Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please, see the attached document

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 1’s Comments 

Dear Ms. Lian and reviewer:

Thanks to the editorial board and reviewers for their valuable comments and for

giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscripts! We greatly appreciate both your

help and that of the referees concerning improvement to this paper.

Based on the review comments received, we have carefully revised the article. At the same time, we also proofread the references according to the revised content. Please review our reply.

If there are any other modifications we could make, we would like very much to modify them and we really appreciate your help.

Sincerely,

 

The author

 

Comment 1. The introduction is not well-written. The exact problem of the study is not well stated. The authors are unable to explain the core idea of the research article such as why this research topic is important? Why does it have to be addressed? Why these research questions are essential to be addressed? In fact, looking at the topic I would have expected the authors to talk about the constructs, but to no avail. I see a complete rewrite of the introduction – in the study, the gap is not clear, what is the literature saying, and what have you identified as pitfalls from the extant studies. For instance, in the extant studies, scholars have used legitimacy as a moderating variable on the EO-FP linkage, why are the authors using it as a mediating variable. Besides the key variables are not explicated in the introduction or literature review.

Reply: Thank you for your comment, we have rewritten the introduction, and reorganized the subject and the core ideas of this paper, focusing on explaining why this paper thinks that the research topic is important? Why solve it? Why are these research questions so necessary as to be addressed? At the same time, the key variables and their relationships are also elaborated more in the literature review.

 

 

Comment 2. Major concern: Theoretical background and literature review section. The study lacks the theoretical depth to truly highlight the potential contribution. The author must have a complete theoretical background to support hypotheses development (or linkage between variables). Authors need to throw more light on the theory or theories (entrepreneurial perspective and new institutional theory) that they have adopted for the study. Thus, the theoretical rationale needs to be explained. Moreover, the theoretical rationale that supports the selection of the conceptual model’s constructs needs to be improved. I consider that including a figure that represents the theoretical framework would also help the reader to understand the variables/hypotheses' organization. Besides, the linkage among variables/hypotheses development is not well written. The literature review brings in relevant and interesting prior studies, but more time needs to be spent providing the rationale and support for the present research. I think that it is basically a matter of spending more time explaining why the prior literature and theoretical tool provides support for what the authors expect to find. Authors should remember that a literature review better clarifies research needs and explain the research aim and contribution. I would recommend reviewing this section. The way they were presented seems vague. It is not possible to clarify the contribution. The statistics should be supported, not the focus; it must validate the content if the content is meaningful.

Reply: Thanks for your efforts and insight in providing constructive feedback on the article, which helped us to improve the manuscript. After we carefully analyzed your suggestions, we believe that the theoretical depth of the literature review section is indeed insufficient, so we have made a lot of improvements to the literature review section. First, we deepen the theory of entrepreneurship and the new institutional theory in sections 2.1 and 2.3; Second, we added the theoretical connection between variables，and modified the theoretical framework of Figure 1 to make the hypothesis clearer; Finally, we strengthened the support of the previous literature for the research problems in this paper.

 

 

Comment 3. Methodology: the authors should make it clear, how they obtained the dependent variable (OI). The present form is not clear to readers.

Reply: Thanks to the reviewers 's reminder, we elaborated more carefully on how we obtained the dependent variable (OI), made the whole process more clear.

 

 

Comment 4. Results: Table 4 and 6 need to show the R² and F-values of the results.

Reply: Thanks to the reviewers 's reminder, we have added R-squared and F-values in Tables 4 and 6, this manuscript has been reworked as follows: 

Table 4. Direct effect and Mediating effect tests

Variable	OI		PR	ML	OI
	M1	M2	M3	M4	M5	M6
EO		0.038*	-0.096**	-0.283***	0.043**	0.039*
PR					0.046***
ML						0.004
EC	-0.007	-0.079	-0.345	0.425**	-0.406	-0.081
Lev	0.078*	0.085*	0.048	0.829***	-0.083*	0.082*
Size	-0.055***	-0.050***	0.154***	0.116	-0.304***	0.049***
Year	-0.033**	-0.003*	-0.010***	-0.175***	-0.002	-0.002*
Type	-0.339**	-0.030*	0.249***	-0.580***	-0.041**	-0.027
Constant	1.376***	1.380***	-0.058	6.260***	1.383***	1.354***
R-squared	0.023	0.022	0.116	0.112	0.030	0.023
F-values	5.090	4.120	23.630	22.750	4.760	3.570

Note: *, **, and *** indicate that the significance levels are 10%, 5%, and 1%.

 

Table 6. Heterogeneity Analysis

Variable	Military-to-Civilian
	OI	PR	ML	OI
	M7	M8	M9	M10	M11
EO	-0.018	-0.066	-0.287	-0.201	-0.002
PR				0.078**
ML					0.051***
EC	0.124	-0.997***	0.073	0.202	0.123
Lev	-0.074	0.238	0.609	-0.093	-0.111
Size	0.132***	0.119	0.019	0.123***	0.131***
Year	-0.400	-0.901***	-0.013	-0.002	-0.003
Type	-0.102*	0.137	-0.048	-0.113**	-0.102**
Constant	1.114***	0.530*	6.276***	1.073***	0.789***
R-squared	0.074	0.078	0.030	0.098	0.118
F-values	2.680	2.880	1.060	3.130	3.840
Variable	Civilian-to-Military
	Open	PC	ML	Open
	M12	M13	M14	M15	M16
EO	0.059**	-0.114**	-0.222*	0.064**	0.058**
PR				0.044**
ML					-0.006
OC	-0.111*	-0.161	0.467**	-0.104*	-0.108*
Lev	0.081	0.014	0.802***	0.081	0.087*
Size	0.030	0.173***	0.165*	0.022	0.031
Year	-0.002	-0.006**	-0.018**	-0.002	-0.002
Type	-0.025	0.304***	-0.551***	-0.038*	-0.028
Constant	1.456***	-0.239*	6.097***	1.467***	1.495***
R-squared	0.018	0.144	0.096	0.023	0.018
F-values	2.590	24.400	15.320	2.970	2.300

Note: *, **, and *** indicate that the significance levels are 10%, 5%, and 1%.

 

 

Comment 5. The authors should address the discussion section in a proper manner. For instance, the authors should highlight the theoretical and practical contributions of

this study. From the study, the theoretical and practical contributions need to be strengthened. Thus, discussions on theoretical contributions need to be improved. For each contribution, authors need to first display what the prior theory says and then argue how their findings extend the theory. Therefore, I would suggest that authors should allow their theoretical depth to guide them to discuss the theoretical and practical/managerial implications section of the research.

Reply: Thanks to the reviewers' reminder, we added the “6.2 Theoretical Contribution” section in the paper, and modified the “6.3 Practical Implications”. For each theoretical contribution, we first elaborated the previous theory, and on this basis, expanded to the theoretical contribution of this paper; For the practical significance, we also deepen the theoretical guidance.

 

 

Comment 6. The manuscript could do with more copy-editing by a native English speaker.

Reply: Thanks to the reviewers' reminder, we have referred the revised manuscript to native English speakers for editing, which improves the readability of the article.

 

All the modified section is marked in red

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

I am sending a review in the attachment. Congratulations on the article.

Best reagrds,

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 2’s Comments 

Dear Ms. Lian and reviewer:

Thanks to the editorial board and reviewers for their valuable comments and for

giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscripts! We greatly appreciate both your

help and that of the referees concerning improvement to this paper.

Based on the review comments received, we have carefully revised the article At the same time, we also proofread the references according to the revised content. Please review our reply.

If there are any other modifications we could make, we would like very much to modify them and we really appreciate your help.

Sincerely,

 

The author

 

Comment 1. The subject of the article is current, interesting and fits into the cognitive gap diagnosed by the authors. It identifies a very important aspect of entrepreneurial orientation as a driver of open innovation. The structure of the article is coherent and logical.

Reply: Thank you to the reviewers for their careful review of our article, and thank you very much for your recognition of the topic of our article.

 

 

Comment 2. The analysis of the literature of the problem contains 56 current items used in the article. A review of the literature of the problem is not objectionable.

Reply: Thank you to the reviewers for their careful review of our article，after revising the articles, references changed to 61, but all related to content.

 

 

Comment 3. The research method used has been sufficiently described by the authors. The article is based on research using text analysis for the occurrence of keywords. Probably the results would be more reliable if other research techniques were also used (triangulation of research methods). However, the authors benefited only from secondary data. However, this is justified by the secrecy of military data.

Reply: Thank you to the reviewers for their careful review of our article，as for the way to obtain the dependent variables in the text, we still think that the text analysis method is the best choice after repeated thinking. Thank you again for your suggestions.

 

Comment 4. The authors correctly identified the research gap that the presented research fills. Three research hypotheses have been formulated correctly and do not raise any objections.

Reply: Thank you for your approval of the research hypothesis presented in this paper.

 

Comment 5. The purpose of the study is clearly defined in section 6.1. Perhaps it would be worth considering whether it should not appear already in the Introduction?

Reply: Thank you again for your earnest and hard work. We have deleted the research purpose of the introduction and made deeper modifications to the introduction part.

All the modified section is marked in red

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

See the attached document

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 1’s Comments 

Dear Ms. Lian and reviewers:

We are grateful to the reviewers for the second round of review of the article and the better suggestions for further polishing of the article.

Based on the review comments received, we have carefully revised the article. At the same time, we also proofread the references according to the revised content. Please review our reply.We really appreciate your help.

Sincerely,

 

The author

 

Comment 1. The definition of open innovation is not clear. Because there is difference between open innovation and distributed innovation in the extant literature. See Tang et al., 2022 Distributed innovation, digital entrepreneurial opportunity, IT-enabled capabilities, and enterprises’ digital innovation performance: a moderated mediating model. Eur. J. Innov. Manage. doi: 10.1108/EJIM-08-2021-0431

Reply: Thanks to the reviewers for their valuable comments, reminding us that we should distinguish between the concept of open innovation and distributed innovation, thank you for your careful guidance and recommending a valuable paper for us, we also redefine the open innovation, the specific content is as follows:

Open innovation (OI) is defined as the use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation, and to expand the markets for external use of innovation, respectively. The major motivation for open innovation is that it improves a firm’s ability to generate knowledge spillovers and create new products internally and in collaboration with external partners[1].

 

Comment 2. From the introduction the gap and goals of the research are not specified which leads to the reader missing the significance of the research. The authors should link the open innovation to the entrepreneurial orientation in a proper manner. The current state is not clear.

Reply: Thanks to the reviewers for their valuable comments. In the introduction, we have identified the existing research gap of open innovation, entrepreneurial orientation, and organizational legitimacy. And clearly elaborate on the research purpose of this paper, enabling readers to more clearly understand the research significance of this paper. At the same time, it is more natural to link open innovation and entrepreneurial orientation.

Comment 3. Hypotheses development is not well written. The literature review brings in relevant and interesting prior studies, but more time needs to be spent providing the rationale and support for the present research. I think that it is basically a matter of spending more time explaining why the prior literature and theoretical tool provides support for what the authors expect to find. Authors should remember that a literature review better clarifies research needs and explain the research aim and contribution. I would recommend reviewing this section. The way they were presented seems vague. It is not possible to clarify the contribution. The statistics should be supported, not the focus; it must validate the content if the content is meaningful.

Reply: Thanks for the reviewer's valuable comments. According to the reviewer's comments, we have made the following modifications to Section 3:

3.1 This paper first expounds the positive impact of entrepreneurial orientation on open innovation in existing studies, and analyzes it from three dimensions. Then, from the perspective of enterprise strategic transformation, it analyzes how entrepreneurial orientation affects the open innovation of civil-military integration enterprises. Finally, experience is extracted from existing studies to form hypothesis H1.

3.2 In this section, we haven't changed much. First, we explain how entrepreneurial orientation can help firms build legitimacy in the new environment. Second, we analyze how to promote open innovation in firms from the perspective of political relevance and market legitimacy. Finally, we propose the hypothesis of H2 and H3.

Comment 4. Check page 8, line 362, VIF is a variance inflation factor not a variance expansion factor.

Re: Thanks again to the reviewers for their careful review of the article, we have revised the extension to inflation.

All the modified parts are marked in red

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf