Growth Mechanism and Synchronization Effect of China’s New Energy Vehicle Enterprises: An Empirical Analysis Based on Moving Logistic and Kuramoto Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for this article, I enjoyed reading it,
Besides of some typos in the text that need extra proofreading, I have some few remarks that might enhance its quality:
(1) – section 1: Please strengthen the writing of the introduction part, highlighting the importance of the research content and the applicability of the research methods.
(2) – section 3: The authors need to add a paragraph in this section to test the robustness of the logistic regression model.
(3) – section 4.3: The authors need to explain the impact of population synchronization effect on enterprise operation and management in the section of management inspiration, and provide countermeasures based on the above analysis.
(4) – References can be appropriately added to prove reliability, such as [Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2022170 (112947)].
The article may be accepted for publication after minor revision.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments, and the authors have made corresponding modifications. (1) In the first part, the author adds the statement of research highlights. (2) The author added robustness test of the logistic expression model. (3) The author added the management enlightenment of related research. (4) The author supplements the relevant literature.
Reviewer 2 Report
Review report
Oct. 24, 2022
0. Overall comments
1) The authors need to bring theoretical underpinnings that overarch the research design.
2) Having a computer simulation does not mean that this paper has academic value. What is the merit of the paper? What is the academic contribution to the literature pool? Is there a new model, theory, or any improvement to the research framework from the previous works? Did the study rebut the known assumptions of similar studies in the literature? The authors should be able to answer those questions.
3) The authors should clearly mention the academic/theoretical contribution of the paper in the abstract/introduction/conclusion.
4) English writing: There are non-sentences (actually, frequently found), i.e., “The gradual popularization of automobiles destroying the earth’s atmospheric environment” is not a sentence (where is the verb?). Usually, grammatical errors/mistakes from the first line are not acceptable in writing a prestigious paper. The authors should be extra-careful in refining all the sentences so that they have adequate quality to be published in an SSCI journal. All the writings should be seriously reviewed. If you have resources, it would be highly recommended the authors consult with editing/proofreading professionals.
5) Citations: The authors generally DO NOT cite necessary works to rationalize their assertions. i.e., “Ecology 74 is a science that explores the relationship between individuals and the environment.” The authors need to clarify if this is their claim or a known claim of someone else. There are so few citations; please cite.
6) There is a phenomenal analysis and no theory. Please consider the contribution of the paper.
7) Theoretical substantiation is weak. Logical ties between sections are weak. The research background is still vague. Theoretical contribution needs to be seriously reviewed. If there is no advancement in those areas, the overall value of the paper would be very weak.
0. Abstract
1) Mostly, the authors are explaining the results/findings of the study, which is basically a result of the computational model. I advise the authors to provide a bird’s eye view of the study, that is, including a) primary purpose, b) research context and motivation, c) methodological descriptions, d) result/findings, e) discussions and conclusions, f) limitations and suggestions. I advise the authors to take a look if their writing is structured to reflect all those elements.
2) Especially, using a proper/particular method to achieve your research aim cannot be the overarching merit of scientific work in SSCI journals.
1. Introduction
1) The contribution of the paper should be clearly stressed in the introduction. Why is this study important? Why the research question? Is the result a novel discovery?
2) The first line should be rewritten.
3) “Most scholars use a comprehensive evaluation method to study NEV”: Is it to study NEV? Or to Study what aspects of NEV? Market potential? Growth rate? The authors should be more specific.
4) “the research is mainly carried out from two perspectives~”: Please provide evidence. Cite works.
5) “achieved remarkable results”: What kind of results?
6) “the global advanced level”: Please specify what kind of level.
7) “Therefore, industrial policies should serve technological innovation”: The authors’ sentences are too ambiguous, vague, and unparticular.
8) “Shortcomings of the current research are as follows:” The authors’ assertion is too weak. Please provide the reasoning behind that statement. Please cite relevant works, or making a table would be a good idea.
9) “There are few researches~”: Research is singular.
10) “classic issue”: Please specify.
11) “lack analysis on the symbiotic”: preposition.
12) The authors present research objectives in the last paragraph, which is not sufficient to rationalize the whole research project. However, what is your research question? What is the motivation of the research, and what is it the authors try to find throughout the research? I advised the authors to dedicate a paragraph for sufficient research questions, or at least clear motivation for the study.
13) Please summarize the contributions of the paper in the introduction.
14) Present how the research is structured in the last paragraph (section 2, section 3 for what…).
2. Literature review (non-existing)
1) The paper does not review the previous studies. If the authors asserted that there is a scholarly gap in the literature, it is a natural process that the authors show the relevancy of the paper, substantiating the previous studies regarding the research topic. I advise the authors to have a separate section for the literature review or theoretical assumptions/underpinnings/research context/research design section when needed.
2) Even though the authors try to make connections between disciplines and theories, there is still a lack of linkages that make all different disciplines more cohesive.
2. Methods and data
1) “Moving logistic model is used”: Explain this.
2) “derivative model of Kuramoto model”: explain the model and show how “derivative” it is.
3) “have extensive similarities in operation mechanism and evolution characteristics.”: please elaborate.
4) Line 83 ~ 86: Citations.
5) “auto product sales in stage t.”, “automobile products”… : NEV sales volume? Please elaborate and unify the expressions.
6) “Lotka-Volterra model,~”: It would be helpful for readers to understand if the authors explain why it is not suitable to fulfill the research aim of the study.
7) Line 124: You don’t say “etc.” in scientific writing.
8) Line 131-132: consider re-writing (grammar).
9) Line 134-135: consider re-writing (context).
10) Line 138 ~ 142: necessary in overall context?
11) ~ Line 164: Overall, section 2.3. is too long and might seem lost, especially the explanation about synchronization. Is that really a concern and interest of your research? Get to the point, if the purpose of the study is not to build a new theory or concept.
12) Line 145 ~ 147: please refine.
13) Line 165 ~ 173: Too abstract, conceptual, and assertive. Please cite if necessary.
14) The authors allocate a significant volume of their paper to explain the synchronization of natural phenomena. However, it is required how they connected the idea (perspectives from natural phenomenon) to socio-economic phenomena, such as the rise and fall of new firms, in their study, a cluster of NEV manufacturers. It is a very, very critical assumption in your study, so please elaborate.
15) “the classical Kuramoto model has 200 received extensive attention from many scholars.”: citation.
3. Empirical analysis
1) Why 8 NEV makers? What are the criteria for choosing them? More information on the firms? There are no ways for readers outside China can know about the market context. Please explain.
2) Line 226~227: How did you judge “best fit” and “moderate fit?” Please explain.
3) Line 231~238: Requires evidence.
4) The data is from Apr 21 to May 22, which means it covers only one year. Why is that? Lack of longer-term data? Isn’t it too small for a quantitative study? Where did you get those data? Why this period? Please elaborate.
5) Line 248: “reduced the demand for people to buy cars.” Please provide some evidence.
6) Line 249~252: Please provide evidence.
7) Table 2: I think the authors may want to rearrange the figures (i.e., -3.90E-06).
8) Table 3: The caption says it is about the possible upper bound of sales. How can you explain the negative value (BYD, Nov 2021)?
9) Line 279-283: Evidence? Is that the only feasible explanation? No other factors?
10) Is it what the authors argue that more synchronous growth is better for firms? How can the readers connect the findings of this study to real-world business? Is it relevant to stock price growth? Is it relevant to financial stability?
4. Results and discussion
1) Line 349: Please check if the term “population” is operationalized earlier.
2) Line 353: What is the implication of being “above the horizontal axis”?
3) Section 4.1.: Reading the trend out of the logistic/Kuramoto model is not the contribution.
4) Section 4.2.: Line 369~370, in what aspect? Does it provide the most exact market outlook and forecast capabilities? How is it when compared to ML models that are known to be able to overcome the shortcomings of traditional mathematical models?
5) Line 375~377: Tautology. It doesn’t have to be found throughout this research.
5. Limitations
1) There should be a separate “limitation and future research” section, since the research also has several shortcomings.
2) The authors should mention that the results/findings of the study are based on hypothesized simulation (synchronization), not reality.
3) The research dealt only with the sales numbers, which are regarded as the output of the organizational activities, without considering uncountable substantial input factors (such as subject, environmental, resources, and mechanism-based views). Please comment on this as one of the crucial limitations of your work.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments, and the authors have made corresponding modifications.
- Introduction
1) The contribution of the paper should be clearly stressed in the introduction. Why is this study important? Why the research question? Is the result a novel discovery?
The author added relevant description.
2) The first line should be rewritten.
Modified
3) “Most scholars use a comprehensive evaluation method to study NEV”: Is it to study NEV? Or to Study what aspects of NEV? Market potential? Growth rate? The authors should be more specific.
Most scholars use a comprehensive evaluation method to study market potential and development model of NE
4) “the research is mainly carried out from two perspectives~”: Please provide evidence. Cite works.
Cited
5) “achieved remarkable results”: What kind of results?
market growth
6) “the global advanced level”: Please specify what kind of level.
Technology and market development
7) “Therefore, industrial policies should serve technological innovation”: The authors’ sentences are too ambiguous, vague, and unparticular.
Therefore, industrial policies should promote technological innovation
8) “Shortcomings of the current research are as follows:” The authors’ assertion is too weak. Please provide the reasoning behind that statement. Please cite relevant works, or making a table would be a good idea.
9) “There are few researches~”: Research is singular.
10) “classic issue”: Please specify.
popular issue
11) “lack analysis on the symbiotic”: preposition.
lack of analysis
12) The authors present research objectives in the last paragraph, which is not sufficient to rationalize the whole research project. However, what is your research question? What is the motivation of the research, and what is it the authors try to find throughout the research? I advised the authors to dedicate a paragraph for sufficient research questions, or at least clear motivation for the study.
The main research goal of this paper is to construct a dynamic model to illustrate the market growth mechanism of new energy vehicles in China. Compare and analyze the synchronous effect of the development of new energy vehicles and the whole automobile market, and comprehensively analyze the development trend of new energy vehicles.
13) Please summarize the contributions of the paper in the introduction.
Research highlights are added to the paper
14) Present how the research is structured in the last paragraph (section 2, section 3 for what…).
The research structure description is added in the second part of this paper
- Literature review (non-existing)
1) The paper does not review the previous studies. If the authors asserted that there is a scholarly gap in the literature, it is a natural process that the authors show the relevancy of the paper, substantiating the previous studies regarding the research topic. I advise the authors to have a separate section for the literature review or theoretical assumptions/underpinnings/research context/research design section when needed.
2) Even though the authors try to make connections between disciplines and theories, there is still a lack of linkages that make all different disciplines more cohesive.
Generally, articles in this journal do not have a literature review separately. This paper presents a distributed overview of related research in different chapters of the article.
- 2. Methods and data
1) “Moving logistic model is used”: Explain this.
Moving logistic model is constructed to analyze……
2) “derivative model of Kuramoto model”: explain the model and show how “derivative” it is.
The derived model and specific data processing methods and indicators are given in this paper
3) “have extensive similarities in operation mechanism and evolution characteristics.”: please elaborate.
It is explained in terms of ecology and population dynamics.
4) Line 83 ~ 86: Citations.
Cited in the text
5) “auto product sales in stage t.”, “automobile products”… : NEV sales volume? Please elaborate and unify the expressions.
Modified
6) “Lotka-Volterra model,~”: It would be helpful for readers to understand if the authors explain why it is not suitable to fulfill the research aim of the study.
Lotka-Volterra model can't explain synchronization effect
7) Line 124: You don’t say “etc.” in scientific writing.
The author has deleted similar expressions
8) Line 131-132: consider re-writing (grammar).
Modified
9) Line 134-135: consider re-writing (context).
Modified
10) Line 138 ~ 142: necessary in overall context?
This is a commonly used expression and example to explain synchronization effect.
11) ~ Line 164: Overall, section 2.3. is too long and might seem lost, especially the explanation about synchronization. Is that really a concern and interest of your research? Get to the point, if the purpose of the study is not to build a new theory or concept.
This paragraph is somewhat lengthy, but it is necessary to pave the way for synchronization effect.
12) Line 145 ~ 147: please refine.
Modified
13) Line 165 ~ 173: Too abstract, conceptual, and assertive. Please cite if necessary.
This paragraph describes the synchronization effect based on the research scenario of this paper, and there is no appropriate reference.
14) The authors allocate a significant volume of their paper to explain the synchronization of natural phenomena. However, it is required how they connected the idea (perspectives from natural phenomenon) to socio-economic phenomena, such as the rise and fall of new firms, in their study, a cluster of NEV manufacturers. It is a very, very critical assumption in your study, so please elaborate.
NEV enterprises are a new population in the automobile industry ecosystem. Whether this new population can synchronize with the development of the entire industry is related to the growth of the population.
15) “the classical Kuramoto model has 200 received extensive attention from many scholars.”: citation.
Modified
- 3. Empirical analysis
1) Why 8 NEV makers? What are the criteria for choosing them? More information on the firms? There are no ways for readers outside China can know about the market context. Please explain.
These enterprises are the top 8 in the evaluation score system of China's "double credit policy"
2) Line 226~227: How did you judge “best fit” and “moderate fit?” Please explain.
Based on the effect of regression test.
3) Line 231~238: Requires evidence.
The explanation here is based on the data in Table 1.
4) The data is from Apr 21 to May 22, which means it covers only one year. Why is that? Lack of longer-term data? Isn’t it too small for a quantitative study? Where did you get those data? Why this period? Please elaborate.
12 months are 12 time nodes in a year, which are used as the time axis for calculation in this paper. Due to space limitation, a one-year time node is selected.
5) Line 248: “reduced the demand for people to buy cars.” Please provide some evidence.
Delete this sentence
6) Line 249~252: Please provide evidence.
Delete this sentence
7) Table 2: I think the authors may want to rearrange the figures (i.e., -3.90E-06).
Has been modified.
8) Table 3: The caption says it is about the possible upper bound of sales. How can you explain the negative value (BYD, Nov 2021)?
The actual operation data of the enterprise is beyond the interpretation scope of the ecological mathematical model. Theoretically, it shows that the resource input of the enterprise in this period is abnormal.
9) Line 279-283: Evidence? Is that the only feasible explanation? No other factors?
10) Is it what the authors argue that more synchronous growth is better for firms? How can the readers connect the findings of this study to real-world business? Is it relevant to stock price growth? Is it relevant to financial stability?
Delete this sentence
- 4. Results and discussion
1) Line 349: Please check if the term “population” is operationalized earlier.
Logistic model is a kind of population dynamics model.
2) Line 353: What is the implication of being “above the horizontal axis”?
“ greater than zero”
3) Section 4.1.: Reading the trend out of the logistic/Kuramoto model is not the contribution.
The research contributions are given in the highlights section.
4) Section 4.2.: Line 369~370, in what aspect? Does it provide the most exact market outlook and forecast capabilities? How is it when compared to ML models that are known to be able to overcome the shortcomings of traditional mathematical models?
Existing studies use logistic model to analyze the growth mechanism of product population within a period of time. In this study, the overall growth mechanism is subdivided into a time series of growth mechanisms, which can show the changes and trends of growth mechanisms.
5) Line 375~377: Tautology. It doesn’t have to be found throughout this research.
Delete this sentence.
- 5. Limitations
1) There should be a separate “limitation and future research” section, since the research also has several shortcomings.
2) The authors should mention that the results/findings of the study are based on hypothesized simulation (synchronization), not reality.
3) The research dealt only with the sales numbers, which are regarded as the output of the organizational activities, without considering uncountable substantial input factors (such as subject, environmental, resources, and mechanism-based views). Please comment on this as one of the crucial limitations of your work.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article entitled "Growth Mechanism and Synchronization Effect of China’s 2 New Energy Vehicle Enterprises: An Empirical Analysis Based 3 on Moving Logistic and Kuramoto Model" focuses on designing a moving logistic model to analyse the growth mechanism of new energy vehicle enterprises and obtains the serial data of intrinsic growth rate, internal inhibition coefficient and theoretical maximum sales volume. The manuscript is well written in an organized manner which definitely draws the attention of the reader. The matter of study is understood.
1. The literature review section is well written and many recent articles have been cited with elaborate discussions.
2. The proposed model is formulated in an orderly fashion, with proper illustration of every relevant assumption. Tables and graphical presentations are neat and easy to understand.
3. Conclusion is well explained with certain shortcomings of the study, thereby providing future ideas for research as well.
4. Mathematical expressions used in the article should be properly aligned as there is difficulty in understanding them in the present form.
The theory, model formulation and numerical experiments are well illustrated which reflect the efforts made by the authors to include every little detail to support their study. The manuscript can be considered for publication after slight modification as suggested.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments, and the authors have made corresponding modifications. （1）The author adds the idea of future research. （2）The author adjusted the format of the mathematical formula.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have strived to improve the overall quality of the manuscript, adopting reviewers' comments.
