Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic is relevant. However, text, is not sufficiently structured, which makes it difficult to perceive. 

1. Abstract and introduction should be rewritten according to journal requirements.

2. The literature analysis is limited, it needs to be expanded - only 27 sources are included.  Moreover, only 3 relate to the last 5 years.

3. It is necessary to include a slightly more detailed description of the results of the multicollinearity across the covariates analysis.

4. Empirical results, e.g. Tab.2, description should be adjusted accordingly.

5. Additional information should be added to make the text in lines 381 – 393 understandable.

6. The conclusions should be moved from section 4 to 5.

7. The discussion section is missing.

8. The conclusions are too general, it is desirable to clarify them.

9. The formation of references is not systematic, e.g. line 26.

10. There are typos in the text, e.g. lines 158 - 159, etc.

The style and overall quality of the text is somewhat low and needs to be improved.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

Manuscript ID: Sustainability-2463933

Above all else, we thank you for your thoughtful comments. These have helped to enhance its overall quality. Below we address each of your comments (in italics) in turn and explain our responses. Note that our responses and changes in text are coloured in yellow-highlighted.

1. Abstract and introduction should be rewritten according to journal requirements.

Agreed. The authors have rewritten them in this revised version. 

2. The literature analysis is limited, it needs to be expanded - only 27 sources are included. Moreover, only 3 relate to the last 5 years.

Point taken. The authors need to address that the literature directly related to the effect of corporate innovation on business investment is really sparse to our best of knowledge as we mention this point in the text. So, we think that this study should add to the literature on this topic.

3. It is necessary to include a slightly more detailed description of the results of the multicollinearity across the covariates analysis.

Good point. The further detailed statement is added in this version. You can check the lines 345-346.

4. Empirical results, e.g. Tab.2, description should be adjusted accordingly.

Agreed. Corrected in the line 359. Note that Table 2 is changed with Table 3 following the other referee’s comment of describing sample companies onn Table 1 of this revision.  

5. Additional information should be added to make the text in lines 381 – 393 understandable.

Additional information for that is added in the lines 384-386.

6. The conclusions should be moved from section 4 to 5.

Conclusions are currently on Section 5 as you suggest.

7. The discussion section is missing.

In general, A conclusion session in (corporate) financial study include the brief discussion. You can see our brief discussion on the lines 440-448. If you account for this point, it should be appropriated.

8. The conclusions are too general, it is desirable to clarify them.

The authors summarize the main findings of the study and discusses the implications, importance, a possible future room for future studies in Conclusions which are critical components of the conclusion section in Economics and Finance.

9. The formation of references is not systematic, e.g. line 26.

Corrected.

10. There are typos in the text, e.g. lines 158 - 159, etc.

Corrected.

Comments on the Quality of English Language. The style and overall quality of the text is somewhat low and needs to be improved.

Overall, the authors have attempted to improve this version of the text.

 

Again, many thanks for your comments!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

1. The paper   details too many  mathematical  derivation  which actually  can  be simplified into the last  formula  used in this study. Remember  the aims and scopes of the journal. Do not try to impress  a  reviewer   with  your sound understanding of mathematical formula. Reviewer main focus  is the topic  of your article. No necessary to rewrite the established formula, which finally  ended with regression analysis. You can do it with SPSS software, no need to do lengthy explanation.  Focus on novelty of the research!  

2. Look sophisticated   in formula, but you do not present how do you get these  simple data  in lines  327 and 328.

3. Consult language editor, is  your title   correct? 

4. Your claim that you do not  fulfill: " our study attempts to systematically examine   the economic effect of corporate innovation on the business investment ". Only 27 references  and mostly out of date. Is it  what you call   systematically examine?

5. The summary should   answer  your objective of the study, and what is your contribution, not lengthy  sentences. The ones not relevant, please move   to Discussion. Discussion  must be compared  with previous studies.

6.Overall, this article still needs reorganization, the perspective needs to be strengthened (methodological aspects: the relationship between the formulation of the problem, the choice of theory and research methods), the analysis focuses on the formulation of the problem to be explained, not writing long mathematical formula and its derivation.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

Manuscript ID: Sustainability-2463933

Above all else, we thank you for your thoughtful comments. These have helped to enhance its overall quality. Below we address each of your comments (in italics) in turn and explain our responses. Note that our responses and changes are coloured in yellow-highlighted.

 

1. The paper details too many mathematical derivation which actually can be simplified into the last formula used in this study. Remember the aims and scopes of the journal. Do not try to impress a reviewer with your sound understanding of mathematical formula. Reviewer main focus is the topic of your article. No necessary to rewrite the established formula, which finally ended with regression analysis. You can do it with SPSS software, no need to do lengthy explanation. Focus on novelty of the research!

Point taken. The existing studies on relation of corporate innovation and investment are really rare to our best of knowledge. For a desirable study on this topic, our study needs to set up a theoretical background to feasibly explain the effects of corporate innovation on investment. To this end, we use a promising option pricing model in financial economics. Based on the background, our empirical works could be implemented. Therefore, the mathematical processes in this study should be presented at least. If you consider this point, it should be really appropriated. Instead, for a simpler understanding on our methods, we put the complexity of the numerous equations in the three steps of the essential parts in this study

You check them on the lines 303-315 of this revision.

2. Look sophisticated in formula, but you do not present how do you get these simple data in lines 327 and 328.

The further details of the simple data  are presented on footnote 2, p. 9.

3. Consult language editor, is your title correct?

Really important. Corrected in this revision.

4. Your claim that you do not fulfill: " our study attempts to systematically examine the economic effect of corporate innovation on the business investment ". Only 27 references and mostly out of date. Is it what you call systematically examine?

In a similar vein with the aforementioned issue, the authors need to address that compared to numerous studies on the direct relation of corporate innovation and value, the literature directly related to the effect of corporate innovation on investment is really sparse as we mention this issue on the lines 41-43. So, this study should contribute to the literature on this topic. With regards to your 1^st comment, we need to set up an analytical background even at a minimum for the study as the plenty of previous studies are very limited. 

5. The summary should answer your objective of the study, and what is your contribution, not lengthy sentences. The ones not relevant, please move to Discussion. Discussion must be compared with previous studies.

As aforementioned, due to the short of the previous studies directly associated with the effect of corporate innovation on investment, the discussion s is not feasible enough to compare to the results of previous studies. Please understand this point. We do not put a discussion session since the conclusion section briefly also discusses the academic and practical implications, limitations of this study and possible rooms for future studies and so on.

6. Overall, this article still needs reorganization, the perspective needs to be strengthened (methodological aspects: the relationship between the formulation of the problem, the choice of theory and research methods), the analysis focuses on the formulation of the problem to be explained, not writing long mathematical formula and its derivation.

Agreed. We attempted to fully reflect your comments. For the issues of the mathematical derivation and discussion section, we ask your kind regards.  

Thanks a lot again! 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is devoted to assessing the impact of corporate innovations on investments in sustainable business. The authors set out a methodological approach based on mathematical calculations and made an empirical analysis. 

Comments on the article are as follows: 

1) In section 3, the authors designate the object of application of the methodology, indicate that they exclude financial, construction organizations, real estate and rental enterprises, hotel services. It should be clarified which types of companies were included in the 492 companies studied. Which industrial companies implementing technological innovations and large-scale investments are present in the sample? Similarly, which service sector enterprises have been investigated: trade, transport, communications, IT, etc.? 

2) An empirical analysis should be carried out taking into account the industry affiliation of enterprises, where the specifics of the impact of corporate innovations on investments by type of activity can be identified with a high probability. Is the relationship between corporate investments and the Tobin coefficient positive for all industries (productions)?   

3) It should be indicated what the authors mean by sustainable business. How is this quantified in the proposed methodology? Or is it identified with other parameters? 

4) How do the authors see the practical use of the proposed mathematical apparatus? Sufficient complexity of data processing requires automation of the results calculation process in practice. 

5) In addition, the authors should show the proposed methodology in a structured way, for example, visualize it in the form of an algorithm diagram.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

Manuscript ID: Sustainability-2463933

Above all else, we thank you for your thoughtful comments. These have helped to enhance its overall quality. Below we address each of your comments (in italics) in turn and explain our responses. Note that our responses and changes are coloured in yellow-highlighted.

1) In section 3, the authors designate the object of application of the methodology, indicate that they exclude financial, construction organizations, real estate and rental enterprises, hotel services. It should be clarified which types of companies were included in the 492 companies studied. Which industrial companies implementing technological innovations and large-scale investments are present in the sample? Similarly, which service sector enterprises have been investigated: trade, transport, communications, IT, etc.?

Point taken. In this revision, the authors put the table describing the sample companies by industry over the sample periods. See Table 1.

2) An empirical analysis should be carried out taking into account the industry affiliation of enterprises, where the specifics of the impact of corporate innovations on investments by type of activity can be identified with a high probability. Is the relationship between corporate investments and the Tobin coefficient positive for all industries (productions)?

Appropriately pointed. The positive relationship between corporate investment and Tobin's Q is derived from the theoretical model. This is presented in Equation (12) in the text.

3) It should be indicated what the authors mean by sustainable business. How is this quantified in the proposed methodology? Or is it identified with other parameters?

Important. A company's continuous survival requires ceaseless innovation and investment. In this respect, the authors use the term sustainable business. 

4) How do the authors see the practical use of the proposed mathematical apparatus? Sufficient complexity of data processing requires automation of the results calculation process in practice.

Agreed. We did not find a significant non-linear effect in our regression 2 (see Table 3). No effect of nonlinearity does not allow us to analyze a more complexity for this issue.

5) In addition, the authors should show the proposed methodology in a structured way, for example, visualize it in the form of an algorithm diagram.

Good point. For a convenient understanding on the methods, we briefly summarize the essential equations step by step in the end of the methodology session. See the lines 303-315.

 

Again, many thanks for your comments!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Contrary to authors statement, the necessary changes to the introduction have not been made.

2. The wording that "literature directly related to the effect of corporate innovation on business investment is really sparse to our best of knowledge" can unfortunately mislead readers who are less familiar with the subject. Only two journals: Sustainability and Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity have each published dozens of articles in the last five years on a selected topic, and together with other MDPI publisher journals, there are more than a hundred such publications. Also in journals of other publishers, e.g. Journal of Business Research, Journal of Cleaner Production, Journal of Environmental Management, Journal of Knowledge Management, Advances in Climate Change Research, Business Strategy & Development, Business Strategy and the Environment, Energy Strategy Reviews, etc., there are more than a hundred articles on similar topics.

3. It should be reminded to the authors that discussion and conclusions are not the same thing. Of course, if an in-depth analysis of the literature had been carried out, then there would also be a basis for a discussion of the results of the study.

4. The rest of the correction, although not entirely, are acceptable.

Minor editing of English language required

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

Manuscript ID: Sustainability-2463933

The authors thank you for your consistent comments. Below we address each of your comments (in italics) in turn and subsequently explain our responses. Note that our responses and changes in text are coloured in yellow (changed) and green (added)-highlighted.

1.Contrary to authors statement, the necessary changes to the introduction have not been made.

The necessary changes are made to Introduction on this revised version. Please the greened and yellowed parts for them on Introduction.

2. The wording that "literature directly related to the effect of corporate innovation on business investment is really sparse to our best of knowledge" can unfortunately mislead readers who are less familiar with the subject. Only two journals: Sustainability and Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity have each published dozens of articles in the last five years on a selected topic, and together with other MDPI publisher journals, there are more than a hundred such publications. Also in journals of other publishers, e.g. Journal of Business Research, Journal of Cleaner Production, Journal of Environmental Management, Journal of Knowledge Management, Advances in Climate Change Research, Business Strategy & Development, Business Strategy and the Environment, Energy Strategy Reviews, etc., there are more than a hundred articles on similar topics.

Rigorously surveying the various journals on technology, innovation, sustainability and so on which you suggested, the authors who have published several papers on the similar topics to international journals have tried to find appropriate literature on the direct relation of innovation and business (tangible asset) investment at a company level. However, the outcomes are not so fruitful, even if two studies of [6] and [11] are added on this version by all means. So, the authors addressed the explainable reason for the few on the lines 2-11, page 2. If you may provide us with the existing related to the direct relation of innovation and investment studies rather than the sources of journals, we deeply thank you for them and should definitely add them on the current text. We ask your kind understanding for this issue again.

3. It should be reminded to the authors that discussion and conclusions are not the same thing. Of course, if an in-depth analysis of the literature had been carried out, then there would also be a basis for a discussion of the results of the study.

On this revision, separating Conclusions of Section 5 on the previous version) into Discussion with some literature on this topic (Section 5) and Conclusions (Section 6) on this revision. 

4. Minor editing of English language required

Overall, the authors have attempted to improve the quality of English language on the current text.

 

Again, many thanks for your comments!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear esteemed authors,

 

The manuscript has undergone significant improvements and is currently in the process of being prepared for publication. Nevertheless, my primary concern pertains to the limited number of references available, with the majority of them being outdated.  Given the recent progress in technology, I posit that the replacement of older technologies with newer ones is not a challenging task.

Another issue that arises is the excessive length of the conclusion.  In order to summarise and reorganise the conclusion, it is necessary to condense the content while maintaining its academic tone in one paragraph only.    This paragraph addresses the answer to the question posed in the title, the advancement of current knowledge in the field, limitations, and potential directions for future research.  Out of those, please relocate the remaining content to the discussion section.

 

 

Author Response

The authors thank you for your consistent comments. Below we address each of your comments (in italics) in turn and subsequently explain our responses. Note that our responses and changes in text are coloured in yellow (changed) and green (added)-highlighted.

The manuscript has undergone significant improvements and is currently in the process of being prepared for publication. Nevertheless, my primary concern pertains to the limited number of references available, with the majority of them being outdated. Given the recent progress in technology, I posit that the replacement of older technologies with newer ones is not a challenging task.

Fully agreed. Rigorously resurveying the various journals on technology, innovation, sustainability and so on, the authors who have published several papers on the similar topics to international journals have tried to find appropriate literature on the direct relation of innovation and business (tangible asset) investment at a company level. However, the outcomes are not so fruitful, even if two studies of [6] and [11] are added on this version by all means. So, the authors addressed the explainable reason for the few on the lines 2-11, page 2. If you may provide us with the existing related to the direct relation of innovation and investment studies rather than the sources of journals, we deeply thank you for them and should definitely add them on the current text. We ask your kind understanding for this issue again.

Another issue that arises is the excessive length of the conclusion. In order to summarise and reorganise the conclusion, it is necessary to condense the content while maintaining its academic tone in one paragraph only. This paragraph addresses the answer to the question posed in the title, the advancement of current knowledge in the field, limitations, and potential directions for future research. Out of those, please relocate the remaining content to the discussion section.

Point taken. To effectively respond to this issue, we stated the discussion and conclusions on this revision, separating Conclusions of Section 5 on the previous version into Discussion on Section 5 and Conclusions on Section 6 on this revision.

 

Again, many thanks for your comments!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The previous recommendations of the reviewer to significantly supplement the list of sources of the article, expand and deepen the analysis of the literature have not been taken into account. 

2. The conceptual model of the study is not based on insights from the theory and/or previous studies. 

3. The discussion section is not of sufficient quality due to the shortcomings mentioned above. 

It must therefore be concluded that the manuscript has not been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Sustainability.

Acceptable.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

Manuscript ID: Sustainability-2463933

We address each of your comments (in italics) in turn and subsequently explain our responses. Note that changes in the text are coloured in purple especially and green highlighted to effectively respond to the comments below.

1. 1. The previous recommendations of the reviewer to significantly supplement the list of sources of the article, expand and deepen the analysis of the literature have not been taken into account.

We have supplemented some literature associated with innovation study on Introduction. Please see the purple coloured sentences on the introduction section. In particular, see the lines 31-44.

2. The conceptual model of the study is not based on insights from the theory and/or previous studies.

The theoretical basis of our study should be from the outstanding theoretical studies of [14] and [3] in fiancé and economics. Empirical studies on the relation between innovation and investment at a company level are really few. For the empirical analysis on this topic, we first modified the [14] investment model by driving the investment variable (I/K) via the [3] study and incorporating it as the dependent variable into the modified investment model. To check for this issue, see the lines 71-94. The issue is being essentially discussed on Discussion.

3. The discussion section is not of sufficient quality due to the shortcomings mentioned above.

To improve the quality of Discussion, we revised this section adding the paragraph of the lines 471-485 (purple coloured).  

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf