Research on the Correlation and Influencing Factors of Digital Technology Innovation in the Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macao Greater Bay Area
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I appreciate the research presented in the article but may be it is necessary to well-ground in more detail the reasons for choosing the cities for analysis (in future article on the topic)
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled“Research on the Correlation and Influencing Factors of Digital Technology Innovation in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area”(D: sustainability-1893523). The comment is valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections using the “Track Changes” function. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Response to comment: I appreciate the research presented in the article but maybe it is necessary to well-ground in more detail the reasons for choosing the cities for analysis (in future articles on the topic).
Response: Thanks for your appreciation and kind question. We have added the reasons for the selection of these cities for analysis in the text (Line 147-161). We will also pay attention to this in future studies.
Once again, thank you very much for your profession and kind comments. We hope our revisions would be satisfactory.
Thank you and best regards.
Diexin Chen
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
I was a delight to review your paper as digital technology innovation, as this is an important topic and the studied region is significant.
In all hostly, I was struggling a bit in understanding the structure of your research - my concern it that there are too many avenues in the paper (e.g. complex network theory and social network theory). Also the underpinning arguments for decisions are not always documented in great detail (e.g. two-way patent rights).
Furthermore the year brackets in general charateristics (table 2) need to be motivated, as well as there need to add impacting factors - such as COVID (on the year bracket 2018-2020) and other (regional) impacting factors. This and others need to be explained and/or listed as research limitations.
More critcal view on used statistical testing approaches have to be added - e.g. Vuong test - see for exampel : Wilson, P. (2015). The misuse of the Vuong test for non-nested models to test for zero-inflation. Economics Letters, 127, 51-53.
Also it would be good to add a discussion section.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your acknowledgment and comments concerning our manuscript entitled“Research on the Correlation and Influencing Factors of Digital Technology Innovation in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area”(D: sustainability-1893523). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections using the “Track Changes” function. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
1.Response to comment: I was struggling a bit in understanding the structure of your research - my concern is that there are too many avenues in the paper (e.g. complex network theory and social network theory). Also, the underpinning arguments for decisions are not always documented in great detail (e.g. two-way patent rights).
Response:
We apologize for the confusion, and we provide a brief explanation below.
First, we restate the study's structure. To begin, we constructed an innovation correlation matrix for digital technologies after obtaining two-way patent rights transfer data on digital technologies in the cities of the Greater Bay Area. Second, the spatial distribution characteristics of digital technology innovation linkages were analyzed at the aggregate (network density, network connectedness, average path length, network clustering coefficients) and individual levels (degree centrality (including outdegree and indegree) and betweenness centrality) using Ucinet software. The spatial pattern of digital technology innovation linkages and their dynamic evolution is then portrayed and analyzed using Netdraw software. Finally, from a multidimensional proximity perspective, a negative binomial gravity regression model is used to analyze the influencing factors of digital technology innovation associations.
Second, we discuss the parallels and differences between the two theories. Social and complex network theory is a network analysis method that focuses on node relationships.' The premise of both studies is to obtain a network relationship matrix to quantify the network's topology. Furthermore, there is some measurement metric overlap. However, the analysis's focus is different. Complex network theory includes degree distribution coefficients, degree correlation coefficients, modularity, small-world coefficients, and so on. In contrast, social network theory has centrality, structural holes, cohesive subgroups, and so on.
Finally, we discuss the factors to consider when selecting a research method. In this study, two metrics, mean path length and network agglomeration coefficient, reflect the network's small-world-ness and are related to complex network theory. While other indicators, such as network density and relatedness, primarily reflect the network's closeness and accessibility, centrality mainly demonstrates the network's node relationship, and this indicator is related to social network theory. This study is based on the work of Duan et al. (2018) and Qin and Huang (2020), who used the social network analysis method and the corresponding indicators to conduct their research.
In addition, we have added an explanation of two-way patenting to our article (lines 64-68). It simply means that patent rights are transferred to each other between different cities.
2. Response to comment: Furthermore, the year brackets in general characteristics (table 2) need to be motivated, as well as there need to add impacting factors - such as COVID (on the year bracket 2018-2020) and other (regional) impacting factors. This and others need to be explained and/or listed as research limitations.
Response:
Thank you for that excellent and insightful series of remarks. Incorporating epidemics as a factor in the model and researching the impact of epidemic shocks on the association of digital technology innovation could be a practical choice. We agree, and your suggestion has been a massive help to us in our subsequent research. We regret, however, that we could not incorporate relevant research into this paper due to time constraints and other factors. Nonetheless, we have added your suggestion to the discussion section (Lines 963-971) and will carefully consider it in future research.
From a multidimensional proximity perspective, we examine the impact of geographical, technological, and institutional proximity on digital technology innovation linkages in this paper. In terms of control variables, we draw on previous research (Bai et al., Dong et al., and Qin and Huang) to include factors that influence innovation (the sum of GDP per capita and the sum of people engaged in R&D activities in the two cities). Without factors such as epidemics or research limitations, this study is complete. Based on relevant theory, we will include outbreaks and other elements in the model for analysis and discussion in subsequent studies. Furthermore, the characteristics of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area's digital technology innovation network before and after the epidemic can be compared and analyzed to understand better the outbreak's impact on digital technology innovation linkages.
3. Response to comment: A more critical view on used statistical testing approaches has to be added - e.g. Vuong test - see for example Wilson, P. (2015). The misuse of the Vuong test for non-nested models to test for zero inflation. Economics Letters, 127, 51-53.
Response:
It's really true, as the Reviewer suggested, that adding a critical approach to Vuong. We have already added the corresponding text (Line 598-605).
4. Response to comment: Also it would be good to add a discussion section.
Response:
Thank you very much for your kind advice. We have added a more in-depth discussion (Line 743-792). Three aspects are included: the similarities and differences between this study and the results of previous studies, the innovations of this study, and the limitations of this study.
We have tried our best to improve the manuscript and made extensive modifications to the original manuscript according to the comments. Once again, thank you very much for your profession and kind comments. We hope our revisions would be satisfactory.
Thank you and best regards.
Diexin Chen
Reviewer 3 Report
Introduction: The concept looks interesting. However, the authors need to work on the research gap, which is not correctly identified. For example, the authors should explain the following:
Why are you conducting this study?
What has been done before on this topic?
What is the novelty of this study?
In which theory are you going to contribute?
Literature review:
I suggest the authors add the literature review section by showing the research progress on the topic and the research gap using the latest literature support.
The methodology section requires more clarification, such as what type of sampling technique was used. How you collected data? Methodological impact on the study?
The results discussion should be more in-depth compared to previous studies.
I must urge the authors should add the following sections:
Theoretical contributions
Institutional implications
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled“Research on the Correlation and Influencing Factors of Digital Technology Innovation in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area”(ID: sustainability-1893523). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections using the “Track Changes” function. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
1. Response to comment: Introduction: the authors need to work on the research gap, which is not correctly identified. For example, the authors should explain the following: ①Why are you conducting this study? ②What has been done before on this topic? ③What is the novelty of this study? ④In which theory are you going to contribute?
Response:
Your suggestions have been beneficial to us.
① We have added the reasons for conducting this study, i.e., the purpose of the study, in the introduction section (Line 75-84).
② The introduction provides a brief overview of previous research on this issue (Line 61-74).
③We have previously clarified the innovative nature of this study in the introduction (Line 98-111), but perhaps we have not sufficiently described this point. We now refer to the novelty of this study in our discussion (Line 778-786).
④ We have already added the theoretical contribution of this paper in the introduction, both in terms of the content and the methodology of the study (Line 85-93).
2. Response to comment: Literature review: I suggest the authors add the literature review section by showing the research progress on the topic and the research gap using the latest literature support.
Response:
Thank you very much for your professional advice. We did not separate the introductory and literature review sections in our original article and wrote about previous studies in the preceding paragraph (Line 54-93). We have now separated the literature review section, using the most recent literature to support it and comparing the previous research with the research in this paper (Line 99-145).
3. Response to comment: The methodology section requires more clarification, such as ①what type of sampling technique was used. ②How you collected data? ③Methodological impact on the study?
Response:
Thank you very much for your good advice. Based on your comments, we have reorganized the methodology section.
①We did not apply sampling techniques. Instead, we used big data mining techniques, using Python software, to obtain the complete data of approximately 1.45 million and then filtered and cleaned the data.
② Regarding the data collection, initially, we explained it in the text (Line 216-223), but perhaps we did not show it adequately. Now, we have a description of the patent data mining in the text that spells this out. (Line 229-236)
③ On the impact of methodology on research, we clarify in the discussion section (Line 770-777). Rather than simply using administrative-level proxies to measure institutional proximity, we break through the limitations of the WGI and market-based indices in Guangdong, Hong Kong, and Macau to construct a transaction cost price index that highlights the unique nature of "one country, two systems" in Guangdong, Hong Kong, and Macau.
4. Response to comment: The results discussion should be more in-depth compared to previous studies.
Response:
It's really true, as the Reviewer suggested, that adding a more in-depth discussion. We have added (Line 743-792). Three aspects are included: the similarities and differences between this study and the results of previous studies, the innovations of this study, and the limitations of this study.
5. Response to comment: add the following section: Theoretical contributions and Institutional Implications
Response:
Many thanks for your suggestions. We totally agree with your opinion. The theoretical contributions and Institutional implications have been added to the Discussion (Line 85-93) and Conclusion (Line 932-962) sections.
We have tried our best to improve the manuscript and made extensive modifications to the original manuscript according to the comments. Once again, thank you very much for your profession and kind comments. We hope our revisions would be satisfactory.
Thank you and best regards.
Diexin Chen
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks for the authors' efforts. However, the following comments need more improvements.
Introduction: The authors need to work on the research gap, which is not correctly identified. For example, the authors should explain the following:
Why are you conducting this study? This should be included in the introduction section.
What has been done before on this topic? Please read the article below carefully to better understand this question. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-01-2022-3807
What is the novelty of this study? Where is line 778-786?
In which theory are you going to contribute? See above-referred article
Literature review:
I suggest the authors add the literature review section by showing the research progress on the topic and the research gap using the latest literature support.
The literature review needs sufficient improvements. Please read the below article for a better understanding to answer this question. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.942048
Theoretical contributions: It's still required more improvements. Please read the following article carefully to answer this question. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.942048
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled“Research on the Correlation and Influencing Factors of Digital Technology Innovation in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area”(ID: sustainability-1893523). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have carefully read the literature you recommended and reworked our content. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
1. Response to comment: Introduction: The authors need to work on the research gap, which is not correctly identified. For example, the authors should explain the following:①Why are you conducting this study? This should be included in the introduction section.②What has been done before on this topic? Please read the article below carefully to better understand this question. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-01-2022-3807③What is the novelty of this study? Where is line 778-786?④In which theory are you going to contribute? See above-referred article
Response:
Thank you very much for your patience and guidance.
①We have improved and refined the relevant content in the introduction. We discuss innovation linkages as an essential research topic in the first paragraph. In the second paragraph, we explain the relevance of studying innovation linkages in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. In the third paragraph, we point out that research on digital technology in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area is precious by comparing it with previous studies. Yet, there are few studies on digital technology at this stage. In the fourth paragraph, we introduce the purpose of the study. In the fifth paragraph, we present the research framework.
②We apologize that we may not have explained this adequately before. We have now improved this section. We have summarised the extensive literature we have read and found that research on innovation linkages in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area has been relatively comprehensive, mainly the study of innovation production factors such as research knowledge, technological infrastructure, technological innovation talents, and industries are fairly extensive. However, research on technology, especially digital technology, is still lacking (Line 142-152).
③Last time we wrote about the innovative nature of this study in the discussion section, it may not have been sufficiently elucidated. We first compared previous studies in the introduction to clarify the research gaps. Then, in the literature review, we explained our novelty. Finally, the novelty of this paper is reiterated in the Discussion section (Line1024-1069).
④Thank you very much for your patience and guidance. Our previous presentation was not clear enough, and we have now improved it. In the introduction, we have written that we have based our research on the theory of regional innovation systems (Line 160). In the second part, we have added to the theoretical foundations (Line 192-300). We are not making a specific contribution to any one theory. We have expanded on the existing research literature, including assistance on research perspectives and methods. Firstly, it is based on digital technology and provides a new view on the study of innovation linkages in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. Second, it breaks through the limitation that the traditional method of measuring institutional proximity does not apply to the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area and explores a new measurement method that clarifies that differences in institutional levels can have a hindering effect on innovation linkages.
2. Response to comment: Literature review: I suggest the authors add the literature review section by showing the research progress on the topic and the research gap using the latest literature support. ①The literature review needs sufficient improvements. Please read the below article for a better understanding to answer this question. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.942048. ②Theoretical contributions: It's still required more improvements. Please read the following article carefully to answer this question. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.942048.
Response:
Thank you very much for your professional guidance.
①We have carefully read the article you provided and have made adequate improvements to the literature review. Two main areas are covered: the characteristics of regional innovation linkages and the factors influencing regional innovation linkages. We have illustrated the differences and shortcomings in the content and methodology of previous studies through the latest and classic previous literature on this study, showing the research progress and gaps in this topic.
②We have made further improvements in the discussion section.
We have carefully read the literature you recommended, combined it with the subject matter of this study, and have done our best to improve the manuscript based on your suggestions. We sincerely thank you for your enthusiastic work and hope these changes will be accepted. Once again, thank you for your comments and suggestions.
Thank you and best regards.
Diexin Chen
