Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript develops a dual-path Resource–Strategy–Capability (R–S–C) mechanism framework to explore how non-dominant specialized firms drive systemic innovation in China’s autonomous driving ecosystem, with solid theoretical construction, rigorous patent network analysis, and clear contributions to service ecosystem and innovation network theories; however, several revisions are needed to further improve academic rigor and practical relevance: first, the causal identification of network position effects needs strengthening via more explicit quasi-experimental designs or instrumental variable methods to mitigate endogeneity concerns; second, the measurement of module-anchoring and interface-bridging capabilities can be enhanced by incorporating supplementary data sources such as standard-setting participation and supply-chain collaboration records beyond patent indicators; third, the discussion on boundary conditions of the dual-path mechanism can be deepened by comparing differences across technological modules (e.g., perception, decision-making) and institutional scenarios; in addition, the literature review should be enriched by citing the highly relevant paper Investigating people's attitude toward automated driving bus rapid transit using extended technology acceptance model: a case from Shanghai, China by Wang, L., Shui, H., Wu, Z., & Fu, Q. (2025) published in Digital Transportation and Safety, 4(3), 148–160, https://doi.org/10.48130/dts-0025-0011, which provides empirical evidence on public attitudes and user acceptance toward autonomous driving systems and can strongly support the discussion of ecosystem adoption and value co-creation; finally, some redundant narrative in the theoretical derivation and empirical results should be condensed, and the presentation of tables and figures should be standardized to enhance readability.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. We are genuinely grateful for the detailed, rigorous, and constructive feedback, which has substantially strengthened the paper. Your methodologically precise comments on causal identification, capability measurement, boundary conditions, and table standardization pushed us to address several important gaps in the original submission. Detailed point-by-point responses are provided in the accompanying [Response to Reviewer 1 Comments], with all revisions marked in red with track changes.
we upload it as a Word file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to read and review this paper that I consider it to be an ambitious and theoretically rich paper that tackles an important and underexplored question: how non-dominant firms contribute to systemic innovation in modular ecosystems. The proposed dual-path R–S–C (Resource–Strategy–Capability) framework is conceptually strong and clearly positioned against dominant-firm and platform-centric perspectives. The integration of network theory, service ecosystem theory, and innovation strategy is one of the paper’s main strengths. At the same time, the paper currently leans heavily toward theoretical density and conceptual ambition, sometimes at the expense of clarity, parsimony, and empirical sharpness. The core idea is valuable, but it could be communicated more effectively with tighter structure and clearer prioritization. You have identified a clear and relevant research gap, and you have proposed a strong theoretical construction, which is novel and intellectually interesting, especially the inversion of canonical network predictions. The emphasis on mechanisms rather than correlations is a strong point. You explicitly acknowledge endogeneity, non-causal design, illustrative nature of evidence and this transparency strengthens credibility. 

Also, I encourage you to continue the research in the field!

Best regards,

The Anonymous Reviewer

 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time and for the supportive and constructive assessment of our manuscript. Your observation regarding the balance between theoretical density and empirical clarity has been particularly valuable. Full details are provided in the accompanying[ Response to Reviewer 2] Comments, with all revisions marked in red with track changes.
we upload it as a Word.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks.

This article focuses on a problem of significant theoretical and practical importance: how non-dominant enterprises can achieve systematic innovation through network location in a modular service ecosystem. The author proposed a dual-path "resource - Strategy - Capability" (R-S-C) mechanism framework and conducted an empirical analysis based on the large-scale patent cooperation network data of China's autonomous driving industry. Overall, the theoretical construction of this paper is relatively systematic, and the literature coverage is extensive. The three theoretical propositions proposed have clear potential for academic contribution. Here are some comments for you to improve.

In the theoretical part, although the R-S-C mechanism has been proposed, the specific connotation of "resources" in the network and the micro-foundation for the transformation from "strategy" to "capability" seem to be able to be expounded more clearly.

Unfortunately, this paper is not a standard empirical study. The author put forward three clear propositions (P1 - P3) and introduced a large number of tables in Sections 4 and 5.However, these empirical contents are more descriptive comparative analyses and do not conduct strict hypothesis tests on the propositions. In the "Research Design" section, the author candidly states that this article is "theory-building" rather than "theory-testing". However, even so, theoretical construction should be based on a systematic analysis of empirical materials rather than relying solely on the intuitive presentation of descriptive tables.

It is suggested to add robustness tests.

The article contains a large number of tables, formulas, indicator explanations and route classifications. Some of the table contents are repetitive or the information density is too high.

The format of the paper is rather disorganized. Please adjust it carefully in accordance with the requirements of the journal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you very much for your time and for the critical and substantive feedback, which has driven the most consequential conceptual improvements in this revision.  Full point-by-point responses are provided in the accompanying Response to Reviewer 3 Comments, with all revisions marked in red with track changes.
we upload it as a Word.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf