The Impact of Ambidextrous Innovation Human Capital on the Technological Innovation Efficiency and Stage Efficiency of Big Data Enterprises
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Within the article there are phrases that are too long (for example, on page 1, paragraph 1, the phrase "As an important subject of the development of big data industry..."; also, at the end of page 4 and the beginning of page 5, the phrase "By studying the internal operation mechanism of technological innovation in big data enterprises........." ), they must be shorter to increase readability.
On page 4, in paragraph 2, one of the statements is not finished, being then repeated in the last sentence of this paragraph (paragraph 2). The repeated words are "in the context of the big data era, with the help of big data thinking".
Also, on page 8, at the end of section 3.3.3, a statement is started without being finished, being then resumed. The repeated words are "in the commercialization stage of technological achievements".
On the first line of page 8, the value 0.044 is not associated with the meaning from table 2.
On page 9, section 4.1.1, the number of input indicators of each DMU is not defined correctly, respectively r (i=1,2......,n). This should be, according to the model used, r (a=1,2........,r).
On page 11, the last paragraph, the meaning of the overall technological innovation of the sample big data enterprises, respectively 0.581, is not explained, respectively it is written next to it only "which indicates that the management level and"
Section 6 contains many elements that are redundant. Thus, subsections 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 must be compressed into a succinct presentation.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions, and we attach great importance to them. After reviewing them one by one, we carefully revised them. See Word attachment for specific modification instructions.
Best regards!
Authors of this paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I have read the paper with interest; however, I find it unsuitable for publication in its current version.
The comments are reported below:
11) The title is too long and uninformative
22) All the main concepts presented and analyzed should be defined, clarified and explained in the introduction or in the literature review. E.g., technological innovation efficiency, stage-by-stage internal perspective, ambidextrous innovation theory, input-output evaluation indexes, static and dynamic perspective, big data enterprises (very broad, is it possible to make some examples). Generally speaking, there are too many concepts and aspects that are analyzed without deepen any of them.
33) The literature review only includes Chinese literature. Is there a specific reason for that?
44) In the Sample selection and data sources section the database should be better explained. Only acronyms are reported without telling anything else about data and databases.
55) The index used to measure efficiency already includes human capital (number of R&D personnel and number of sales personnel). How can you use human capital as explanatory variable if human capital is already included in your dependent one?
66) The measures used to proxy incremental innovation and radical innovation are extremely simple and are not satisfactorily explained or justified.
77) At the end of the story the value added of this paper does not seem clear to me.
Minor comments:
there are many repetitions throughout the text.
For instance: big data industry and the improvement of the national comprehensive national power.
Through the research on the above issues, the research …
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
First of all, thank you very much for taking the time to read this manuscript and put forward some ideas worth our reflection. We have carefully and repeatedly considered your comments and suggestions, and we have actively accepted your suggestions on the whole, and revised them in the original. In addition, I also made a careful reply to some of your questions. Please check the relevant content in the Word attachment for specific modification instructions and replies.
Best regards,
Authors of this paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The main scientific objective of the paper is to evaluate the efficiency of technological innovation of big data enterprises. The purpose of the empirical study is thus interesting, especially since it was enriched by the systematic and rational construction of the evaluation index of technological innovation efficiency of big data companies. The application of this index to empirical research – in my opinion – bridges the gap between theory and practice. Moreover, the paper’s ambition is interesting because it combines the ambidextrous innovation human capital and the technology innovation efficiency (and its stage efficiency) of big data enterprises.
The described construction process of the evaluation index system of enterprise technological innovation efficiency and the research results constitute new and significant information adequate to justify publication. The paper is well-written, and the results are clearly presented. Finally, the „Discussion and Research Significance” section ties together the other elements of the paper.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to read our paper, and thank you very much for your high praise of our paper. We will continue to make efforts in relevant research fields. Here, I would like to express my best wishes to you.
Best regards,
Authors of this article.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
ok
