Does Uncertainty Boost Exports? A Study on the Effect of Innovation and Marketing Capabilities in a Small and Innovation-Intensive Sector
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I rate the very idea of the study high, as we are currently experiencing a permanent state of uncertainty in the national and international markets. However, I think that the title of the study and part of the argumentation inappropriately uses the term 'internationalisation performance', whereas the study examines, in fact, export performance – a far narrower concept. As it stands, the phrasing of the title and the message of the introduction, as well as the conceptual section, is much broader than the research intentions and conclusions of the study. I strongly recommend adjusting the title and wording in the text accordingly and using the notion of export performance.
In section 3.2, in which hypothesis 1 is derived, considerable space is devoted to interpreting the term 'performance' (1a). What is missing, however, is an apparent reference to the desirability and measurement of intensity (1b).
With regard to hypotheses 2 and 3, in both cases hypothesis, a is general, and the others are a refinement of it. I propose the formulation of general hypotheses, supplemented by auxiliary hypotheses: a, b, c...
Section 3.5 lacks reference to an extremely important strand in the literature studying the linkage between exporting and innovation activities (self-selection of exporters vs learning-by-exporting). It should definitely be extended!
It is not true that research on internationalisation is mainly conducted at the macro level (as we read in section 2.2). After all, the large databases on which research is based come from individual companies.
When discussing the results, it is stated that the uncertainty surrounding the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine inspired the study. How is this possible when the study was conducted just before the pandemic broke out?
The text needs fine-tuning by a careful proofreader, as there are many language and grammar slips. Some information is repeated several times (e.g. the one regarding the transformation of the Portuguese PI). I strongly recommend deleting repetitions as they are redundant and tiresome for the reader. Titles in the appendices should be provided.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, Please see the attachment and our answers to your concerns.
Thank you for your valuable comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The research of the article lacks support, the background discussion is not enough to serve as the basis for hypotheses, the discussion of the results is not deep enough.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, Please see the attachment and our answers to your concerns.
Thank you for your valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
On several places i found too long sentences, hard to follow and understand.
Two examples (there are more so i advise to check again entire manuscript):
line: 36-37
line: 151-153
I advise shortening the sentence on not more than 25 words. i think it would be easier for readers to understand author ideas.
In Line 77, you are mentioning number in following form: 1.000 M Eur. Wouldnt be easier that you just wrote 1 bn?
Author Response
Dear reviewer, Please see the attachment and our answers to your concerns.
Thank you for your valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Well done! Good luck with your research!
