The Effect of Cultural Orientations on Country Innovation Performance: Hofstede Cultural Dimensions Revisited?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This worked developed a GMA model to establish profiles of countries at different developing levels to understand how cultures influence their innovation trajectories. Four different categories are characterized while focusing on their performance and humane orientation. Their result showed that countries with higher performance orientation culture demonstrate better innovation levels. The authors also argue that their analysis addressed previously unanswered questions such as the how the difference between countries and the level of innovation inputs play role in their level of innovation. However, the manuscript is poorly written with very disorganized sections. There are too many long but unnecessary discussions, but most importantly, this work doesn’t provide enough experiment and analysis to support their conclusion. The overall scientific merit of this work is low.
Author Response
Reviewer 1:
After my own reading and the comments provided below it is recommended a major revision of the manuscript. 
C1/
This worked developed a GMA model to establish profiles of countries at different developing levels to understand how cultures influence their innovation trajectories. Four different categories are characterized while focusing on their performance and humane orientation. Their result showed that countries with higher performance orientation culture demonstrate better innovation levels. The authors also argue that their analysis addressed previously unanswered questions such as the how the difference between countries and the level of innovation inputs play role in their level of innovation.  However, the manuscript is poorly written with very disorganized sections. There are too many long but unnecessary discussions, but most importantly, this work doesn’t provide enough experiment and analysis to support their conclusion. The overall scientific merit of this work is low.  
 
AC1/ We appreciate the suggestion made. The document has been rewritten, establishing a review of its sections and the general organization of the document. We have focused on the scientific contribution of the theory and the use of an experimental GMA methodology. Especially, in the field of knowledge of innovation as well as the results of the study.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Perspective on innovation must be discuss more clear particularly involving different culture and different level of economic engagement.
Global Entrepreneurship Index in research must be clearly highlighted on the 'suitability ' of the index in this area concern.
Author Response
Reviewer 2: 
C2a/
Perspective on innovation must be discuss more clear particularly involving different culture and different level of economic engagement. 
AC2a/ We appreciate the suggestion made. We have made modifications to the document with literature that supports a clearer relationship between culture, innovation and its relationship with the economic dynamics of a country.
C2b/ 
Global Entrepreneurship Index in research must be clearly highlighted on the 'suitability ' of the index in this area concern. 
AC2b/ We appreciate the suggestion made. We have supported the suitability of the database used for the purposes of the research objectives.  
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Concerns
- Is Graph 1 (referenced in first paragraph of Results section) missing or related to Figure 1?
- On page 14 line 10 - what is the level of statistical significance?
- On page 14 line 5 - what is the "raising" profile?
- One page 15 line 62-63 - can you be specific about the countries and changes - what countries, what changes with respect to institutions and business sophistication? Were these countries from the Declining Profile?
- In 3rd paragraph of Results section - please explain "picks"?
- In 4th paragraph of Results section - please state countries in Profile 4 category (as done for Profile 2 and Profile 3)
- In 5th paragraph of Results section - please state countries in Profile 2
- How do the pairings (products in Table 2) compare to factors individually?
- What are hypotheses on the changes in trajectories?
- Figure 1 - please label horizontal and vertical axes
- Figure 1 - growth misspelled.
- Based on the page numbering (lack of page number before page 14), it appears that a page is missing?
- On page 15 lines 72-74 and 82-84 repeat.
Author Response
Reviewer 3: 
Concerns 
 
C3a/
Is Graph 1 (referenced in first paragraph of Results section) missing or related to Figure 1?
AC3a/ We appreciate the suggestion made. Changes were made to the document.
C3b/   
On page 14 line 10 - what is the level of statistical significance? 
AC3b/   We appreciate the suggestion made. Changes were made to the document.
C3c/
On page 14 line 5 - what is the "raising" profile? 
AC3c/     We appreciate the suggestion made. Changes were made to the document.
C3d/
One page 15 line 62-63 - can you be specific about the countries and changes - what countries, what changes with respect to institutions and business sophistication?  Were these countries from the Declining Profile?
AC3d/     We appreciate the suggestion made. Changes were made to the document. This information is already described on page 12, and the map related to the levels of innovation by country.
C3e/
In 3rd paragraph of Results section - please explain "picks"? 
AC3e/     We appreciate the suggestion made. Changes were made to the document.
C3f/
In 4th paragraph of Results section - please state countries in Profile 4 category (as done for Profile 2 and Profile 3) 
AC3f/ We appreciate the suggestion made. Changes were made to the document.
C3g/
In 5th paragraph of Results section - please state countries in Profile 2 
AC3g/ We appreciate the suggestion made. Changes were made to the document.
C3h/
How do the pairings (products in Table 2) compare to factors individually? 
AC3h/ We appreciate the suggestion made. Changes were made to the document.
C3i/
What are hypotheses on the changes in trajectories? 
AC3i/ We appreciate the suggestion made. Changes were made to the document.
C3j/
Figure 1 - please label horizontal and vertical axes 
AC3j/ We appreciate the suggestion made. Changes were made to the document.
C3k/
Figure 1 - growth misspelled. 
AC3k/ We appreciate the suggestion made. Changes were made to the document.
C3l/
Based on the page numbering (lack of page number before page 14), it appears that a page is missing? 
On page 15 lines 72-74 and 82-84 repeat. 
 
AC3l/ We appreciate the suggestion made. Changes were made to the document.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
In order to study the impact of cultural orientation on innovation, the author uses global innovation index, globe project, and global entrepreneurship index databases to analyze and draw corresponding conclusions. However, the shortcomings of this study are:
(1) In the theoretical framework part, the author provides documents supporting his hypothesis, but the list of these documents is too lengthy and needs to be sorted by time or viewpoint of the hypothesis.
(2) As an important result of the full text, the drawing in Figure 1 is too rough, especially the meaning of the coordinate axis is not clear, so it needs to be redrawn and explained.
(3) Innovation activities of countries are often a long-term process. Why only use the data of nearly 10 years? Need to explain.
(4) The author uses the growth mixture analysis (GMA) model. The principle, structure and application of the model in this study should be further explained.
(5) The test of independence between samples and stability of time series shall be explained.
Author Response
Reviewer 4: 
In order to study the impact of cultural orientation on innovation, the author uses global innovation index, globe project, and global entrepreneurship index databases to analyze and draw corresponding conclusions. However, the shortcomings of this study are: 
 
C4a/ (1) In the theoretical framework part, the author provides documents supporting his hypothesis, but the list of these documents is too lengthy and needs to be sorted by time or viewpoint of the hypothesis. 
AC4a/ We appreciate the suggestion made. The changes were made in the document by making cuts and modifying the order of the sections.
C4b/ (2) As an important result of the full text, the drawing in Figure 1 is too rough, especially the meaning of the coordinate axis is not clear, so it needs to be redrawn and explained. 
AC4b/ We appreciate the suggestion made. The graph was changed according to the evaluator's requirements.
C4c/ (3) Innovation activities of countries are often a long-term process. Why only use the data of nearly 10 years? Need to explain. 
AC4c/ We appreciate the suggestion made. The explanation was included in Methodology and Limitations and Future lines.
C4d/ (4) The author uses the growth mixture analysis (GMA) model. The principle, structure and application of the model in this study should be further explained. 
AC4d/ We appreciate the suggestion made. The GMA was explained in Methodology section.
C4e/ (5) The test of independence between samples and stability of time series shall be explained. 
 
AC4e/ We appreciate the suggestion made in Methodology section
 
 AC/ We would like to finally thank all the suggestions of great value for the results of our research.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Significant improvements have been made to this manuscript but there is still rooms for improvement:
line 336: "The first group stands out (Profile 1.) with blue color that shows a high level of innovation, especially characterized by sustained performance over time. On the other hand, the yellow color highlights a growing behavior in the innovation performance with a high inclination defined for profile 4." There is no yellow color at all in figure 1! All the lines are in different shape of blue.
Figure II: There is no caption for both figure I and Figure II. While figure I is still readable, Figure II is made without effort. What are the different colors means? Could you give some explanation in the caption at lease to explain that?
There are still many ambiguous writting throughout the manuscript: such as on line 296: "Furthermore, Profile 2 and 3 follow a similar trend, with innovation output being higher in Profile 1 than in the different profiles, except for Profile 2, which had similar levels. "
Author Response
We appreciate the different suggestions to strengthen the document. The paper has been modified almost in its entirety.
Responding to the comments of the reviewers we have highlighted in yellow the changes in the document.
CE/1
line 336: "The first group stands out (Profile 1.) with blue color that shows a high level of innovation, especially characterized by sustained performance over time. On the other hand, the yellow color highlights a growing behavior in the innovation performance with a high inclination defined for profile 4." There is no yellow color at all in figure 1! All the lines are in different shape of blue.
Answer Comment reviewer 1: We appreciate the suggestion made. Changes were made to the document.
CE/2
Figure II: There is no caption for both figure I and Figure II. While figure I is still readable, Figure II is made without effort. What are the different colors means? Could you give some explanation in the caption at lease to explain that?
Answer Comment reviewer 2: We appreciate the suggestion made. Changes were made to the document. The graph was changed including the caption.
CE/3
There are still many ambiguous writting throughout the manuscript: such as on line 296: "Furthermore, Profile 2 and 3 follow a similar trend, with innovation output being higher in Profile 1 than in the different profiles, except for Profile 2, which had similar levels. "
Answer Comment reviewer 3: We appreciate the suggestion made. Changes were made to the document. A revision of the style was made for a better understanding of the document.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors did replied to my previous comments, but didn't seem to take careful revision on the suggestions. Both the Figure 1 and 2 still don't have captions. Instead of the writing the captions, the authors simply highlighted parts of result discussion. Even so, the four different categories mentioned in the highlighted text for figure 2 were not indicated in Figure 2. I don't understand such a careless action, I am guessing there is a misunderstanding of figure caption?
Author Response
The authors did replied to my previous comments, but didn't seem to take careful revision on the suggestions. Both the Figure 1 and 2 still don't have captions. Instead of the writing the captions, the authors simply highlighted parts of result discussion. Even so, the four different categories mentioned in the highlighted text for figure 2 were not indicated in Figure 2. I don't understand such a careless action, I am guessing there is a misunderstanding of figure caption?
Answer: Thank you for your comments. We misinterpreted your comment concerning the figure caption. We incorporated captions for both Figure 1 and Figure 2 in this revised version.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
