Moderation Effects of Government Institutional Support, Active and Reactive Internationalization Behavior on Innovation Capability and Export Performance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please check whether each Table/Figure has proper source.
Author Response
We would like to thank reviewer 1 for the analysis and comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
In the context of 250 Mozambican small and medium enterprises, this article examines the moderating effects of government institutional support and firms' active and reactive internationalization behaviors on the link between innovation competencies and export performance. This is an intriguing article, but there are certain issues that need to be changed.
1. The authors claimed that “there are few studies addressing the determinants of export performance in the context of emerging economy environments”. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of articles that have focused on this topic.
“Krammer, S. M., Strange, R., & Lashitew, A. (2018). The export performance of emerging economy firms: The influence of firm capabilities and institutional environments. International Business Review, 27(1), 218-230.” “Malca, O., Peña-Vinces, J., & Acedo, F. J. (2020). Export promotion programmes as export performance catalysts for SMEs: insights from an emerging economy. Small Business Economics, 55(3), 831-851.” “LiPuma, J. A., Newbert, S. L., & Doh, J. P. (2013). The effect of institutional quality on firm export performance in emerging economies: a contingency model of firm age and size. Small Business Economics, 40(4), 817-841.” ...
2. The authors did not do a good job of demonstrating the research rationale behind it. I hope the authors can show it more specifically and clearly.
3. Since the subject of this study is not novel, the authors should explain how the paper's results contribute to the existing body of knowledge.
4. Based on the empirical results, I hope the authors can add more details to their conclusion.
5. Please strengthen the policy implications.
Author Response
We would like to thank you for your valuable comments.
The introduction was improved as the text was somehow misleading. We introduced the novelty of the analysis of the dynamic and innovation capabilities. The original paragraph was adapted and two new paragraphs were introduced. We think the introduction is now better than it originally was. The references mentioned were also included.
Regarding points 2 and 3 (2. The authors did not do a good job of demonstrating the research rationale behind it.I hope the authors can show it more specifically and clearly; and 3. Since the subject of this study is not novel, the authors should explain how the paper's results contribute to the existing body of knowledge.), which are related to the previous point, we managed to clarify the dynamic capabilities and innovation capabilities to frame our statement. The two paragraphs complement the gap covered and the research questions addressed.
Regarding points 4 and 5 (4. Based on the empirical results, I hope the authors can add more details to their conclusion; and 5. Please strengthen the policy implications.), we would like to refer that three new paragraphs were introduced at the end of the document in the conclusions section.
Finally, the article was copyedited.
We would like to thank the reviewer for the possibility of improving the article.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for the valuable comments, which helped us to improve the manuscript.
Regarding point one (− Could the COVID-19 pandemic have an impact on research results? Should be completed when the research (a survey) has been carried out (month, year), we decided to state the months in which the questionnaire was out. I think, it is now clearer.
Regarding the two final remarks (− the conclusions should be supplemented with practical implications; − it is worth emphasizing novelty/originality in the conclusions.), we would like to refer that three paragraphs were included in the conclusions section dealing with both points.
again, many thanks for helping us with your support to improve the article.
