Development of a Mechanism for Assessing Mutual Structural Relations for Import Substitution of High-Tech Transfer in Life Cycle Management of Fundamentally New Products

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Authors failed to make a scientific assessment and robustness analysis. It is recommended authors to provide detailed methods, analysis with authentic sources.

Response 1: Thank you for your comment and opinion. We thank you for spending your time to read this manuscript. But we have to disagree because this study provides a comprehensive analysis of the topic and offers practical implications for industrial policy management and national technological security. The authors refer to previous studies on innovation management, inter-industry linkages and new product life cycle, demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the research area.

Comments 2: This section need to rewrite (Thus, the objectives are: 86 1. It is necessary to adequately replace high-tech imports within the framework of 87 national technological security, for this purpose it is necessary to provide or create unique 88 technological resources for the RNP production system (equipment, competencies and 89 other forms of integrated capital). 90 2. Conduct an assessment of high-tech science and production competencies, tech- 91 nical and resource readiness (configuration of the RNP system). 92 3. To achieve the above objectives it is necessary to use complex models for assessing 93 structural and mutual linkages in the economy of innovation. 94 4. To carry out the development of tools for modeling the mutual structural links of 95 high-tech transfer).

Response 2: Thank you so much for your comment! We agree with you. We have corrected this paragraph. It now looks as follows:

The primary purpose of this study is to develop a mechanism that establishes mutual structural relations within the configuration of creating technological value for high-tech transfer in the management of the life cycle of fundamentally new products. The study al-so aims to assess the synergetic economic effect by employing an approach that considers inter-sectoral links, interactions, and interdependencies, all with the ultimate goal of en-suring sustainable economic development.

1.         Ensure National Technological Security:

•          Adequately replace high-tech imports within the framework of national tech-nological security.

•          Provide or create unique technological resources for the Research and New Product (RNP) production system, including equipment, competencies, and other forms of integrated capital.

2.         Assessment of Science and Production Competencies:

•          Conduct an assessment of high-tech science and production competencies within the RNP system.

•          Evaluate technical and resource readiness, considering the configuration of the RNP system.

3.         Utilize Complex Models:

•          Employ complex models for assessing structural and mutual linkages in the economy of innovation.

•          Utilize these models to achieve the aforementioned objectives and enhance understanding of the intricate relationships involved.

4.         Develop Modeling Tools:

•          Carry out the development of tools specifically designed for modeling the mu-tual structural links of high-tech transfer.

•          These tools will contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the structural relations and facilitate effective decision-making in the context of high-tech transfer.

By addressing these objectives, the study aims to contribute valuable insights and tools for managing the life cycle of new products, promoting national technological secu-rity, and fostering sustainable economic development through high-tech transfer.

Comments 3: Line 113-142 need to rewrite.

Response 3: Thank you so much for your comment! We agree with you. We have corrected this paragraph.

Comments 4: Line 152- 164 need to write with authentic sources.

Response 4: Thank you so much for your comment! We fundamentally insist that it was these scientists who dealt with the issues of innovation management, innovation processes and life cycle of fundamentally new products at the present stage.

Comments 5: I could not find that this study results are not sufficient as well theoretical foundation.

Response 5: Thank you for your comment! We agree with your comment. Yes, in fact, the results of the presented research are more practical in nature, in our work we wanted to emphasize on obtaining practical conclusions for industrial policy management and ensuring national technological security.

Comments 6: It is recommend to make theses variable in detailed analysis and add in literature section. ? = ???????с + ??????????с + ????????с + (?????? − ?????? ???????) = 214 ???????? + ??????????? + ????????? (5)

Response 6: Thank you for your comment! We agree with your comment. We have corrected.

Comments 7: Please revise in detailed (RNP resources; RNP life cycle; Management of technological changes in RNP; Organizational and economic system of RNP). It is misunderstand and also need to reanalysis.

Response 7: Thank you for your comment, we agree with you. In the "introduction" section, we reflected the concept of RNP and provided a definition, in the quiz we expanded the definition by organizational and economic system RNP.

Comments 8: It is recommended to make Theoretical foundation section after literature review to improve paper quality.

Response 8: Thank you for your suggestion to improve the quality of our paper, we have changed the theoretical background section after the literature review.

Comments 9: It is recommended to add references in Table 1. The degree of study of the problem of developing a mechanism of mutual structural rela- 197 tions of high-tech transfe

Response 9: Thank you very much for your comment. The table was created on the basis of data from research papers:

1.         Gorlacheva, E. N., Omelchenko, I., Drogovoz, P. A., Yusufova, O. M., & Shiboldenkov, V. А. Cognitive factors of production’s utility assessment of knowledge-intensive organizations. Nucleation and Atmospheric Aerosols 2019, 2171, 090005. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5133228

2.         Balzat, M., Hanusch, H. Recent trends in the research on national innovation systems. J. Evol. Econ. 2004, 14, 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-004-0187-y

3.         M. P. Cobos, V. F. Quezada, L. I. Z. Morloy, P. V. Alvarez and S. P. González, "A model based on the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) scale to measure the maturity level of research projects that can become spinoffs in Higher Education Institutions," Congreso Internacional de Innovación y Tendencias en Ingeniería (CONIITI), Bogotá, Colombia, 2021, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/CONIITI53815.2021.9619667

4.         Blut, M., & Wang, C. Technology readiness: a meta-analysis of conceptualizations of the construct and its impact on technology usage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 2019, 48(4), 649–669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00680-8

5.         Aman Sharma, Ashwini Gaikwad, Durgeshwar Pratap Singh, Ravi Kalra, S Swarna Keerthi, Vijilius Helena Raj, Murtadha Laftah Shaghnab. Reshaping Industry: Adoption of Sustainable Techniques providing Remanufacturing Solutions in High-Tech industries. E3S Web of Conferences 2023, 453, 01028. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202345301028

6.         Bacon, E., Williams, M.D., & Davies, G.H. Recipes for success: Conditions for knowledge transfer across open innovation ecosystems. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 49, 377-387.

7.         Hekkert, M. P., Janssen, M. J., Wesseling, J. H., & Negro, S. O. Mission-oriented innovation systems. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 2020, 34, 76–79. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2019.11.011

8.         Granstrand, O., & Holgersson, M. Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review and a new definition. Technovation. 2020, 90, 102098.

9.         Cai, Y., Lattu, A. Triple Helix or Quadruple Helix: Which Model of Innovation to Choose for Empirical Studies?. Minerva 2022, 60, 257–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-021-09453-6

10.       Kumar, S., Lim, W.M., Sureka, R. et al. Balanced scorecard: trends, developments, and future directions. Rev Manag Sci 2023, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00700-6

11.       Pan, J., Guo, J. Innovative Collaboration and Acceleration: an Integrated Framework Based on Knowledge Transfer and Triple Helix. J Knowl Econ 2022, 13, 3223–3247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00852-4

12.       Drogovoz, P. A., Kashevarova, N. A., Vladimir Alekseevich Dadonov, Tatyana Georgievna Sadovskaya, & Maksim Kon-stantinovich Trusevich. Industry 4.0 in Russia. CRC Press EBooks 2021, 191–207. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003165880-15

Comments 10-13: It is recommend to reanalysis with each variables indicators.

10. It is recommend to reanalysis with each variables indicators.

11.   Data collection strategy is not satisfactory please provide in detailed.

12.   Overall paper contents is not satisfactory and it is suggested to make accordingly.

13.   Overall study needs to rewrite and re-analysis with hypothetical method and analysis.

Response 10-13:

Thank you very much for your comments. We are grateful to you for taking the time to read our manuscript. We have revised our manuscript and it now meets all research guidelines.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The abstract needs to be revised. Abstract is on the basis of a simple description of the research background, focus on the research ideas and conclusions, but at present the abstract introduce the research idea more, did not clearly elaborate the research conclusions of this paper.

Response 1: Thank you for your comment, your recommendations will improve the understanding of our research study for other scientists. We have revised the abstract and added research findings on this topic.

Comments 2: It is suggested that the author adjust the structure of the article and put the literature review in the section 2.

Response 2: Thank you so much for your comment! We agree with you. We have corrected.

Comments 3: The introduction and literature review need to be revised. The authors should discuss contributions. The authors should discuss explain first what is the gap in the literature and say clearly how your findings fill these gaps. The authors should discuss tell what is the new thing we learn from your paper that we previously didn’t know about. Furthermore, the literature review needs to be more adequate. It is suggested that the author refer to the following literatures and systematically reviewed them.

Response 3: Thank you so much for your comment! We agree with you. We have corrected.

Comments 4-5:

4. The paper lacks specific implementation details for reproducing the study.  It would be helpful to provide more information on the data sources, methodology, and analytical techniques used in the research.

5. Could you provide more details on the implementation of the proposed mechanism?  Specifically, what data sources did you use and how did you analyze the mutual structural relations?

Response 4-5: Thank you for your comment. Your question is quite capacious and correct and therefore requires a separate consideration. Within the framework of this research we have not presented this information, due to limitations on the volume of pages. In brief, the data sources we relied on are mainly open sources, which are presented in the global economic space, as well as data from individual industries (industries in France, Germany, other countries and large corporations).

Comments 6: It would be valuable to compare the proposed mechanism with existing approaches or frameworks in the field.  Could you discuss how your model differs from or improves upon existing methods?

Response 6: Thank you for your comment. We thank you for taking your time to read our manuscript. You are absolutely right. However, it is impossible to make a deep analysis on the pages of the paper and it would take the paper in another direction. After this analysis, we have proved that this paper, unlike many others, indicates the practical significance of the research, in which the solution of urgent problems of the real world is thought out, namely: increasing the efficiency of management of high-tech transfer, ensuring the creation of systems for the production of new products at the level of organization, industry or national economy, thus achieving sustainability of economic development.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1-2:

1.       Relevance indicates that the research results can be used for management decisions at the enterprise state level for the scientific and technological development of Russia. however, the conclusions and the conclusion formulated are of a general nature. I would like to receive more specific recommendations for the development of a scientific and technological country, which can be derived based on the analysis performed, presented in the results section.

2.       In the results, I would like to see information that this model is unique to Russia or is universal for other countries

Response 1-2: Thank you for your comment and your recommendations, which help to improve the quality of our work. In the section "Results" we have reflected the peculiarity of our proposed model. This model is unique for Russia due to the fact that Russia has been and is mainly engaged in resource exports. In the structure of Russia's imports in 2023, the category "machinery, equipment and vehicles" has the largest specific weight (49.3%). Russia's dependence on imports of high-tech goods from countries that have imposed sanctions against it is assessed as high. 

However, in our opinion, the mechanism of assessing mutual structural relations for import substitution of high-tech transfer when managing the life cycle of fundamentally new products can be adapted for application in other countries, taking into account the peculiarities of their development and the impact of both internal and external factors.

Comments 3: Scientific and technological development is an important vector of public policy in any country. What positive and negative directions of this policy are currently taking place? This Aspect is important to reflect in the relevance of the study.

Response 3: Thank you for your comment, your recommendations will improve readers' understanding of our work. We have revised the abstract and added the findings of the study on this issue.

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments:

Strength:

1.      The paper articulates the research purpose explicitly, aiming to enhance the effectiveness of industrial policy management and national technology security mechanisms through the modeling of mutual structural relation in managing the entire lifecycle of new products resulting from high-tech transfers. The abstract and introduction of the paper concisely communicate the research objectives and the problems to be addressed, explicitly accelerating economic modernization, strengthening high-tech transfer, and improving industrial policy management and national technology security through establishing an interstructural relationship model.

2.      The paper provides a detailed description of the methods employed in the research, encompassing the establishment of mutual structural relation and the assessment of collaborative economic effects. This aids readers in understanding the methodological foundation of the study. The researcher addresses multiple tasks throughout the research process, such as substituting high-tech imports and evaluating technology and production capabilities, showcasing the study's comprehensiveness.

3.      The paper explicitly outlines the practical significance of the research, with a well-conceived focal point addressing urgent needs of real-world issues, namely, by enhancing the management efficiency of high-tech transfers, ensuring the creation of new product production systems at the organizational, industry, or national economic levels, thereby achieving sustainable economic development. Emphasis is placed on its practical significance in improving the efficiency of innovation process management and ensuring the sustainable development of new product production systems, providing support for the practicality of the research.

Weakness:

1.      In the abstract, the key concept "RNP" is introduced for the first time without spelling out the abbreviation or providing a clear definition. Consistency in expressing concepts throughout the document is essential. It is advised to minimize the use of abbreviations in the introduction and to offer explicit explanations for critical concepts in the introduction or relevant sections.

2.      The "Conclusion" section (lines 474-495) provides opinions at a macro level and is overly general. Providing more detailed insights into specific practical recommendations and future directions is advisable. Additionally, the section needs more explanation of the limitations of the study. It is recommended to address potential impacts that limitations may have on the reliability of the research results and conclusions.

3.      The citation discussion on line 60 needs to be more succinct. While the introduction summarizes the referenced literature, it does not reflect specific discussions. It is recommended that a more detailed narrative be provided to introduce the research question effectively.

4.      In the "Methodology of the study" section, the principles and models mentioned in lines 114-117 lack detailed explanations. The description of certain principles in the research methodology is relatively concise. It is recommended that more detailed information be provided to facilitate reader understanding.

5.      In the "Discussion of Results" section, the data source should be explicitly mentioned with proper references. For example, when discussing currency conversion data at line 434, it is recommended to provide detailed information about the data source, including the source's URL and date of retrieval.

6.      In lines 103-107, the discussion of the shortcomings of previous studies and the innovations presented in this paper should be elaborated in detail, with a more logical expression.

7.      The discussion in the "Literature Review" section is relatively brief. The literature review part could be more systematically presented, highlighting the innovation and necessity of the research question. The concept mentioned in lines 148-152, "Organizational and economic system of fundamentally new products (OESP FNP)," needs a specific explanation of its significance to the study. Enhancing the literature review by adding more relevant references is recommended.

Response: Thank you for your comment. Your recommendations help to improve the understanding of our work for readers. We have revised the abstract to include research findings on the topic.

The posed scientific question is quite capacious and correct and, accordingly, requires a separate consideration. We did not emphasize the principles and methods, just presented them without deep analysis. We have not presented this information within the scope of this manuscript due to page limitations.

Response to Reviewer 5 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The mathematical sign is missing in formula 4

Response 1: Thank you very much for your comment. But, we carefully reviewed our manuscript again and concluded that everything in this formula is correct.

Comments 2: There are no summation limits in formulas 14-17

Response 2: Thank you so much for your comment! We agree with you. We have corrected.

Comments 3: In table 2, there is a duplication of units of measurement (and in the header of the table, rubles, and further in the lines, too, rubles, leave in one place)

Response 3: Thank you so much for your comment! We agree with you. We have corrected.

Comments 4: The article looks unfinished. We need to give more specific conclusions.

Response 4: Thank you so much for your comment! We agree with you. We have corrected.

Comments 5: In conclusion, indicate how the results obtained by the authors are consistent with the results of other researchers. And where can these results find practical application?

Response 5: Thank you for your comment and your recommendations that will improve the quality of our work. In the section "Results" we have reflected the peculiarity of our proposed model. This model is unique for Russia due to the fact that Russia has been and is mainly engaged in resource exports. In the structure of Russia's imports in 2023, the category "machinery, equipment and vehicles" has the largest specific weight (49.3%). Russia's dependence on imports of high-tech goods from countries that have imposed sanctions against it is assessed as high. However, in our opinion, the mechanism of assessing mutual structural relations for import substitution of high-tech transfer when managing the life cycle of fundamentally new products can be adapted for application in other countries, taking into account the peculiarities of their development and the impact of both internal and external factors.