A Biopsychosocial Perspective of User-Generated Innovation in Open Innovation Models: A Moderated-Mediation Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have enjoyed reading your manuscript, which is interesting, rigorous, and adequate. However, I am going to make some suggestions for improvement that I think can contribute to increasing the quality of the manuscript.

a) Introduction. Some suggestions are proposed.

• I value positively the bibliographic review carried out for the state of the question, the timeliness of the cited studies and the content of this section.
• I think the proposed objectives could be more clearly stated, as is done with hypotheses.

b) Materials and Methods

• Treated with the appropriate depth and scientific rigor. It is possible that the inclusion and exclusion criteria established for the selection of the sample could be expressed more clearly, as well as if it was necessary or had the approval of the corresponding ethics committee, in line with the ethical principles of the declaration of Helsinki.

c) Results and Analysis of Data

• Between table 3 and 4 there is another table that is not numbered.
• It seems that the font of the figures is different from the rest of the manuscript, especially it would be interesting to review the font of the title of the figures.

d) Discussion.

• Well structured and raised.

Congratulations on your research.

Author Response

We (the authors) are thankful for a thorough review. In the current revision, we have made all efforts to clarify the questions and incorporate the suggestions raised by the esteemed reviewer. We have re-written and reorganized many parts of the manuscripts to improve the quality and rigor of the research. Pieces of evidence are listed and highlighted through various sections of the research paper. A detailed response is attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for the chance to review the article, “A Biopsychosocial Perspective of User-generated Innovation in Open Innovation Models: A Moderated Mediation Analysis.”

Although authors made an effort to improve their article, there still remained quite a critical point to be solved for the publication.

Major issues

1. The process of deriving the hypothesis showed a little logical leap. Despite the relationship between user-generated innovation and each variable that occupies a big stem in literature review, UGI was reviewed separately and rather the story was blurred.
2. Please cite a lot of S-level journals and show the discussion appropriately.
3. What is the antecedent factor in Hypothesis 4? If you are talking about a moderating effect, isn't hedonic emotion an independent variable?
4. Show the correlation table of all variables including testosterone.
5. Please run a univariate test that shows the differences between groups.
6. Please verify the EFA and CFA.
7. Test convergent and discriminant validity.
8. In all tables, reduce to the second or third decimal place of all numbers.
9. Why did you really use OLS? It can be sufficiently verified by SEM, and it is thought to be more preferable.
10. Has mean-centering been applied to moderation?
11. The discussion should be rewritten academically. And I can't understand the implications. What theoretical and managerial contributions are there in this study?

Author Response

We (the authors) are thankful for a thorough review. In the current revision, we have made all efforts to clarify the questions and incorporate the suggestions raised by the esteemed reviewer. We have re-written and reorganized many parts of the manuscripts to improve the quality and rigor of the research. Pieces of evidence are listed and highlighted through various sections of the research paper. A detailed response is attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Review Comments

Thank you for the opportunity to review your paper. While this is a very good attempt, there some issues identified below that should be addressed to improve on the manuscript.

Additional proofreading is required to correct minor edits. There is overuse of the phrase “According to”. Authors may want to use other synonyms to avoid too much repetition.

The hypotheses statements are better placed at the end of the literature review than in the study framework.

Per the research model, H1 is just the direct effect of NPM on innovation thus the hypothesis statement should be revised accordingly.

The hypotheses statements for H3 and H4 should be revised to indicate the direction of the moderating role of testosterone.

The authors need to go over the literature to ensure that they present relevant and not contradictory research.

For example, in line 140, the literature the authors present on hedonic emotion is:

“..Stock et al. [54] concluded that the stronger the hedonic emotion, the greater the novelty in the innovation created.” This literature suggests that hedonic emotion is a prerequisite for innovation, which is the opposite of what the authors propose here, i.e. that innovation unleashes hedonic emotions.

Again in Line 183, the authors state that “….It illustrates that nonpecuniary motivation's (NPM) positive effect is conditional upon the user's inclination toward benefiting from hedonic emotions”.

Conditional connotes a moderating role. Yet, per the research model, the path being described directly affects NPM on hedonic emotions. Besides, the implication of that sentence is also that hedonic emotion is an antecedent of NPM when the research model presents the opposite.

The literature for testosterone must be improved. Currently, it does not suggest evidence of its role as a moderator of the paths presented.

The authors may want to consider including the direction of the relationships on the paths for easy understanding of readers. Although it is included at the bottom, it would be better to indicate the sign on the paths for easy readability.

In the selection of the sample, what criteria were used in determining innovativeness?

Per the measures section, there are 12 items on the hedonic emotions scale but the author seemed to have only used 10 of them? Is there a reason for this? Or is this just a typing error?

In the conclusion, the authors present the gaps in the literature that the study attempted to address. These points must be clearly reflected in the introduction. This is to drive home the relevance of the whole study and not be tucked away in the conclusion.

Good luck!

Author Response

We (the authors) are thankful for a thorough review. In the current revision, we have made all efforts to clarify the questions and incorporate the suggestions raised by the esteemed reviewer. We have re-written and reorganized many parts of the manuscripts to improve the quality and rigor of the research. Pieces of evidence are listed and highlighted through various sections of the research paper. A detailed response is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for your hard work.

pg296-303

For discriminant validity, you should compare between AVE and sqrt(AVE) of all latent variables in intra-construct correlations. Then, sqrt(AVE) must be larger than AVE in comparable latents in a column.  Also, you should change AVE > 0.05 to AVE > 0.5. 

EFA vs. CFA

After comparing several models, you can fix a model as a fit model. We call the former EFA and the latter CFA. I cannot find EFA in your study. 

OLS

Suppose OLS is the best fit for your model to examine. You should test the fit results and R2 for each model and, if there is an increase in R2 for moderation and mediation, indicate them in the results of OLS. 

Good luck!

Author Response

"Please see the attachment" 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf