The Impact of R&D Intensity on the Innovation Performance of Artificial Intelligence Enterprises-Based on the Moderating Effect of Patent Portfolio

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the paper is very interesting. Innovation is an important characteristic for any organization and its performance is often correlated with the importance given to R&D activities. At the same time innovation involve a certain degree of freedom and relaxation and if there is a big pressure on the R&D department innovation can be blocked. In this context, the studied topic is welcome and important to the field of innovation.

The abstract of the paper has the main aspects needed in an article it brings the readers into the scope of the research and presents the main findings. The introduction is good it allows readers to enter and familiarizes themselves with the key concepts in this paper. The second part of the paper offers the necessary background for the research and is well divided. The hypotheses are well defined and express

The third part of the paper is well written, I fund all the information that I need to understand how the study was conducted. For this part I only have a small recommendation, in the first part where you present the selection of the companies, I prefer to see how did you reach the number of 164 companies, here is also important to specify that in China there are a total number of 734 companies. Are 164 companies representative of the industry? and so on, maybe a little more date on this part. The rest of the method is well presented and it is clear how you conducted the study.

In the fourth part of the paper, the presentation of the results is good. The fifth part is one of the most important parts of the paper together with the abstract, this is the most read part and it is very important to be well written. I consider this a good section of discussions and implications. I think that at the end of the article you can add a short general conclusion drawn from this study, where you can summarize the main ideas, the main findings, you can specify which is the lesson the rest of the world can learn from the Chinese experience.

As a general conclusion, I consider that the paper deals with an interesting topic of research and with small modifications can bring a plus to the scientific field. The general aspect of the paper is a good one, the paper is well organized and thus it is easy to read, the references are from the last years.

I hope that my recommendations are helpful for you and can better capitalize on the work that you have done in this research. I wish you great success in future research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors should consider the following corrections:

 

1. The Abstract must contain the manuscript objectives, the method used to achieve the objectives and the results of the research.
2. Using data from different resources must include the resources in the References (rows 36-37 - “China's New Generation Artificial Intelligence Technology Industry Development Report" released in 2019 …”, rows 38-40 - “According to the "Preliminary Exploration of Chinese Enterprises' Artificial Intelligence Patent Application Strategy" issued by Tsinghua,…”).
3. The used of not so known (in introduction: “A-share artificial intelligence concept…” and on row 94) is not advised to be used without explanation considering that the paper should be read by the non-specialists too.
4. The text contain should be reconsidered, considering some of the phrases to lod and hard to follow and understand (eg. rows 162-164 - “The diversity of patent portfolios is manifested in the diversification of the relationship between the patents in a patent portfolio, that is, the protection scope of multiple patent rights in the patent portfolio is different products, depicting the degree of enterprise technology diversification.”, rows 166-169 - “When the patent stock of enterprises does not reach much higher than the industry level, low-diversity patent portfolios relatively focus on core technology areas, R&D investment is small and precise, and it is easier for enterprises to produce synergies.”, rows 172-173 - “Thereby improving the enterprise’s ability to identify, acquire, and integrate new knowledge related to its existing technology system [29]” .”, rows 306-307 - “The results are the higher the intensity of R&D investment, the higher the level of enterprise dual innovation performance.”).
5. In row 319 it looks like that are a missing semicolon in the RID’s range “[0.55-46.06]”.
6. In the Method chapter, the method is not clearly presented, the chapter starts with Sample and continues with Measurement, but there is no method explained before those subchapters. There is a mention of Tobin’s Q value that is named further TB, but there is no function explanation, applied on the data used.
7. There are abbreviations not define in the text, eg. ST, ST* (row 199), CSMAR (row 201), GMM (rows 386 and 392).
8. The consecutive phrases “This article draws on Dang and other scholars' research and uses Tobin’s Q value to measure enterprise innovation performance [32]” (rows 205-206) and “In empirical research on enterprise innovation theory, Tobin's Q value is generally used to measure innovation performance.” (rows 206-207) says the same thing and looks incomplete.
9. The equations are not numbered
10. Equation from row 223 and equation from row 234 use the same representation n_i, but there represent two different variables: the number of patent applications of the enterprise in year i and the number of claims for the i^-th patent, respectively. Maybe reconsider the notation for explanation of method.
11. The exclusion of “enterprises listed after 31^st December 2014” (rows 197-198) has a statistical relevance, but can have a powerful influence over the values of innovations performances and patent portfolio, having in mind the rapid growth of AI field of research.
12. Because of missing explanation of method, there are values that are showed as results, but not explained how that are calculated, eg. “variance inflation factor (VIF)” (row 295).
13. As a personal opinion I will add that considered a moderating effect of patent portfolio over the Innovations performance is obvious, and it will be more interesting and adequate to research this moderation through the use of artificial intelligence. The nonlinearity, that is understandable in the problem here, can be modeled easier and accurate with AI than with U shape functions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Title
The impact of R&D Intensity on the Innovation Performance of Artificial Intelligence Enterprises-Based on the Moderating Effect of Patent Portfolio
 
Abstract and title
The title is clear and properly anticipates what the theme of the paper is.
The abstract is generally clear and well-structured, introducing the theme and its relevance. Even if it clearly states the results, the mentions of the method are slight and should be implemented to offer the reader immediate clarity on the paper. Furthermore, the aim of the paper should be made explicit and detailed in detail.
 
Introduction
The introduction is sufficiently in-depth as far as the context is concerned, presenting both academic controversies on the topic of research and development and focusing on the topic of patents. Instead, what is not clear, and I would suggest to implement the presentation of the gap in the literature that the paper intends to fill. Moreover, I recommend implementing what could be the contributions in the literature of the topic.

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development
The structure appears to clarify the different theoretical references that support the research hypotheses. Although the first two hypotheses have sufficient references in the literature, I suggest the authors increase the sources to support the third hypothesis. Moreover, to provide better clarification, I would suggest to combine the third hypothesis with the fourth one or to divide them also in the conclusions.

Methodology
The variables are satisfactorily presented and adequately justified.

Results
The presentation of the results is clear and significantly highlights the results of the study. Specifically, tables and figures are sufficiently clear. Moreover, the text also gives appropriate descriptions and explanations of the results.

Conclusions and implications
The conclusions are clear and correspond to the hypothesis, although I would recommend implementing the references to support what was found. The practical implications are clear and highlight the consequences of the paper. Instead, regarding the theoretical implications, they should also present future fields in a clear and sufficiently available manner.

Overall
Except as indicated above, the work is generally at an advanced stage. The topic is of interest, and the variables identified for the measurement are appropriate. Although the article is of interest, I would suggest to implement the references in the indicated parts and to clarify the points that do not appear sufficiently definite.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The method is yet not clearly presented in a way that everyone could follow the phases of method application.
2. The structure of method application is hard to follow because of the absence of clearly methods and equation application and data presentations.

The authors should further consider improve the presentation of methods and results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf