Your Firm Needs a Sustainable Business Innovation Ecosystem

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the study is current. The goal and hypotheses are correct. The authors move from general to specific and indicate the importance of the issues discussed. A minor suggestion is: in the conclusion, the authors could add information regarding recommendations and connections with the fifth industrial revolution.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It may have relevance to describe the impact, the innovation degree, networking improvements, transferability and sustenability of the WWP

Also, the supply chain management compared with relevant alternatives

The concept of open innovation emerges as firms use external ideas to advance their technology or knowledges should be taken in discussion

Very little implications in practice, in the end.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well developed and structured. It presents the justification and objectives clearly in the introduction. It clearly defines the research hypotheses based on the literature. It applies the PLS SEM method, performing all the necessary analyses. For the final version, I suggest better justifying the choice of the PLS SEM method. The results are well presented and discussed. They present the theoretical and practical implications. The conclusions are supported by the method used.

Congratulations on the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I find the subject of this study enjoyable and have read it very carefully. I would like to give you the following advice.

 

The introduction to this study is poor in readability because it contains too much content and overlaps. In other words, the subject and purpose should be presented concisely so that you can quickly grasp this study's primary focus. In addition, as this study was conducted on Koreans, it is necessary to explain Korea's unique cultural or policy backgrounds. In the introduction, the contents of the hypothesis test, which is the main purpose of this study, should be presented.

 

 

Given the unclear relationship between variables, it is essential to bolster the logical basis for hypothesis setting. This can be achieved by drawing on related prior studies, which will significantly enhance the credibility of the study.

 

 

According to Figure 1 and Table 5, it is not understandable that only two hypotheses have been established. Considering the theoretical background, research model, and hypothesis testing method, this study seems to be logically correct only when there are four hypotheses.

 

It is important to note that the study may face validity concerns in 2024, using 2018 data. To address this, researchers must present convincing arguments about the study's reliability and relevance.

 

There's a noticeable lack of discussion between the results of this study and previous studies. It's essential to increase the interpretation and differentiation of the results of this study through comparison to prior studies.

 

The implications of a study that considers Korea's cultural and policy background are of utmost importance.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 As I expected, researchers supplemented this manuscript. Congratulations.