existing literature results to substantiate and highlight the value of the relevant conclusions of the article.

Detailed list of revisions:

（1）Page 18，lines 687-699

（2）Page 19-20，lines 741-765

（3）Page 20，lines 780-788

（4）Page 21-22，lines 820-858

Comment 3: In the references there is majority of chineese research – to include worlwide research on economic development would be beneficiant for the paper.

Author's response:

We have comprehensively updated the literature and added many worldwide studies to make the conclusions of this paper more valuable.

Detailed list of revisions:

（1）Page 26-27，lines 1063-1175

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper was improved, but the dialog with literature should be improved.

We recommend reading the following sources:

Khalifa, A.A.; Ibrahim, A.-J.; Amhamed, A.I.; El-Naas, M.H. Accelerating the Transition to a Circular Economy for Net-Zero Emissions by 2050: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11656. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811656

Burlea-Schiopoiu, A., Balan, D.A. The short memory life span of consumer: a premise for corporate socially irresponsible behavior? Innovation Management and Education Excellence through Vision 2020, Vols. I-XI, pp. 1274-1286, Milan, Italy, 2018

Burlea-Schiopoiu A., Mihai, L.S. An Integrated Framework on the Sustainability of SMEs. Sustainability, 11(21), 6026; 2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216026

Good luck!

Author Response

Author's response:

Thanks to the reviewer for comments. We have carefully referenced the 3 articles you provided and adjusted the writing style of some of the literature dialogues. In addition, we chose to cite 2 of them as references for our articles based on the relevance of the research topic. The other one is not cited because the research topic is irrelevant.

Detailed list of revisions:

（1）Page 13，lines 541-542

（2）Page 15，lines 625-633

（3）Page 16，lines 656-662

（4）Page 17，lines 704