The Driving Factors of Green Technology Innovation Efficiency—A Study Based on the Dynamic QCA Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I believe that the author put a lot of effort into writing the paper. The importance of the problem raised in the article - environmental pollution and resource shortages not in doubt. Trends related to the Green Technology Innovation have an impact on all management and production processes. The paper is a well-designed empirical study with a clear methodology and results. I have only 3 small comments:

1.The literature is dense and comprehensive, with well-chosen contributions, suitable for the objectives of the paper. The approach is interesting, with courageous and ambitious assumptions. However, in the introduction section, the authors should include their contribution to the literature as well as some hints on the methodology used and the main results.

2. The limitations of the methodology as well as  future research guidelines are missed and should be considered. The authors' contribution to the development of the methodology is not clear.

 3. I’d like to know the author's opinion on the advantages and disadvantages of the approaches described in Table 1. Which of the described indicators has the prospects for practical application?

 Good luck with your paper,

Reviewer

 

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Recommendations to author(s) for a modest overworking of the manuscript are:

(1) It should be made clearer (in the introduction), what exactly the research question is?

(2) Why do author(s) not introduce hypotheses upfront? Figure 1 may provide hints for this, also the analysis in section 5.3.1.

(3) Perhaps GTIE should be rephrased to “GTI-efficiency”. This would make the reading easier.

(4) In the conclusion section it would be fine, should author(s) want to insert a table, composed in words and sentences, where again the conclusions are being presented in a systematic way. Also, how do the results connect back: (a) the literature review at the beginning; (b) possible global implications; and (c) finally strategy, policy and governance (nationally, internationally).

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I am pleased to inform you that I have endorsed your manuscript.

1. The paper is a great contribution to the field. There is no question about the significance of the issue addressed in the article, which pertain to Environmental Pollution and the scarcity of resources, the emergence of trends associated with Green Technology Innovation has affected all aspects of production procedures.

2. The literature review is comprehensive and provides a strong foundation for the study.

3. The methodology used in the study is well-designed and rigorous results.

4. The originality of the study adds significant value to the existing body of literature.

 

5. “Overall”, this paper is well-written and thoughtfully making a strong addition to the field.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Dear Reviewer,

 

We write this letter with deep joy in our hearts. Thank you very much for your recognition of our manuscript. In the course of this study, we overcame various difficulties. Your affirmation of this work is a great encouragement to us. This will also be our driving force. We will continue to conduct more novel and in-depth research on this basis and contribute to the development of this field.

 

Thanks again for your endorsing.

 

Best wishes to your future work and life!

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Ms. Sainan Ren

Email: [email protected]

School of Management, Dalian Polytechnic University

Reviewer 4 Report

I appreciate the authors presenting such an exciting piece of work. However, I have some concerns which need to be improved.

The abstract section is very confusing and needs to be re-arranged.

The authors used very long sentences without citing any proper references. I suggest adding proper and latest references in the literature section.

In conclusion, it is suggested to discuss the contributions of the study as a separate section.

There are many grammatical and spelling errors throughout the manuscript. So it is recommended to proofread carefully before the revised submission.

 

The manuscript needs to be proofread from an expert

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors revised manuscript very well.