Next Article in Journal
Systematic Bibliometric Analysis of Entrepreneurial Intention and Behavior Research
Previous Article in Journal
Unlocking a Pathway to Fashion Circularity: Insights into Fashion Rental Consumption and Business Practices
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Dual Policy–Market Orchestration: New R&D Institutions Bridging Innovation and Entrepreneurship

Adm. Sci. 2025, 15(8), 289; https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15080289
by Yinhai Fang 1,2 and Xinping Qiu 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Reviewer 4: Anonymous
Adm. Sci. 2025, 15(8), 289; https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15080289
Submission received: 4 May 2025 / Revised: 14 July 2025 / Accepted: 21 July 2025 / Published: 24 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Section International Entrepreneurship)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your research.

This research investigated the research institute and its trajectory records in innovation and entrepreneurship supports, which is an interesting subject. However, the paper shows weak literature review, insufficient data analysis, and a lack of theoretical framework between data analysis and investigated case studies. Also, the research questions are not clear, and therefore, it is difficult to navigate what this paper is keen to indicate.

Furthermore, the theoretical implications should be discussed relevant theoretical models, which are necessary to discuss in the literature review section.

Please read the following details of review comments.

 

Abstract:

You mentioned ‘context-process-result’ framework in an analysis of the case studies. Where this concept is from? You need to explain it in the literature review, but I cannot see it. In terms of implications, the research mentioned ‘calibrating policy interventions and enhancing organisational agility within complex ecosystem, but I cannot see such a link with research findings in the manuscript.

Introduction:

On page 1, for the texts ‘The development of such productive forces… model transformations’, the paper should provide source(s). In particular, if you want to raise any arguments, should provide references.

On page 2, for the texts ‘Recent studies…. voids (Andrews.., 2024)’, you mentioned ‘Asia and Africa’ but I think this means specific countries. It needs to clarify them.

For the research questions, wording needs to be clearer considering research aim and objectives.

Literature review:

I can see some texts in this section do not provide any references (e.g., the texts ‘Policy context…. Innovation funds’). It needs to be improved.

This study mentioned ‘MSEs’ innovation sprit’. What does it mean? If you investigate any terms, you should define it. Your readers may do not know abbreviations without a detailed information.

Also, for the argument ‘the dual situation of policy and market is mainly mapped in the government-led market economy structure’, you cited a single reference. You should expand the literature to support this argument.

For the term ‘platform-type organisation’, what does it mean? Any references? It needs to clarify it with references.

You mentioned ‘Some studies…’ but you cited a single reference. Where are others?

From the literature review, I cannot see any detailed information of this research institute. For example, your readers should know what this research institute is aiming at from the beginning. Operational functions and operational visions should be discussed briefly in the literature review.

In terms of research rationale, you mentioned ‘there is insufficient research on the … new R&D organisations…’. But I feel this research institute has multi-layered functions in fostering industry-university collaboration, entrepreneurship, innovation, and implementing government-backed programs.  If so, you need to develop the literature about innovation centres, accelerators, incubators, and enterprise centres, etc. There are many studies about them.

 

Research design:

As case objects, you mentioned ‘case typicality’, ‘inspiring’, and ‘data accessibility’.  Do you mean you have focused on these three components for the investigations of this research institute?

It is not clear for this section.

For the data, this study informed first-hand data and the secondary data. What do you mean by ‘first-hand data’? Do you mean ‘primary data’? Have you interviewed or visited the site? For data collection information, it is not sufficiently addressed how you have collected and what data you have obtained with these two options.

For the first section of research design, it seems to discuss research institute, but the most important information of research institute itself lacks. Some information is quite general and also relevant sources (references) are not provided (e.g., institute homepage, any publications, and or published government reports).

For the data analysis and Case Studies,

What is the ‘Selenium crawler framework’? Where is the citation providing this information?

Does the Baidu provide English database? Or just Chinese letter? It needs to clarify.  

What raw data is about? I assume you have summarised the raw data with the table 1. Where are 15 sub-categories? What do you mean by the code A1 to A11 in the table? Can you address what types of qualitative data you used? How to filter them and how to categorise them? I suppose you used a thematic analysis but there is a lack of information how you have analysed this longitudinal data.

If you collected the data on different time horizon, you need to identify them in the table. For example, we need to know which code number was analysed at the beginning of this research institute. But there is no such information.

You have identified two sections: Data analysis and Case studies.

What differences are there? Are they linked with each other? Have you used themes you have created to develop a diagram at each stage (trigger, catalytic, fusion)? All is not clear.

DARPA-inspired project management methodologies? What is this? It needs to provide more details with references.

You mentioned ‘Project Manager System’ which makes attracting top-tier talent, but it is not clear how to attract and also it is not clear what ‘PMS’ means and what distinguished profiles this PMS has.

This paper highlighted ‘JITRI’s unique operational model and mechanisms’ but it is also not clear what uniqueness this research institute has compared to others in the literature. Also the paper mentioned ‘a more flexible talent strategy’ but there is no specific information about it.

What is the dual-track mechanism? Does it mean a university-industry collaboration model? If so, you may need to review ‘Triple-Helix Model’.

On page 11, the paper mentioned ‘cross-sectoral alliances’ between university and industry. But it is difficult to find any insights from this information. The paper informed a long history of the research institute itself rather than developing any academic implications and contributions to the literature.

What does the multi-stakeholder coordination mechanisms mean?  The paper used too many terms without clear information.

For figures, 3,4, and 5, there are some factors overlapped with each other. And also somehow the meaning looks similar in different terms.

On page 15 for the line 4 (‘ … interaction between innovation and entrepreneurship activities’), and the line 10 (‘… hybrid governance model. Policy-wise, under China’s dual “environment-supply” innovation strategy…)_, the paper doesn’t provide any evidence and even definitions of them.

 

For the section 5.

If there are any specific R&D institutional models overseas (there are many), you should compare with them to show what differences and similarities you have found.

Please provide any relevant models of ‘trigger-catalysis-fusion’ from the literature (any similar models are fine).  

It needs to provide practical implications.

On page 14, I suppose ‘cross-domain’, ‘multi-dimensional’, and ‘iterative features’ are the findings. If so, where are discussions with the literature?

For the lines, ‘… From a behavioural perspectives,…., the innovation and entrepreneurship network.’, the sentences are vague. It needs to clarify them.

On page 15, what do you mean by China’s dual policy-market dynamics? This is my fundamental question. Why does this paper use so many terms without any definitions referencing the literature? This is a basic requirement of academic papers.

From the line ‘.. Ultimately, … ‘, it is not clear and again the paper used ‘opportunity-exploitation-iteration’ cycle without any references.

For the section 6.2,  I cannot see any theoretical contributions. In the literature review, the paper hasn’t sufficiently discussed any theoretical models supporting this research.

On page 16, the final sentence is not clear.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some English words used in this manuscript are not the usual word choice in this subject. (e.g., symbiosis; this word is to explain the link between creatures in biology discipline.).

Also, there are some repeated sentences and referencing styles in texts are not consistent.

Some paragraphs are too long, and English meanings are vague.

It needs to improve writing concisely and clearly.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, Specific revision suggestions are provided in the attachment!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper "Dual Policy-Market Orchestration: New R&D Institutions Bridging Innovation and Entrepreneurship" offers a timely and engaging examination of how new R&D institutions, in the shape of the Jiangsu Industrial Technology Research Institute, manage the dual institutional pressures of policy and market to combine innovation and entrepreneurship. The research utilizes a single-case, longitudinal approach founded on dynamic capability theory and the context-process-result framework to generate deep empirical insights and a considered conceptual model.

The work is methodologically sound, with good justification for the single-case design and a thorough coding mechanism anchored in triangulated data sets.

There are some areas for improvement, however. The extensive review of the literature could be made to be better organized around themes to increase consistency. The current review is more descriptive than analytical.

The limitation of a singular case study is noted, but some minimal comparison to other R&D institutions would place JITRI’s experience in context and support its external validity.

Please see this "Error! Reference source not found" which is mentioned throughout the paper. Possibly an error in the document while converting to review form.

Figures and tables are not cited in the paper text.

In section 5. Mechanism for deep integration of innovation and entrepreneurship
driven by new R&D institutions, no connection with prior literature is established.

Overall, the writing in the paper is good. It would be better with some shortening of the longer sentences, particularly in the abstract, introduction, and conclusion. In addition, although the paper considers the implications of its results, it would benefit from a clear list of actionable policy suggestions, which would be a useful inclusion considering it has a practical orientation.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Hello! I have made revisions according to your suggestions. Please see the attachment for the specific revisions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Very interesting research. Your paper offers a significant and timely contribution to the field by exploring how new R&D institutions, such as JITRI, can bridge innovation and entrepreneurship within a dual policy-market context. I appreciated the longitudinal case study approach and your conceptual model (“trigger–catalysis–fusion”), which offers valuable insights with high originality and policy relevance. However, in my opinion, there are mahjor revisions tht need to be made, whcih I outlined below, focused mainly on clarifying and strengthening the research methods section, correcting formatting issues such as broken figure and table references, and improving the clarity and flow of your narrative to ensure that conclusions are more closely linked to the empirical findings. Please consider the following recommendations:

1. In your abstract, consider clarifying the terminology used, such as “new quality productive forces,” for broader understanidng and accessibility.

2. Also, make sure to focus on key findings and practical implications rather than overly theoretical language; the abstract is your chance to draw the attention of potential readers, and even more so, to have your research found by search engines.

3. I'd suggest you streamline the introduction to reduce conceptual overload and clarify the research gap. For example, clearly define all key terms early, such as policy-market duality, dynamic capabilities, etc. What does these terms mean in this research?

4. Make sure to better align your cited literature with the stated research questions you are presenting.

5. You should strengthen the rationale for studying JITRI and new R&D institutions in particular. Why is it important?

6. IN the literature review section, make sure to synthesize the cited studies into clear thematic categories rather than listing them individually.

7. It is also important that you critically engage with competing or complementary theoretical perspectives and make sure you connect each literature subsection directly to how it informs your research framework.

8. In your research design and methods, you need to justify the choice of a single-case longitudinal study with references to case study methodology, as you cite Eisenhardt.

9. When you write "Second, longitudinal cases can clearly show the changing process of sample data over time, highlight the development of events, and make the study more in-depth and coherent'" you need to back it up. What evidence in the literature do you have that this is the case?

10. The same goes with the next sentence where you state "Finally, new R&D institutions cooperate with multiple subjects in the process of innovation and entrepreneurship integration to produce interactive behaviors,forming multiple embedded units of analysis." Are you sure, do you have evidence in the literature? I am not doubting you, but you need to show evidence in the literature to enhance the validity and reliability of your study.

11. The first sentence in section 3.2.1., You wrote "This study follows the data collection principles proposed by Eisenhardt..." but you did not provide references. Then you continue... "and collects secondary data from JITRI through in-depth semi-structured interviews and open sources...," which presents a technical problem as semi-structured interviews are primary sources, not secondary. Also, you don't define what these "open sources" are; potentially secondary, but what type of open sources? You mention "official releases," what do you mean: government reports, institutes' reports, agencies in China, and abroad? The same goes for "high-quality essays," which you need to define what high-quality means; peer-reviewed? Written by certain professionals? How are they classified as high-quality?  Would "news media reports" be trustworthy enough to be considered?

12. You also indicate that "we ensured that the research data were true and accurate and enhanced reliability through mutual corroboration." How did you ensure that? How do you know the data is true and accurate? And how did you "enhance reliability through mutual corroboration?

13. When you cite Baidu as the searching tool, I'd suggest defining the tool, as many readers outside of China may not be familiar with it. Additionally, searching the internet, rather than peer-reviewed sources such as Scopus, Web of Science, and Dimensions, is concerning, as there is no vetting of the quality and accuracy of such sources. I am concerned that the current methodology impacts the validity and reliability of this research.

14. Also, the way you selected the search keywords leaves a lot of resources out. You should have used Boolean, such as entrep* (to capture entrepreneurship, entrepreneurs, entrepreneurial, etc.), and so forth. Hence, the results you gathered are likely incomplete.

15. You also mentioned collecting more than 920,000 valid words. What do you mean by words?! What is the exam number of words (instead of more than)? Should it be categorized as documents? If so, how many more may be there if you used boolean?

16. This sentence, "Python program to build a Selenium crawler framework for automatic retrieval of webpage content and information," needs to be explained. Are you using the Python language, pandas libraries, or a Notebook? You should define Selenium crawler.

17. What do you mean by "Finally, data processing was performed"? Do you mean data preparation, tabulation, cleaning, etc.? If so, make sure to elaborate on that.

18. Why did you restrict the "The period of data information is 2013-2023?" This is not a criticism, but you need to justify it.

19. You should define the unit(s) of analysis and how the phases (trigger, catalysis, fusion) were identified from the data.

20. Make sure to describe how data sources were triangulated for credibility and reliability.

21. As suggested above, make sure to explain the coding process (open, axial, selective) clearly with examples or visuals, if possible.

22. Make sure to address any researcher bias due to long-term engagement with JITRI.

23. In your discussion section, make sure to include a discussion on how trustworthiness (credibility, dependability) was assured.

24. In the results section (and throughout the paper), make sure to fix all broken figure and table references (e.g., “Error! Reference source not found.”).

25. Also, you should present key findings more clearly with visual aids. In other words, make sure to insert well-labeled tables and figures, which provide a detailed description of what is being shown.

26. I strongly recommend you use quotes or direct data excerpts to ground results in evidence.

27. Make sure to separate descriptive findings from interpretive discussion more clearly. For example, you wrote, "JITRI established over 100 collaborative R&D platforms between 2016 and 2018, indicating that its absorptive and integrative capabilities matured significantly during this phase. This demonstrates how hybrid governance structures can drive ecosystem-wide innovation in emerging economies." The first sentence is a descriptive result (what happened), but the second sentence jumps to interpretation and generalization. This blending can confuse the structure and obscure the logic of evidence-based reasoning. You should break the two into separate paragraphs.

28. Also, in the Discussion section, make sure that all claims are logically derived from results. For example, you wrote, "JITRI’s model provides a universal blueprint for transforming innovation ecosystems globally, especially in developing economies." But, the results only describe a single Chinese institution (JITRI) and its evolution. The paper does not include comparative cases or cross-country analysis. Therefore, claiming that JITRI's model is a "universal blueprint" is an overreach — it is not logically or empirically supported by the data.

29. You should also make sure to better integrate theoretical implications with specific empirical evidence. For example, when you wrote “This study reinforces Teece’s dynamic capabilities framework, proving that absorptive, integrative, and innovative capacities are essential for R&D institutions.” Your statement uses theory, but it doesn’t link it to specific empirical evidence from the case study (e.g., what actions or outcomes at JITRI illustrated “absorptive capacity”?). Also, it makes a broad theoretical assertion without anchoring it in the case results.

30. Avoid overgeneralizing from a single case without sufficient qualification. For example, when you write “This study proves that hybrid governance models are the most effective way to integrate innovation and entrepreneurship in emerging economies.” I recommend you err on the side of intellectual humility and analytical precision. Your study only examines one case (JITRI) in one country (China), which has unique policy, institutional, and cultural characteristics. Using words like “proves” and “most effective” implies a universal truth or comparative superiority, which is not supported by the data.

31. In the conclusion section, consider concisely restating the contributions with a clearer distinction between theoretical and practical implications. For example, you offer a weak and blended conclusion when you write, "This study contributes to understanding how hybrid governance models enable innovation-entrepreneurship integration. R&D institutions should adopt similar models to accelerate industrial upgrading and ecosystem transformation.” The first sentence hints at a theoretical contribution, the second at a practical one—but there's no transition, explanation, or structure. It doesn’t tell the reader why the findings matter to each audience or how they apply.

32. Consider strengthening the implications for policy and R&D management audiences. For instance, you wrote, "New R&D institutions should balance policy and market dynamics to support innovation and entrepreneurship.” This is too general and lacks guidance on how institutions or policymakers might do this in practice. Additionally, it does not provide specific, grounded recommendations based on the JITRI case study.

33. Explicitly acknowledge limitations and scope for future research. The limitations section is too brief and general, missing the opportunity to address specific methodological and contextual constraints and how they affect the interpretation and generalizability of the study’s contributions. For example, you wrote, “As a case study, this research has some limitations in generalizability, and future research can further explore other cases.” The limitation is obvious and not analytically helpful. It doesn’t discuss how the single-case design or data choices may have affected the findings. The future research direction is too generic.

34. In your references, make sure to use APA 7th edition formatting consistency, remove duplicates, or incomplete citations, and consider reducing reference density where overcitation occurs. Here is one example: "High uncertainty undermines entrepreneurs’ stable expectations and reduces their innovation motivation (Kattel & Mazzucato, 2018; Criscuolo et al., 2019; Nasser, 2021; Crnogaj & Rus, 2023). Innovation-driven R&D performance aligns with state technology sovereignty strategies, balancing policy market shifts (Gamidullaeva et al., 2021; Yin et al., 2023; Huang & Malkin, 2025)." I could not distinguish what each source contributes, so readers will also have difficulty. The citations are stacked rather than integrated, which reduces analytical sharpness, making it appear like a reference dump rather than a reasoned synthesis.

35. Make sure all figures and tables are present, clearly labeled, and correctly referenced in the text.

36. Simplify complex visuals and add captions that explain their relevance.

37. Summarize coding structure or models in a single, integrated diagram if possible, to enhance clarity and synthesis by turning a complex, multi-layered coding structure into a visual summary that helps readers quickly grasp the logic and flow of your analysis. For example, considering the coding structure described in the Results section (particularly Tables 1–3 and the fragmented references to axial and selective coding), you can reconstruct a sample integrated coding diagram that visually maps how open codes were grouped into categories and connected to the "trigger–catalysis–fusion" process.

38. Consider simplifying overly dense or jargon-heavy sentences for better readability.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Make sure to review the entire paper to address grammar and syntax issues throughout. You may consider professional language editing to improve flow and coherence.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, Specific revision suggestions are provided in the attachment!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript investigates how new R&D institutions such as JITRI operate in a dual institutional context shaped by both policy imperatives and market mechanisms. The study offers a strong theoretical contribution by applying a dynamic capability framework and using a “context-process-result” model to explain the evolving role of institutional entrepreneurship in bridging innovation and commercialization. The phased analysis of JITRI's development—ranging from resource orchestration to hybrid governance—is thoughtful and well-structured, yielding both conceptual and practical insights.

The introduction provides a comprehensive background and references key literature, anchoring the study within ongoing discussions in innovation systems and institutional theory. The research design is appropriate, and the longitudinal case study approach is suitable for analyzing institutional adaptation over time. However, the methods section could benefit from additional detail about how data were collected and analyzed—particularly concerning sources, interview protocols, and coding strategies.

The results are clearly articulated and well-aligned with the research framework. They support the conclusions convincingly, which provide useful theoretical extensions and policy implications. That said, some figures and tables could be formatted more clearly to help readers follow the transition between stages more intuitively. Summarizing phase-specific insights visually or in a concise matrix would be helpful.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is generally acceptable, but several sections would benefit from professional editing to improve clarity and reduce syntactic complexity. In particular, some abstract and discussion sentences are overly dense or awkwardly constructed, which may hinder readability for an international audience.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, Specific revision suggestions are provided in the attachment!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your great efforts for this revision. The paper shows many improvements in overall.

There are some minor comments.

Please check the overall referencing style and some citations accordingly.

For example, for the first comments, you have revised the section with a single reference (in the introduction), but it would be better to review more papers rather than citing one single paper repeatedly in a big text body.

On page 5, ‘what is the reference ‘(Institute, 2013)’?.. Please check the referencing style the Journal requested.

Thank you again for your revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Major improvements made in this paper. Interesting research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File:

https://susy.mdpi.com/user/manuscripts/displayFile/5ecd484d3adb1d3b2c7b6ea22529172e?v=58541956

Back to TopTop