Review Reports - Effects of Domestic and International External Collaboration on New Product Development Performance in SMEs: Evidence from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction:
- The introduction could benefit from a more detailed contextual background, particularly highlighting the current challenges and trends in SMEs' NPD processes. This would help in setting a more comprehensive scene for the study's relevance and necessity.
Literature Review and Hypotheses Development:
- While the literature review is extensive, it may improve by incorporating more recent studies or contrasting viewpoints to present a more balanced and up-to-date perspective on the subject.
Research Methodology:
- The methodology, particularly the sampling strategy, could be diversified to include a wider range of industries and geographical locations for enhanced generalizability. Moreover, incorporating a longitudinal approach might provide deeper insights into the dynamics of NPD performance over time.
Analysis and Results:
- In the analysis section, there could be a more nuanced discussion of the findings, particularly in terms of how they align or diverge from existing research. Exploring more deeply the reasons behind certain unexpected results or patterns in the data might enrich the analysis.
Discussion and Conclusions:
- The discussion could be improved by drawing more explicit connections between the study's findings and their implications for theory and practice. This would make the contributions of the research more explicit and actionable.
Limitations and Future Research:
- Acknowledging limitations is vital, but the section could be expanded by suggesting specific methodologies or theoretical frameworks for future research. This would provide a clearer direction for subsequent studies.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the introduction section, line 31, please replace proved with some other words. Prove is a strong word that should avoided in empirical research.

The introduction section is coherent and justifies the need for this research.

There is no theoretical framework to justify the hypotheses. The authors should explicitly state the type of theories used to advance the argument in favor of hypotheses.

The research model depicts the hypotheses.

In line 310, what is meant by high level? The items of the instrument are typically taken from earlier studies. Change the wording high level.

I would suggest adding a conclusion section at the end of the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In the introduction section, line 31, please replace proved with some other words. Prove is a strong word that should avoided in empirical research.

In line 310, what is meant by high level? The items of the instrument are typically taken from earlier studies. Change the wording high level.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors address a central theme for the competitive and sustainable growth of SMEs, adequately argue the development of the analysis and correctly identify the limits of the research. However, I would suggest looking into the following aspects:

- "Statistics show that NPD has contributed to more than 40% of profit for SMEs": this statement should be better explained both by indicating which statistics we are referring to and by contextualizing it with respect to the remaining 60%

- whether and to what extent the companies analyzed belong to a manufacturing/productive district and possibly how this satus could influence the results obtained

- willingness to share on the part of potential outside partners, as a relevant element: why should they share? under what conditions?