A Study on Technology Development Performance and Technology Commercialization Performance According to the Technology Development Capability of SMEs Focusing on a Comparative Analysis of Technology Business Groups

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript has an enough quality to publish to this journal. This paper creates an appropriate research design including existing researches, research questions, and methodology. Moreover, this paper includes relevant references supporting arguments in literature review and discussion. However, in order to enhance readability for others, English here is needed to be proofreaded to a moderate level. A typo error is as follows. In page 9, table 1, in the first column, “Sclae” is needed to be changed into “Scale”.

Author Response

Point 1: However, in order to enhance readability for others, English here is needed to be proofreaded to a moderate level.

Response 1: In order to improve the level of English, proofread through professional translation.

 

Point 2: A typo error is as follows. In page 9, table 1, in the first column, “Sclae” is needed to be changed into “Scale”.

Response 2: A typo error has been fixed.

Reviewer 2 Report

While I find he study interesting I think it needs significant work before it can be published in any journal. I will list my recommendation in the order of significance. 

The manuscript needs professional copy-editing as the meaning is not always apparent. 

The contribution of the study is unclear. The study has to be positioned better in the literature to clarify its uniqueness. As it stands it seems that it aims to make an empirical contribution by replicating previous studies using a new dataset. If that is the case, it should be explained clearly. If authors, have other contribution in mind, it also has to be convincingly argued in the introduction and the discussion. 

The use of terminology is very confusing. E.g. it is unclear whether 'achievement', 'competitiveness', and 'performance' are used as synonyms or not. Also do the authors see 'capacity' ,'capability', 'ability' and 'competence' as synonymous? It is better to avoid such ambiguities by using one term consistently.  The authors should use exactly the same terms throughout the manuscript. The authors' own definition of all key terms should be presented in the introduction. The definition of other scholars could be discussed in the literature review (see suggestions below). The same terms have to be used in the introduction, in the hypotheses and results sections and in the discussion. 

The discussion of hypothesised relations should be the main part of the literature review.  Each hypothesis should be argued separately - please provide a sound theoretical justification for each hypothesised relation and review previous findings on each specific relation.

The definitions of the key terms (the whole section 2) could be somehow merged into the discussion of hypothesised relations. At the moment Section 2 is very descriptive. Instead of listing the definitions proposed by other scholars, the authors could analyse where the past definitions overlap and where they differ and then justify their own definition of each key term.

Hypothesis 2 and its sub-hypotheses should be rephrased as at the moment they may be misread as mediation hypotheses. 

The authors should add a new subsection arguing the moderating effects of technological levels of firms. It should be clearly defined what the three levels are (In particular the category 'universal firms' seems unusual and could be rephrased) and why we expected to see different results for firms in different categories. 

Section 5.1 - please clarify which country the data comes from. 

Section 5.2 - please explain more clearly how each variable is measured, and where appropriate, please provide references to past studies using the same measures. 

Please renumber the sections - starting from 1. Introduction. Abstract is not a part of the main manuscript and thus should not be numbered. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for addressing some of my comments. Below, I repeat and clarify the points that you have not addressed.

I thank the authors for their response to the first point. The contribution is much clearer in the introduction. However, the authors have not made requested changes to the discussion. In the discussion section, please discuss your finding in relation to the existing literature and clearly explain what your findings your study offers. At the moment, you don’t make any references to the existing literature in the discussion section. I am also not satisfied with the authors response to the third and fifth point.

I would like to see theoretical or empirical justification for each hypothesis. Why do you expect the positive effects of technical skills on the technological competitiveness? Why do you expect positive effects of technical skills, manpower, cost, presence of a research institute on product competitiveness? Why do you expect that personnel, R & D expenses, presence of a research institute and technical skills will have positive effects on sales? And why do you expect that personnel, R & D expenses, presence of a research institute and technical skills will have positive effects on exports? Finally, why do you expect that the above effects will be different for high, medium and low-tech companies?

I am also not satisfied with the authors response to my fourth comment. I agree with the authors that the impact of tech. dev. capabilities is complex but I find their wording confusing. The current phrasing of your hypotheses 2.1-2.8 includes words ‘due to technology development’.
E.g. ‘Hypothesis 2-1. Technological development personnel will have a positive impact on sales due to technology development.
When a reader see this hypothesis 2.1 they will expect to see a test of mediation effects – that is, that you will test if technology development (performance) mediates the effects of personnel on sales. However, this is not what you do. Therefore, it would be better to simplify your hypotheses: e.g. H1: Technological development personnel will have a positive impact on sales. The manuscript needs professional copy-editing as the meaning is not always apparent.  Title: ‘Capacity’ to be replaced with ‘capability’ for the sake of consistency Abstract: ‘universal companies’ to be replaced with ‘low-tech companies’ Section 2.4, line 8: delete ‘have’

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx