Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

1. Please ask the authors to highlight more clearly the novelty (originality) of the work in the abstract.
2. Please ask the authors to supplement the literature review with international publications.
3. Please emphasize more explicitly the connection of the article’s topic with sustainable development. The authors mainly analyze the economic and institutional aspects of innovation. Please extend this to include the environmental and social dimensions, as well as more references to international enterprises. Indicate how the research results may be useful for other economies.
4. The article does not explain why the chosen method – evolutionary game theory – is the most suitable for the analyzed case. Please provide a justification and comparison with alternative approaches. Please also include more international examples of applications. Does the method have any limitations?
5. Please ask the authors to consider presenting a diagram of the individual stages of the method (e.g., in the form of a flowchart) and to describe the methodological steps more clearly (presenting the procedure step by step).
6. The procedure for determining the initial parameters should be described in detail. If surveys were used, please provide information on the respondents, the sampling method, whether consistency checks were carried out, and what questions were asked. Please include a detailed description of the procedure for selecting the initial parameters. If literature sources were also used, please indicate which ones—perhaps in the form of a table.
7. Could the authors compare their results with those of other studies? If so, please include this in the final part of the article.

 

Author Response

Thank you for pointing these out. We have revised the manuscript and given the explanation point-by-point according your suggestions. You can see them in the next file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is a serious lack of literature. Since this point 2. concerns its review, the model of literature overview presented  in point 2.1. (indication and polemic) should be performed by each of the following subpoints; in points 2.2.1. and 2.2.2. there is only one footnote each, there is  no polemic or view's presentation, only a footnote given. 
Suggested literature to overview:
Z Jin, Q Zheng - Procedia Computer Science, 2022,  An evolutionary game analysis of subsidy strategies in the supply chain of SMEs based on system dynamics
N Xie, Y Tong, H He - Mathematics, 2023 
Evolutionary Game Analysis of SME Social Responsibility Performance under Public Health Emergencies
The incentive to innovate? The behavior of local policymakers in China
JC Teets, R Hasmath, OA Lewis - Journal of Chinese Political Science, 2017 
Making incentive policies more effective: An agent-based model for energy-efficiency retrofit in China
X Liang, T Yu, J Hong, GQ Shen - Energy Policy, 2019

Since the categories of strong and weak incentives are crucial to the research being conducted, they should be deeply described as key factors in influencing the behavior of private technology enterprises, or  at least – better footnoted. 
I find the  Scenario simulation well defined, therefore the Conclusions (1-2) are well based on the scenario. However, the third conclusion is done not by the reviewed research’s effects, but by some other research only: “Third, multi-scenario verification shows that a single policy or market competition cannot guarantee sustainable innovation; it is necessary to combine policy guidance, user willingness, and enterprise response to better promote the development of sustainable innovation dynamics in private technology enterprises [30]” 

Author Response

Thank you for pointing these out. We have revised the manuscript and given the explanation point-by-point according your suggestions. You can see them in the next file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Attached ,  you  can   find    my  comments !

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for pointing these out. We have revised the manuscript and given the explanation point-by-point according your suggestions. You can see them in the next file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revisions you have made.

   

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The cited research is sufficient and bulids a good starting point for further considerations and comprehensively illustrates the problem.