The New Quality Productive Force, Science and Technology Innovation, and Optimization of Industrial Structure

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your interesting and timely research. The topic is highly relevant, and with some refinements, particularly in methodological rigor and theoretical framing. This study could offer meaningful insights for both academia and policy. I encourage to address the points below and resubmit an improved version.

Key Concerns and Suggestions for Improvement

• Conceptual Clarity

  • The term "new quality productive forces" (NQPF) requires a more precise theoretical foundation. Is it distinct from established concepts like total factor productivity, human capital, or digital infrastructure? A clear definition and differentiation from existing frameworks would strengthen the study’s contribution and avoid potential circular reasoning (e.g., assuming NQPF drives innovation by definition).

• Methodological Rigor

  • Stepwise Regression Limitations: While stepwise regression is used, it is prone to inflated Type I errors and model instability. Alternative approaches such as LASSO, ridge regression, or structural equation modeling (SEM) could provide more robust results, particularly for mediation analysis.

  • Endogeneity Concerns: The analysis assumes causality but does not account for reverse causality (e.g., whether innovation itself enhances NQPF) or omitted variable bias (e.g., policy interventions or foreign direct investment). Employing instrumental variables (IV) or dynamic panel methods (e.g., GMM) would lend greater credibility to the causal claims.

  • Static vs. Dynamic Modeling: The static panel model may miss dynamic interactions. Incorporating lagged variables or a dynamic panel approach could better capture temporal relationships and persistence effects.

• Regional Heterogeneity Analysis

  • The finding that NQPF’s impact follows a "central > eastern > western" pattern is intriguing but underexplored. A deeper discussion of potential drivers—such as institutional support, infrastructure quality, or policy disparities—would add valuable context and theoretical insight.

• Mediation Analysis

  • The proposed pathway (NQPF → S&T innovation → industrial upgrading) is plausible but requires stronger validation. Robustness checks (e.g., bootstrapped confidence intervals, Sobel tests) and consideration of alternative mechanisms (e.g., human capital as an intermediary) would enhance the analysis.

• Measurement and Transparency

  • The operationalization of NQPF needs clarification. If it is an index, what are its components and weighting scheme? Transparent reporting is essential for replicability and validation.

  • While statistical significance is noted, diagnostic tests for panel data issues (e.g., heteroskedasticity, autocorrelation) should be included to ensure robustness.

• Policy Implications

  • The conclusions could be more actionable. Rather than a general statement that NQPF promotes innovation, specific recommendations—such as targeted investments in R&D, digital infrastructure, or regional policy adjustments—would make the findings more impactful for policymakers.

• Strengths of the Study

• The examination of regional disparities is a valuable contribution, though further exploration of underlying causes would strengthen it.

• The attempt to link NQPF, innovation, and industrial upgrading addresses a relevant and underexplored research gap.

Recommendations 

This paper has significant potential but would benefit from methodological refinements and deeper theoretical engagement. To enhance its contribution, the authors should:

1. Clarify the definition and theoretical grounding of NQPF to distinguish it from related concepts.

2. Strengthen the methodology by addressing endogeneity, employing more robust estimation techniques, and validating mediation effects.

3. Deepen the regional analysis by exploring why certain regions benefit more from NQPF.

4. Improve transparency in measurement and provide robustness checks for empirical claims.

5. Sharpen policy implications by identifying specific leverage points for intervention.

With these revisions, the manuscript could make a stronger and more nuanced contribution to the literature.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Article doesn´t present clearly research question or objective of the study. In introduction authors state that "This paper aims to discuss the influence of new quality productive forces on the optimization and upgrading of industrial structure". I suggest to write clearly research question and objective in introduction text. The specific gap in the field of knowledge is not also clear. I suggest for authors to write clearly what results of this research differ from other studies. I suggest to write one or two paragraphs in the text of Modeling and Data Sources specifying kind of research was performed (Quantitativa approach, Descriptive, ... and so on), based on methodology authors. I suggest to create Discussion text, before presenting Conclusions. In this Discussion text is relevant to bring back theoretical review and compare with results of the study. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the introduction, there is too much repetition. Also, it would be very useful to describe what is new about quality productivity, such as why old measures of quality and productivity are not good in today's manufacturing settings.

 

I was under the impression you were talking about manufacturing, yet you gave an example of an intelligent voice assistant. Maybe a manufacturing example would be better, or at least how AI enhances productivity in manufacturing.

In your hypotheses 3 and 4 and in figure 1, you talk about science and technology innovation. This is a bit too broad. Could you replace that with something measurable? Like patents or something like?

 

Ok, on page 5 you finally put patents as a measure of science innovation. But still I don’t understand what it is and how you measure new quality productive forces of province i in period t,

 

Page 6, line 231 Wen Zhonglin et al. Is missing a reference

 

Only on page 6 you state: “quality productive forces is essentially advanced productivity” This has to go into the introduction and has to be better explained.

 

2.2.2. Core explanatory variable: new quality productive forces (nqpf). This whole paragraph should be better explained that we get the picture how you measure it. This paragraph is too vague.

 

Only on page 8 do we see what you measure and it has nothing to do with manufacturing or production. The title is misleading.

 

The data is from 2022 before the introduction of more massive use of AI.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the comments/suggestions are addressed well. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Sufficiently improved