The Impact of Intellectual Capital Efficiency on Corporate Sustainable Growth-Evidence from Smart Agriculture in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study is interesting and concerns an important issue. The research process is understandable because it is described in details. The study is based on a broad literature review. In order to improve the article, I present the following comments and remarks.

1. A clearly defined research goal of the study is missing.
2. All statistical methods should be described in the methodological chapter.
3. The analyzed research group is not representative for all agricultural enterprises in China, so the conclusions can be applied only to the surveyed enterprises.
4. It would be advisable to extend the article with a short description of the surveyed enterprises in terms of scale and direction of production.
5. On the basis of what criterion was the division of enterprises into high-tech and traditional agricultural enterprises made?
6. Why was total assets used as the control variable in the model?

Author Response

Please check the attached file!  Thanks a lot!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In the paper an interesting problem of the impact of Intellectual Capital on Corporate Sustainable Growth in Agriculture (Wisdom Agriculture) has been undertaken . Personally, I have some reservations about the possibility of measuring and expressing intellectual capital level based on salary (or generally expressing intelectual capital in monetary units) . However, the VAIC model is widely used and considered useful, so I skip this issue.

Some important issues in my opinion:

• In the paper I can’t find the explicit objective of this analysis.
• Statistical analysis is very extensive, but there is no in-depth substantive analysis of the results obtained.
• There is also no in-depth discussion of the results with the results of other authors. I understand that other Authors have not studied the impact of executive and non-executive capital efficiency, although the importance of intellectual capital in agriculture has been studied. In my opinion, expanding the results discussion is necessary in this paper.

I also have some general remarks:

• the term "sustainable growth" is often used in the paper - how does it refer to concept of "sustainable development" and "sustainable agriculture" ?
• in this paper the concept of "wisdom agriculture" is used - is it an equivalent to "smart agriculture" ?
• In the title the term "evidence from Wisdom Agriculture in China" has been used – what are the  basis justifying assumption that the analyzed companies really reflect "wisdom agriculture" ?

I also have a few minor comments:

• line 36-36: “Average net profit margin remains at only 3% ”- is it only the feature of Chinese agriculture or agriculture in general ?
• line 40: "GAAP" please expand the acronym
• line 78: "guaranteeing the future" - is there any way to guarantee the future?
• line 200: "Only sustainable growth with the continuous growth of value can represent true sustainable growth ”- what about sustainable development?
• Line 301 - the way in which the companies were divided into "non-high-tech" and "low high tech" is not clear

• Table 1 - it would be good to decipher the acronyms (in the table or directly below it) because it is hard to analyse in its current form.

Good point of the study is a extensive literature review.

Author Response

Please check the attached file. Thanks a lot!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx