Dynamic Complexity Analysis of R&D Levels in the Automotive Industry under the Dual-Credit Policy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title

Dynamic Complexity Analysis of R&D Levels in the Automotive Industry under the Dual-Credit Policy

 

Abstract

Please be more specific about the research purpose and justify the theoretical gap. 

The abstract should be written in the order of research motivation, research gap, theoretical positioning (i.e., argument), methodology, and summary of results.

What is the theory for verifying dynamic complexity?

 

Introduction

The rationale behind the background of proposing your framework remains unclear to me. Please be more specific about the research purpose and justify the theoretical gap. It seems that there is a lack of theoretical explanation. This is because the gap identification is not explained clearly and is limited in the current form. Also, there is very little evidence to support the authors’ arguments on the gap justification. Could you please clarify the theoretical gaps that have not been discovered in the existing theories? What theory was employed in this study to fill the theoretical gap?

Please try to tackle the existing theories and literature from which the two RQs suggested by the authors were derived and present the evidence.

Please clearly present the theoretical gap derived from RQ as "First, Second, Third".

It is necessary to rewrite the introduction by distinguishing what we know from what we do not know and theorizing it.

Please clearly describe the differences from the existing literature.

 

Literature review and hypothesis development

There are difficulties with reading and following the logic due to the lack of a theoretical lens.

The literature review should be conducted to the extent that hypotheses can be presented in a nuanced manner, but this manuscript is somewhat lacking in that respect.

To suit the purpose and scope of this journal, authors should refer to studies such as sustainability or green innovation. In that regard, please review the papers below.

For green process/product innovation

The effects of open innovation on eco-innovation in meta-organizations Evidence from Korean SMEs, Asian Business & Management.

For digital and sustainable innovation

Digitalization capability and sustainable performance in emerging markets: Mediating roles of in/out-bound open innovation and coopetition strategy, Management Decision

 

Conclusion and implication

The identification of the theoretical contribution within this study presents challenges. It is imperative to elucidate the specific enhancements that have been introduced to the extant literature. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that the existing theoretical implications demonstrate a degree of sufficiency in facilitating meaningful connections with prior research endeavors.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

typos. 

Author Response

Abstract：

Please be more specific about the research purpose and justify the theoretical gap. The abstract should be written in the order of research motivation, research gap, theoretical positioning (i.e., argument), methodology, and summary of results. What is the theory for verifying dynamic complexity?

Reply: Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have revised the abstract according to the reviewer's feedback, and the specific changes have been highlighted in the manuscript.

Introduction：

The rationale behind the background of proposing your framework remains unclear to me. Please be more specific about the research purpose and justify the theoretical gap. It seems that there is a lack of theoretical explanation. This is because the gap identification is not explained clearly and is limited in the current form. Also, there is very little evidence to support the authors’ arguments on the gap justification. Could you please clarify the theoretical gaps that have not been discovered in the existing theories? What theory was employed in this study to fill the theoretical gap?

Reply: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have revised the introduction according to your suggestions in order to provide a clearer explanation of the research background and the differences between this paper and previous literature.

Please try to tackle the existing theories and literature from which the two RQs suggested by the authors were derived and present the evidence.

Reply: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have revised the introduction according to your suggestions and highlighted the changes in red.

Please clearly present the theoretical gap derived from RQ as "First, Second, Third".

Reply: We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestion and presented the theoretical gap derived from RQ using "First, Second, Third" in a clearer manner.

It is necessary to rewrite the introduction by distinguishing what we know from what we do not know and theorizing it.

Reply: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have revised the introduction according to your suggestions and highlighted the changes in red.

Please clearly describe the differences from the existing literature.

Reply：Thank you for your valuable comments. We have revised the introduction to clearly describe the differences between this paper and existing literature.

 

Literature review and hypothesis development

There are difficulties with reading and following the logic due to the lack of a theoretical lens.

The literature review should be conducted to the extent that hypotheses can be presented in a nuanced manner, but this manuscript is somewhat lacking in that respect.

Reply：Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have revised the literature review section as requested and highlighted the changes in red.

To suit the purpose and scope of this journal, authors should refer to studies such as sustainability or green innovation. In that regard, please review the papers below.

For green process/product innovation

The effects of open innovation on eco-innovation in meta-organizations Evidence from Korean SMEs, Asian Business & Management.

For digital and sustainable innovation

Digitalization capability and sustainable performance in emerging markets: Mediating roles of in/out-bound open innovation and coopetition strategy, Management Decision

Reply：Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have added relevant literature on sustainable innovation in the literature review section and also cited the references you mentioned.

Conclusion and implication：

The identification of the theoretical contribution within this study presents challenges. It is imperative to elucidate the specific enhancements that have been introduced to the extant literature. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that the existing theoretical implications demonstrate a degree of sufficiency in facilitating meaningful connections with prior research endeavors.

Reply：Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have revised the conclusion and discussion sections of the manuscript as requested and highlighted the changes in red.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Author address following suggesion

line 18. add key lines of the study, easy to understand for readeres

Line 39; its figure 2 or 3? remove typos?

Line 55; define full farm "NEV"

objective of the study clearly define at the end of introduction

line 114; year? reference number "Zheng et al."

Line 118; same for "Tao et al."

recheck all equcations carefully' and cited in draft also check cite correctly

Line 366: remove typo "Figure3"

remove typo from figure legends

figure 10 quality very low,, increase figure qulaity

Conclusion too big,,, reduce

overall manuscript interesting

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

need minor english correction

Author Response

The Author address following suggestion：

line 18. add key lines of the study, easy to understand for readers

Reply：Thank you for your valuable comments. We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions and highlighted the changes in red font.

Line 39; its figure 2 or 3? remove typos?

Reply：Thank you for your careful examination of our manuscript. We have corrected the errors and thoroughly reviewed the entire paper to ensure that similar mistakes do not occur in the future.

Line 55; define full farm "NEV"

Reply：Thank you for your careful examination of our manuscript. We have clarified the term "NEV" in the previous text and will use the abbreviation hereafter.

objective of the study clearly defines at the end of introduction

Reply：Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised the introduction and provided a detailed explanation of the research objectives at the end of the introduction.

line 114; year? reference number "Zheng et al."

Reply：Thank you for your meticulous review. We have added the publication years of the listed literature in the manuscript.

Line 118; same for "Tao et al."

Reply：Thank you for your meticulous review. We have added the publication years of the listed literature in the manuscript.

recheck all equations carefully' and cited in draft also check cite correctly

Reply：Thank you for your reminder. We have thoroughly reviewed all the equations in the manuscript once again.

Line 366: remove typo "Figure3"

Reply：Thank you for your reminder. We have corrected the errors as suggested.

remove typo from figure legends

Reply：Thank you for your reminder. We have corrected the errors as suggested.

figure 10 quality very low,, increase figure quality

Reply：Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised Figure 10 by improving its image quality to make it clearer.

Conclusion too big, reduce

Reply：Thank you for your suggestion. We have streamlined the conclusion section to make it more concise and clear.

overall manuscript interesting

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on the actual situation of China's automobile industry, the authors considered the lack of cooperation between suppliers and manufacturers in the supply chain. And considering the dominance of suppliers in the power structure, we constructed a complex and dynamic game model at the R&D level under a dual credit policy.

The research appears to be interesting for analyzing the situation of China's automobile industry, which has great demand worldwide.

- It is very difficult to find and review references in papers. Please re-write references in compliance with MDPI publication format.

- The authors wrote a lot of references, but it seems like an effective way to write a paper is to write down each reference in detail rather than grouping them together.

- What are the units of x-axis time in Figure 10?

- The explanations in Figures 11 to 14 are very poor. A detailed explanation of the picture material is required. A lengthy explanation is not required, but please elaborate.

- The four points concluded are based on the political and economic uniqueness of China, and I will trust them as well-analyzed content. Thank you for your efforts.

Author Response

Based on the actual situation of China's automobile industry, the authors considered the lack of cooperation between suppliers and manufacturers in the supply chain. And considering the dominance of suppliers in the power structure, we constructed a complex and dynamic game model at the R&D level under a dual credit policy.

The research appears to be interesting for analyzing the situation of China's automobile industry, which has great demand worldwide.

- It is very difficult to find and review references in papers. Please rewrite references in compliance with MDPI publication format.

Reply：Thank you for your reminder. We have corrected the formatting of the references according to the journal's requirements.

- The authors wrote a lot of references, but it seems like an effective way to write a paper is to write down each reference in detail rather than grouping them together.

Reply：Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised the literature review according to your recommendations and highlighted the changes in red.

- What are the units of x-axis time in Figure 10?

Reply：Thank you for your valuable comments. In the explanation of Figure 10, we have added a specific explanation of t to help readers better understand its meaning.

- The explanations in Figures 11 to 14 are very poor. A detailed explanation of the picture material is required. A lengthy explanation is not required, but please elaborate.

Reply：Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have further elaborated on Figures 11-14 in the manuscript to ensure that readers can clearly understand the meaning of the figures.

- The four points concluded are based on the political and economic uniqueness of China, and I will trust them as well-analyzed content. Thank you for your efforts.

Reply：Thank you for your careful examination of our manuscript and for providing valuable comments. We appreciate your hard work and support.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comment:

The article investigates the impact of the dual-credit policy in the Chinese automotive industry, a policy aimed at promoting energy conservation, emission reduction, and new energy vehicles. Authors aim to focus on how this policy influences R&D levels in both parts suppliers and vehicle manufacturers within the automotive industry's supply chain. Using a complex dynamic game model, the paper examines the behavior and equilibrium stability of R&D levels, considering the unique characteristics of the Chinese automotive industry, and offering management insights and recommendations based on the findings.

 

Comment #1 – Introduction:

It's important to explicitly highlight the contribution of the paper to the SI: "Sustainable Perspective on Power Systems and Renewable Energy," in the “Introduction” section. This will outline the context and emphasize the relevance of the paper to the special issue's call.

 

Comment #2 – Literature Review:

The “Literature Review” section is currently limited (in my opinion, due to the complexity of the thematic, 1 page is insufficient), both in terms of content and references. To strengthen the research, it's recommended to expand the theoretical background by incorporating more recent references that reflect the current state of research in the field. Consider referencing key and recent publications to provide a more comprehensive view of the existing knowledge.

 

Comment #3 – Results & Discussion:

The manuscript lacks a dedicated "Results & Discussion" section, which is essential for summarizing the main findings and discussing their implications. Authors should include a well-structured section that not only presents the study's results but also analyzes them in the context of the initial assumptions and the relevant literature. Additionally, the practical implications of the study and its contribution to the field should be discussed here.

 

Comment #4 – Citation Style:

The references are not cited appropriately within the text, and it is crucial to adhere to the journal's style and citation guidelines. Authors should follow the prescribed citation style consistently.

Examples:

• “It is found that the research mainly focuses on two streams: firstly, studying the policy's impact, such as whether the policy promotes innovation 11, performance 12, R&D investment 13, and the penetration rate of NEVs 13”

• “Secondly, studying the response strategies to the policy from the perspective of affected stakeholders, such as when and how companies should transition to producing electric vehicles151617, how to plan product lines18, how to obtain the required credits19, and how to implement R&D strategies20. Additionally, it explores the coordination and cooperation among vertical and horizontal enterprises 21222324.”

 

Final Comment:

The article provides valuable insights into the complex interplay of R&D levels in the Chinese automotive industry under the dual-credit policy and may be considered for publishing. However, in order to enhance the paper's quality, it is important to consider the 4 comments above (i.e., highlight its contribution to the SI, expand the Literature Review, include a Results & Discussion section, and address the citation style). These improvements will contribute to a more comprehensive and polished research paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

General Comment:

The article investigates the impact of the dual-credit policy in the Chinese automotive industry, a policy aimed at promoting energy conservation, emission reduction, and new energy vehicles. Authors aim to focus on how this policy influences R&D levels in both parts suppliers and vehicle manufacturers within the automotive industry's supply chain. Using a complex dynamic game model, the paper examines the behavior and equilibrium stability of R&D levels, considering the unique characteristics of the Chinese automotive industry, and offering management insights and recommendations based on the findings.

Comment #1 – Introduction:

It's important to explicitly highlight the contribution of the paper to the SI: "Sustainable Perspective on Power Systems and Renewable Energy," in the “Introduction” section. This will outline the context and emphasize the relevance of the paper to the special issue's call.

Reply：Thank you for your valuable comments. We have added a research background section in the introduction to explain the relevance of "sustainability" to the special issue theme.

Comment #2 – Literature Review:

The “Literature Review” section is currently limited (in my opinion, due to the complexity of the thematic, 1 page is insufficient), both in terms of content and references. To strengthen the research, it's recommended to expand the theoretical background by incorporating more recent references that reflect the current state of research in the field. Consider referencing key and recent publications to provide a more comprehensive view of the existing knowledge.

Reply：Thank you for your valuable comments. We have revised the literature review section to expand the theoretical background and have incorporated recent and authoritative references as suggested by

Comment #3 – Results & Discussion:

The manuscript lacks a dedicated "Results & Discussion" section, which is essential for summarizing the main findings and discussing their implications. Authors should include a well-structured section that not only presents the study's results but also analyzes them in the context of the initial assumptions and the relevant literature. Additionally, the practical implications of the study and its contribution to the field should be discussed here.

Reply：Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have added a results and discussion section to the manuscript to clearly demonstrate the practical significance of this study and its contribution to the field.

Comment #4 – Citation Style:

The references are not cited appropriately within the text, and it is crucial to adhere to the journal's style and citation guidelines. Authors should follow the prescribed citation style consistently.

Examples:

• “It is found that the research mainly focuses on two streams: firstly, studying the policy's impact, such as whether the policy promotes innovation 11, performance 12, R&D investment 13, and the penetration rate of NEVs 13”
• “Secondly, studying the response strategies to the policy from the perspective of affected stakeholders, such as when and how companies should transition to producing electric vehicles151617, how to plan product lines18, how to obtain the required credits19, and how to implement R&D strategies20. Additionally, it explores the coordination and cooperation among vertical and horizontal enterprises 21222324.”

Reply：Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised the citation of the literature in accordance with the formatting requirements of the journal.

Final Comment:

The article provides valuable insights into the complex interplay of R&D levels in the Chinese automotive industry under the dual-credit policy and may be considered for publishing. However, in order to enhance the paper's quality, it is important to consider the 4 comments above (i.e., highlight its contribution to the SI, expand the Literature Review, include a Results & Discussion section, and address the citation style). These improvements will contribute to a more comprehensive and polished research paper.

Reply：Thank you for your careful work. We have revised the manuscript according to your comments and highlighted the changes in red font. We appreciate your hard work and support for the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is highly relevant, considering China's position as a leading player in the global automotive market and its significant carbon footprint. It addresses a gap in the literature by focusing on the dual-credit policy's influence on the R&D behaviour and investment strategies of automotive industry stakeholders​.

In terms of methodology, the use of a two-stage Stackelberg game and dynamic complex model is appropriate for the study's aims, considering the non-cooperative environment and the power dynamics between suppliers and manufacturers, the paper seems to be well-structured, with a clear methodology and well-defined research focus.

The paper could benefit from a more detailed analysis of how the dual-credit policy compares with other global initiatives targeting similar sustainability goals in the automotive industry. Please, expand the literature review to include comparisons with international policies and their impacts on R&D investment behaviour.

It should also provide a clearer justification for the assumptions made in the model, particularly regarding the level of rationality (Naive and GD) assumed for the stakeholders.

There is a potential for bias in focusing solely on the supplier-dominant non-cooperative mode. A comparison with other modes could provide a more balanced view of the supply chain dynamics. Please, incorporate empirical data to support the theoretical findings, possibly by using case studies or real-world data from the Chinese automotive industry.

The recommendations section could be strengthened by providing more actionable steps and considering the implications for policy-makers and industry practitioners. I encourage the authors to develop the recommendations further to offer more specific guidance that can be readily applied by industry stakeholders and policy-makers.

The introduction and literature review sections, while comprehensive, could be more concise to improve readability and focus on the most salient points. It will be good to streamline the introduction and literature review to improve the paper's accessibility and ensure that it communicates its core arguments more efficiently.

Author Response

The topic is highly relevant, considering China's position as a leading player in the global automotive market and its significant carbon footprint. It addresses a gap in the literature by focusing on the dual-credit policy's influence on the R&D behavior and investment strategies of automotive industry stakeholders​.

In terms of methodology, the use of a two-stage Stackelberg game and dynamic complex model is appropriate for the study's aims, considering the non-cooperative environment and the power dynamics between suppliers and manufacturers, the paper seems to be well-structured, with a clear methodology and well-defined research focus.

The paper could benefit from a more detailed analysis of how the dual-credit policy compares with other global initiatives targeting similar sustainability goals in the automotive industry. Please, expand the literature review to include comparisons with international policies and their impacts on R&D investment behavior.

Reply：Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the corresponding content in the introduction and highlighted it in red.

It should also provide a clearer justification for the assumptions made in the model, particularly regarding the level of rationality (Naive and GD) assumed for the stakeholders.

Reply：Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the assumption of dynamic adjustment strategies for suppliers and manufacturers in the model construction, which is highlighted in red.

There is a potential for bias in focusing solely on the supplier-dominant non-cooperative mode. A comparison with other modes could provide a more balanced view of the supply chain dynamics. Please, incorporate empirical data to support the theoretical findings, possibly by using case studies or real-world data from the Chinese automotive industry.

Reply：Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have reviewed the data on the China Automotive Industry Association website as suggested and ultimately found the 2022 China Automotive Supply Chain Report. We have used this report as a basis to develop our hypotheses for constructing the model.

The recommendations section could be strengthened by providing more actionable steps and considering the implications for policy-makers and industry practitioners. I encourage the authors to develop the recommendations further to offer more specific guidance that can be readily applied by industry stakeholders and policy-makers.

Reply：Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the conclusion and recommendations sections to make them more actionable.

The introduction and literature review sections, while comprehensive, could be more concise to improve readability and focus on the most salient points. It will be good to streamline the introduction and literature review to improve the paper's accessibility and ensure that it communicates its core arguments more efficiently.

Reply：Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the introduction and literature review sections according to your recommendations and highlighted the changes in red font to improve the readability of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on a thorough review and diligent incorporation of the feedback and comments you have provided, I am confident in asserting that this manuscript is now poised for publication. 

The final step remaining in the preparation of this manuscript involves a meticulous review to ensure the elimination of any lingering typos and meticulous attention to spacing details.

Author Response

Thank you for your regarding the review of our manuscript. We appreciate the meticulous examination and valuable comments provided by the reviewers, which have greatly improved the quality of our paper and deepened our understanding in this research field.

Our research team has carefully reviewed the entire manuscript to ensure that there are no grammar errors and that the format meets the requirements of the journal. We have made all the necessary revisions based on the reviewers' feedback.

Once again, we would like to express our gratitude to the reviewers for their positive assessment and dedication in scrutinizing our work. We understand that the review process can be time-consuming and laborious, and we truly appreciate the effort put forth by the reviewers.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards,

Qing He &Yu Feng  &ZheYu  Li

Author Response File: Author Response.docx