Impact of Manufacturing Servitization on Factor Productivity of Industrial Sector Using Global Value Chain
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The assigned article for review is very interesting and according to scope of the journal and special issue. It is worth to publish in the Sustainability after addressing minor revision.
1. Please add structure of article at the end of section 1.
2. In the section heading section 2, the word “hypothesis” should replace with “hypotheses”.
3. A proper policy implication has to write at the end of section 5.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We sincerely thanks for your valuable feedback. According to nice suggestions, we have revised our article. The detail of corrections are listed below.
Reviewer: Please add structure of article at the end of section 1.
Authors: As suggested by the reviewer, we have added the structure of article at the end of section 1 in the revised paper.
Reviewers: In the section heading section 2, the word “hypothesis” should replace with “hypotheses”.
Authors: We were really sorry for our careless mistakes. Thank you for your reminder, and we have changed it to “hypotheses”.
Reviewer: A proper policy implication has to write at the end of section 5.
Authors: We agreed with the reviewer’s assessment. To discuss to conclusion and policy recommendations in details, we have added the suggestions in the revised paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
"Impact of manufacturing servitization on factor productivity of industrial sector using global value chain" is a very well written paper. All parts are nicely described/explained. Introduction is sufficient and supports the claim. Theoretical mechanism and construction of hypothesis strongly supports the paper. Materials and methods utilized here are appropriate and sufficiently explained. Results are nicely discussed. Conclusion and Policy Implications are inline with the findings of the paper.
Based on the review, I am of the view that the paper may please be accepted in the present form.
Author Response
Thank you for your nice comments on our article. If there are any other modifications we could make, we world like very much to modify them and we really appreciate your help.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article presents a topic with considerable potential, albeit the database used for extracting the inputs is a bit outdated.
A language review is necessary, since there are numerous inaccuracies and elliptical sentences, institutions written in lowercase letters etc.
It is also advisable to render the second hypothesis clearer, chiefly by explaining what is understood by "different sources". As for the third, it is formulated in a rather ambiguous manner, with the term "obvious" casting a veil of doubt on the measurement thereof.
As for the conclusions, they have the merit of clarity, albeit the policy recommendations remain quite simplistic, not really in keeping with the ample investigation and coherent methodology that prompted them.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We sincerely thanks for your valuable feedback. According to nice suggestions, we have revised our article. The detail of corrections are listed below.
Reviewer: The database used for extracting the inputs is a bit outdated.
Authors: We agreed that this is an important consideration, but it's quite difficult to collect data after 2014.
Reviewer: A language review is necessary, since there are numerous inaccuracies and elliptical sentences, institutions written in lowercase letters etc.
Authors: The language issue has been solved in the revised article. In particular, the names of institutions have been written with uppercase letters. The first letters of “World Trade Organization” in Page 2 and “Central Economic Work Conference” in Page 1 have been written with uppercase letters.
Reviewer: It is also advisable to render the second hypothesis clearer, chiefly by explaining what is understood by "different sources". As for the third, it is formulated in a rather ambiguous manner, with the term "obvious" casting a veil of doubt on the measurement thereof.
Authors: Thank you very much. We have changed the second hypothesis as “The promotion to industry productivity effect of foreign service factors is stronger than that of domestic service factors due to the difference in benefit acquisition ability”, which explained”different sources”.
Similarly, the third hypothesis has been changed as “The heterogeneity of the internal productivity effect may exist due to the difference in service factor structure”. We changed the word “obvious” to “may exist”, which is more appropriate to understand.
Reviewer: As for the conclusions, they have the merit of clarity, albeit the policy recommendations remain quite simplistic, not really in keeping with the ample investigation and coherent methodology that prompted them.
Authors: We agreed with the reviewer’s assessment. We have revised the section of conclusion and policy implications.
“Meanwhile, it’s considered to stimulate the vitality of domestic service factors and strengthen the strategic positioning of service trade. On the one hand, learning new rules and provisions of international regional trade agreements and mastering new trends in the development of trade in services would be helpful. On the other hand, it is suggested to implement the policy of talent introduction, stimulate the innovative vitality of local high-end elements integration, and then, promote the simultaneous upgrading of technology level and management mode. Moreover, it is important to distinguish the differences in the structure of service elements and promote the development of the service industry. Distribution services should aim to meet the individual needs of consumers, reduce transaction costs and increase factor productivity. For transportation services, it is suggested to increase cargo transportation capacity for expanding international business and improving the balance of payment”.
Moreover, we have revised current suggestions as follows.
“The labor-intensive industries developed by relying on the advantages of the traditional labor force can no longer amplify the positive effect on productivity, and cannot meet the needs of the current industrial transformation. Therefore, it is considered to selectively transfer such industries to inland or Southeast Asia with labor advantages based on an overall assessment of risks and benefits, which is not only conducive to extending the "step size" of the value chain, but also provides space for the integration of domestic manufacturing industry and service industry.”
Reviewer 4 Report
The article is interesting and relevant. However, I believe that the article would have benefited significantly if the years of research had been considered at least until 2019.Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript. We agree that this is an important consideration, but it's quite difficult to collect data from 2014 to 2019.
