Enhancing Digital Innovation Ecosystem Resilience through the Interplay of Organizational, Technological, and Environmental Factors: A Study of 31 Provinces in China Using NCA and fsQCA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear AA,

 

first of all, thank you for your work. Your paper is promising, still there are several issues to be fixed. I hope my comments may help in this.

 

1) Clarifying the research gap and questions: the paper should start with a more explicit statement of the research gap it intends to fill. This involves a clear articulation of the specific aspects of digital innovation ecosystem resilience that remain underexplored;

 

2) Integrating the TOE Framework within a theoretical perspective: justification for using the TOE framework should be rooted in a broader theoretical perspective that underscores its relevance to digital innovation ecosystem resilience. The authors should elaborate on how this framework aligns with existing literature on innovation and resilience, and why it is an appropriate lens for the study. Discussing alternative theoretical frameworks and explaining the rationale for not adopting them would also add depth to the paper.

 

3) Methodological justification: a more detailed explanation of why NCA and fsQCA were chosen is necessary. This should include a discussion on the strengths and limitations of these methods in capturing the complexity of digital innovation ecosystems. The authors should also reflect on how the methodological choices impact the interpretation of results and the study's contributions to the field.

 

4) Deepening the concept of resilience: resilience is a central theme of the paper, yet its conceptualization appears to be shallow. The authors need to provide a comprehensive definition of resilience within the context of digital innovation ecosystems. This should involve a literature review that not only outlines the dimensions of resilience but also explains how it is influenced by organizational, technological, and environmental factors. Here are some suggestions: 

 

- 10.1109/TEM.2023.3282367;

- https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2021.1884009.

 

5) A proofreading is needed for language clarity.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I suggest proofreading your manuscript to fix typos, and spelling errors and to enhance the overall flow.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See PDF file.

No issues were identified

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors should discuss and cite some papers of the sociologist Charles C Ragin, the founder of fsQCA, such as:

Ragin, C. C. (2006). Set relations in social research: Evaluating their consistency and coverage. Political Analysis, 14(3), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpj019

Ragin, Charles C., 2000. "Fuzzy-Set Social Science," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1,

 

The research methodology on fsQCA is incomplete. The mathematical model should be added. 

Each case diagram of Table 6 should be described and interpreted in detail. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank my colleagues for addressing the extremely interesting and relevant topic of regional sustainability and balanced territorial development. This study examines these problems through the prism of digital innovation sustainability, sustainability of the relevant ecosystem. The work classifies territories into sustainability types based on configurations of certain factors, which makes it possible to understand the background of weaknesses in a particular province in China and, accordingly, to search for opportunities to improve the problematic points.

The authors base the calculations on previous studies. This, on the one hand, simplifies the analysis procedure, but on the other hand, limits the results obtained.

The NCA and FsQCA methods used are adequate and provide a reliable classification, complementing each other.

I believe that the manuscript can be published, however, in my opinion, the authors should provide in the appendices the initial data on the basis of which the calculations were performed. And also more clearly indicate the software that was used in this process.

I wish you success in further research!

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear AA.,

your paper has been surely improved. At the same time, strong concerns remain regarding the way you involve the concept of resilience in your work.

Indeed, given the centrality it has in your work, you should provide a wider description of how it applies within the context of digital innovation ecosystems. As specified in the previous review, this should involve a literature review that not only outlines the dimensions of resilience but also explains how organizational, technological, and environmental factors influence it. It may be useful to dedicate a section to this issue.

Furthermore, the paper lacks a discussion section where results and conceptual integrations from resilience can be carefully discussed.

 

Regards.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been
sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Sustainability..

Author Response

Thank You for your valuable support and comments.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is now clearer and ready for publication.