Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper explores how customer concentration impact exploratory innovation under the moderating effects of board interlocks and CEO research background using longitudinal data from China. The idea is no doubt interesting, but several improvements could be made, particularly on the theoretical front.

 

The choice of resource dependent theory and organizational learning theory as guiding theoretical lens needed to be justified, which can be done through the IMPACT criteria for theory selection (see guidelines for theory selection: the IMPACT framework). In other words, please explain what each theory entails briefly before discussing their relevance to the study based on the IMPACT criteria.

 

The theoretical contributions are presently very much theoretical implications, so what is needed is signposting the exact type and extent of theoretical novelty and theoretical interestingness so as to explain its theoretical contributions before going into the theoretical implications. Locating and explaining (briefly) the theoretical novelty and theoretical interestingness of the outcomes of the study could be supported by related typology in theory development (see theory and theory development: guidelines for establishing theoretical gaps, foundations, contributions, and implications). Signposting theoretical contributions using established terminologies can, in turn, make such contributions much more prominent.

 

I hope these comments are useful to improve the quality of the paper.

 

I look forward to reading a well-revised paper.

 

Good luck and all the very best!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The issue of customer concentration and exploratory innovation is an interesting topic, and the author empirically studied the relationship between the two using econometric models, while presenting the empirical results clearly using charts. This paper has the potential for publication, but still requires partial revisions.

Is there an endogeneity issue between customer concentration and exploratory innovation in enterprises? The author did not discuss this issue, and as an econometric paper, it is necessary to discuss endogeneity issues.

Descriptive statistical values of core variables and control variables need to be reported to clearly demonstrate the transparency and reliability of the data.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this study, the authors conducted empirical investigations on the effects of customer concentration on exploratory innovation. The study reads well, and I have the following points for authors to consider:
1. In Line 32, Exploratory innovation is firstly mentioned. However, as this definition is the center of this study, I would recommend the authors to cite necessary reference to support to define this term. Also, explanation should be provided to differentiate between innovation and exploratory innovation.
2. To better present the research objectives, I recommend the authors to explicitly list their research question in the end of fifth paragraph of Introduction Section.
3. In Line 369, the figure caption seems to be wrong, as it should be Figure 2. Please check the whole manuscript to correct figure numbers.
4. The dotted lines in Figures 1 and 4 (Line 369 and 383) are not self-explanatory. I recommend the authors to provide explanation in the figures.
5. The limitations and future research directions should be enhanced by comparing previous literature.
6. In the manuscript, there are some minor grammatical errors. Please check the text.

Thanks!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would thank the authors' efforts and time in revising the paper, and there are several points for them to further consider:

1. In equation (1), the term definition is confusing. "New patent" in year t, in the context of this manuscript, should be the novel patents in year t, meaning that patents with novel knowledge. "The total patent" here, seems to be the more appropriately described as "new patents". To eliminate this confusion, authors should clearly define how they measure the “new patent" (numerator of equation (1)) and "total patent" (denominator of equation (1)) and revise both numbers accordingly.
2. The legend of dotted lines in figure 2 and figure 3 is confusing. If the authors tend to mean both lines are the highlights of turning points, such description should be applied to both legends, instead of using one legend for both lines.

Thanks!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf