The Mediating Impact of Innovation Types in the Relationship between Innovation Use Theory and Market Performance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am not sufficiently familiar with Innovative Use Theory to rate the interest level of this particular subject domain, nor the literature regarding this theory. However, in terms of methodology, the paper is a competent application of scale development and validity with what appears to be a thorough literature review and first-time application of scale development for the underlying theory. Many phases and aspects of scale development are present: Scale development based on theory was subject to a pre-test, data were analyzed for response bias and then subjected to exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (apparently), and then validated with regression analysis and mediation analysis. The analysis is then appropriately followed with implications for management and suggestions for future research. Overall, complete and competent, more thorough than many other scale development attempts I have encountered.
Some minor comments:
30. "Nowadays" is a rather informal word for a journal, plus it would appear that the rest of the sentence applies to any time period.
320. "Studies" do not believe. "Authors" believe or conclude or advocate.
394. Apparently the data were appropriately analyzed with "exploratory factor analysis" followed by a "confirmatory factor analysis". The authors should explicitly use these terms. Nor did the authors state the rotation method used in the exploratory factor analysis.
417. This exploratory factor analysis result, Table 4, should be deleted, as it is superseded by the confirmatory results in Table 5. The exploratory analysis is only suggestive. A sentence or two description would suffice.
Author Response
Reply to Reviewer 1
Dear Reviewing Professor
I am very grateful to the professor for taking the time to review our article and give us the most pertinent suggestions. We would like to thank you very much. To better encapsulate the essence of our article and align with the feedback received, we have modified the title to "The Mediating Impact of Innovation Types in the Relationship between Innovation Use Theory and Market Performance." We believe this adjustment enhances the clarity and focus of our research. In response to your suggestion, we modify them as follows;
Q1: 30. "Nowadays" is a rather informal word for a journal, plus it would appear that the rest of the sentence applies to any time period.
Response: Thanks for your suggestion, we have modified this word to better match the idiomatic expression of the article. Please see line 30.
Q2: 320. "Studies" do not believe. "Authors" believe or conclude or advocate.
Response: Thanks to your reminder, we have revised this sentence to match the meaning of the entire paragraph. Please see line 337.
Q3: 394. Apparently, the data were appropriately analyzed with "exploratory factor analysis" followed by a "confirmatory factor analysis". The authors should explicitly use these terms. Nor did the authors state the rotation method used in the exploratory factor analysis.
Response: Thank you for your reminder, We checked the content of this article and added appropriate descriptions such as Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), and maximum variation rotation method. Please see lines 441-445.
Q4: 417. This exploratory factor analysis result, Table 4, should be deleted, as it is superseded by the confirmatory results in Table 5. The exploratory analysis is only suggestive. A sentence or two description would suffice.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We only briefly mentioned EFA and deleted Table 4 presented by EFA. It has been replaced by CFA Table 5. The numbering order of subsequent tables has been changed. Please see lines 441 and 456.
Thanks again for your advice and guidance!
Best Regard
Chen, Shieh-Liang
Department of Business Administration
Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan
Chen, Kuo-Liang
Department of Business Administration
Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe subject addressed in the article is interesting and has theoretical and practical implications. However, I have some general, methodological, and statistical considerations, especially regarding the text as a whole. The introduction, the research problem should be more evident, as well as the general and specific objectives. Information about the questionnaire should not be included; the method could be presented in general terms. Figure 1 is presented, but there is no comment on it. I believe that a figure in the introduction is unnecessary. There are punctuation errors, repeated words in the same sentence, repetition of concepts and ideas, and punctuation errors throughout the text. In general, the text needs improvement.
Regarding the review, the topics presented are relevant; however, the way they are presented is somewhat fragmented. The topics could be better articulated. There are statements in the text that need theoretical support. Returning to the introduction, there is a lack of theoretical evidence that demonstrates the problem to be addressed in the article.
Regarding the method, the independent, interdependent, and dependent variables are not clear. What are the constructs and variables? What is the measurement scale? Is it a 5-point Likert scale? What does each point mean? Is it an ordinal scale? How to apply Factor Analysis (interdependence test) and regression with an ordinal scale? It does not make sense to apply the statistical techniques that the article used for qualitative data. Statistical analysis with this type of scale is very fragile. Machine learning techniques could be used. The sampling procedure is not adequate. The sample is not probabilistic; individuals from the sample should be drawn, unless there is a justification for not doing so. Why were non-parametric statistical tests not applied to the cross-tabulated tables? What is the communality of the factor analysis?These are some questions.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe text needs to be improve.
Author Response
Reply to Reviewer 2
Dear Reviewing Professor
I am very grateful to the professor for taking the time to review our article and give us the most pertinent suggestions. We would like to thank you very much. To better encapsulate the essence of our article and align with the feedback received, we have modified the title to "The Mediating Impact of Innovation Types in the Relationship between Innovation Use Theory and Market Performance." We believe this adjustment enhances the clarity and focus of our research. In response to your suggestion, we modify them as follows;
Q1- The introduction, the research problem should be more evident, as well as the general and specific objectives.
Response: Thank you for your reminder. We have rewritten part of the introduction and specifically explained the problems faced by enterprises (please see lines 30-33), the research gaps (please see lines 41-43), and the purpose of our research (please see lines 54 -55), also explains the research methods (please see lines 83-86).
Q2- Figure 1 is presented, but there is no comment on it.
Response: Thank you for your reminder, we have adjusted the guidance description of Figure 1 and added the description of the variable attributes of the structure. Please see lines 55-61.
Q3- I believe that a figure in the introduction is unnecessary.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion, we have deleted the numbers representing the serial numbers in the introduction and described presented the content. Please see lines 86-91.
Q4- There are punctuation errors.
Response: Thank you for your reminder, we have checked the entire article, removed unnecessary double quotation marks, and corrected incorrect symbols.
Q5- repeated words in the same sentence.
Response: Thank you for your reminder, we have made some revisions to the article, paying special attention to and removing duplicated sentences.
Q6- Regarding the review, the themes presented are relevant; however, the way they are presented is somewhat fragmented.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion, we have revised the introduction section, explicitly stating the market situation (please see lines 38-42), the gap (please see lines 42-45), and the purpose (please see line 47).
Q7- there is a lack of theoretical evidence that demonstrates the problem to be addressed in the article.
Response: Thank you for your reminder. We have added the types and deficiencies of previous studies in the introduction to highlight the importance of this research. Please see lines 39-42.
Q8- Regarding the method, the independent, interdependent, and dependent variables are not clear.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion, we have added a paragraph in Section 3 to explain the independent variable, dependent variable, mediating variable, and control variables. Please see lines 352-374.
Q9: What is the measurement scale? Is it a 5-point Likert scale? What does each point mean? Is it an ordinal scale?
Response: Thanks for your suggestion, This study uses a ratio scale (Please see line 385) and measures it on a five-point Likert scale (Please see line 386). The meaning of each point is explained (see lines 386-388)
Q10: Why were non-parametric statistical tests not applied to the cross-tabulated tables?
Response: Thank you for your reminder, we have supplemented the chi-square tests for the contingency tables (age and education, please see lines 477-478) and (gender and education, please see lines 492-493).
Thanks again for your advice and guidance!
Best Regard
Chen, Shieh-Liang
Department of Business Administration
Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan
Chen, Kuo-Liang
Department of Business Administration
Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attached document.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reply to Reviewer 3
Dear Reviewing Professor
I am very grateful to the professor for taking the time to review our article and give us the most pertinent suggestions. We would like to thank you very much. To better encapsulate the essence of our article and align with the feedback received, we have modified the title to "The Mediating Impact of Innovation Types in the Relationship between Innovation Use Theory and Market Performance." We believe this adjustment enhances the clarity and focus of our research. In response to your suggestion, we modify them as follows;
Q1- The title of the manuscript should be changed to reflect all the variables of the study. Looking at the logical framework of the study; suggests that it is securitizing the mediating impact of innovation types in the relationship between innovative use theory and market performance.
Response: Thanks for your suggestion, The title has been changed to "The Mediating Impact of Innovation Types in the Relationship between Innovation Use Theory and Market Performance", It is indeed more relevant to the content of this article and has been changed. (please see home page)
Q2- The purpose of the study is not clear. Besides, the results of the study should reflect the exact outcome of the investigation.
Response: Thanks for your suggestion, The purpose of the research has been clearly stated (please see lines 55-56), and the research conclusion has been marked (please see lines 602-613)
Q3- The introduction could be more effectively set up for the rest of the paper. The authors have failed to develop the gaps that warrant the investigation of this phenomenon.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised part of the introduction and enhanced the explanation of the research gap (please see lines 42-44) and the description of research contributions (please see lines 87-92).
Q4- Why set the hypotheses separately in the methodology section?
Response: Thank you for your reminder. In the methodology section, we have made assumptions to facilitate data concentration, reading, and searching. After completing the assumptions, we presented the research model diagram to make the entire explanation more comprehensive. Please see lines 298-349.
Q5- Methodology: Variable and measurement, the authors have failed to disclose the literature that they consulted to design the questionnaires. No indication of independent, mediating, dependent, or control variables in the text. Furthermore, this section should explain the analytical tools for the study. 1.
Response A: Thank you for your reminder, we have added reference literature for the assumptions [17-55]. Please see lines 302, 312, 326, and 337, and references for questionnaire design are marked in Appendix A. Please refer to line 717.
Response B: Thank you for your suggestion. In Section 3, we have added a paragraph explaining the independent variables, dependent variables, intermediate variables, and control variables. Please refer to lines 352-374.
Response C: Thank you for your suggestion, we have added an explanation of the analysis methods and planned six regression paths based on the research model for analysis. Please see lines 370-373.
Q6- The author says "This study uses empirical results to answer the 3 questions in Chapter 1, Section 2. However, in writing, I did not encounter any of the 3 questions in Chapter 1.
Response: Thank you for your reminder. We have supplemented the explanations for the questions RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3. Please refer to lines 77-82.
RQ7- Practicality and/or Research implications: The connection to existing literature is weak. From the study, the theoretical and practical contributions need to be strengthened. Thus, discussions on theoretical contributions need to be improved. For each contribution, authors need to first display what the prior theory says and then argue how their findings extend the theory.
Response A: Thank you for your reminder. We have rewritten part of the introduction, providing specific details on the challenges faced by businesses (please see lines 30-33), reviewing existing literature on innovation (please see lines 39-42), identifying gaps in the research (please see lines 42-44), and clarifying the purpose of our study (please see lines 55-56). Additionally, we have explained the research methods used (please see lines 84-87).
Response B: Thank you for your reminder. Our paper is the first to combine academically recognized theories with market-approved success models (Christensen et al.'s "Innovation Adoption Theory" and innovation types) for the pre-assessment of innovation. Therefore, it has sufficient novelty and utility, providing a comprehensive interpretation from the production side to the market side. Please see lines 55-61 and 92-95.
RQ8- The authors need to create a conclusion section for the study.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. In the conclusion section, we have added an explanation of the theory on which this paper is based, the research objectives, operational processes, and details about the analytical methods used, as well as the empirical results obtained. Please see lines 601-612.
Thanks again for your advice and guidance!
Best Regard
Chen, Shieh-Liang & Chen, Kuo-Liang
Department of Business Administration
Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy recommendation for authors is to carefully choose a statistical method for ordinal scales. Using parametric methods in this case is not a good option. My critique of this paper is directed towards the statistical method employed.
Using parametric statistical methods on ordinal scales, such as Likert scales, is generally discouraged due to certain assumptions inherent in these methods that may not be met by ordinal data. Parametric tests, like t-tests or ANOVA, assume that the data follows a specific distribution, usually a normal distribution, and that the intervals between values are equal.
Author Response
Response to Review 2
Dear Reviewing Professor
I am very grateful to the professor for taking the time to review our article and give us the most pertinent suggestions. We would like to thank you very much. In response to your suggestion, we modify them as follows;
Q1: My recommendation for authors is to carefully choose a statistical method for ordinal scales. Using parametric methods in this case is not a good option. My critique of this paper is directed towards the statistical method employed.
Response:
Thank you for providing valuable insights into our statistical methods for measurement scales, particularly about the widely employed Likert scale in social work research. Typically constructed with four to seven points, the Likert scale remains a topic of debate, as it is often treated as an interval scale within the context of social sciences research. Despite its controversial nature, several studies, including those conducted by Baggaley and Hull (1983), Maurer and Pierce (1998), and Vickers (1999), have demonstrated the effective analysis of Likert scales as interval scales.
In support of this perspective, Allen and Seaman (1997, p. 2) have provided sensible provisos, endorsing the treatment of Likert scales as interval data. Their standpoint is further expounded upon in the document "Likert Scales and Data Analyses" (Allen & Seaman, 2007), published in Quality Progress (pp. 40, 64-65).
For additional insights into the subject, the studies by Baggaley and Hull (1983) on the nonlinear transformations of Likert scales, Maurer and Pierce's (1998) comparison of Likert scale and traditional measures of self-efficacy, and Vickers' (1999) examination of muscle soreness using ordinal and continuous outcome measures are highly recommended (references provided accordingly).
Q2: Using parametric statistical methods on ordinal scales, such as Likert scales, is generally discouraged due to certain assumptions inherent in these methods that may not be met by ordinal data. Parametric tests, like t-tests or ANOVA, assume that the data follows a specific distribution, usually a normal distribution and that the intervals between values are equal.
Response:
Thank you for offering valuable insights into our statistical methods. Building upon the preceding discussion, there exists considerable consensus within the field of social science research regarding the treatment of Likert scales, especially those comprising multiple items, as interval scales. Consequently, the Likert scale is considered highly suitable for applications in descriptive statistics, as well as for the execution of diverse statistical analyses such as correlation analysis, population analysis, and analysis of variance procedures.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attached document.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Review 3
Reviewing Professor
I am very grateful to the professor for taking the time to review our article and give us the most pertinent suggestions. We would like to thank you very much. In response to your suggestion, we modify them as follows;
Q1. Originality: "The Mediating Impact of Innovation Types in the Relationship between Innovation Use Theory and Market Performance" This research finds that innovation types play a significant role in the innovation use theory-market performance nexus. However, the gaps identified by the authors are not enough looking at the topic. The purpose of the study is not clear looking at the topic.
Response:
Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your constructive suggestions, we have carefully revisited the introductory section of our paper, "The Mediating Impact of Innovation Types in the Relationship between Innovation Use Theory and Market Performance."
In our revised introduction, we have placed a particular emphasis on clarifying the purpose of our study and addressing the identified gaps more explicitly. Specifically, we highlight the novelty of this research as the first empirical exploration of Christensen's innovation use theory, focusing on the intricate relationships between the three uses, innovation types, and market performance. This clarification is evident in lines 33-39, where we articulate the background of our research.
Furthermore, to address concerns about the clarity of our research purpose, we have provided a more explicit statement of our objectives in lines 54-64. This clarification aims to elucidate the overarching goal of our study and its significance in the context of the innovation use theory.
For a more detailed understanding of the identified research gaps, we invite you to review lines 52-54, where we delineate the specific shortcomings in the existing literature that our study aims to address. We believe this clarification will provide a more nuanced perspective on the unique contribution our research seeks to make.
Lastly, lines 94-99 succinctly outline the key contributions of our study, emphasizing the novel insights derived from the empirical examination of the innovation use theory, the intricate relationships with innovation types, and the consequential impact on market performance.
Q2. Relationship to Literature: The authors need to enrich this section. I think that the hypothesis development is rather limited. Thus, the authors should have developed the hypotheses deeply to reflect the variables. As a result, it is difficult to distill any clear theoretical contribution at the end of the paper. I suggest the authors should pick the variables and discuss and state the hypothesis. The hypotheses should not be stated separately in the methodology section. The authors can refer to the writing paradigms of other similar papers.
Response:
Thank you for your insightful feedback. We appreciate your constructive suggestion, and in response, we have made significant enhancements to the Theory and Hypothesis Development section. We have provided additional explanations and detailed discussions of the literature, strengthening the theoretical foundation of our study. Please refer to the revised content at lines 247-252, lines 288-293, and lines 313-332.
Furthermore, we have addressed your concern about the limited development of hypotheses. To provide a more comprehensive understanding, we have moved the hypotheses from the Research Methodology section to the Theory and Hypothesis Development section. This adjustment aims to enhance the clarity and coherence of our hypothesis development. Please see the updated information at lines 247-252, lines 288-293, and lines 313-332.
Q3. Methodology: Variable and measurement, the authors have failed to disclose the literature that they consulted to design the questionnaires. No indication of independent, mediating, dependent, and control variables in the text. Furthermore, this section should explain the analytical tools for the study. (Please the issues are not addressed). The authors can refer to the writing paradigms of other similar papers.
Response:
Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your insights, and in response to your comments on the Methodology section, we have made several enhancements. Here are the refinements we have implemented:
Reference to Questionaaire Design: We have added a reference to the table design to provide transparency regarding the literature consulted for questionnaire construction.
Disclosure of Variables: We now include a detailed description of the independent, mediating, dependent, and control variables in the text. This clarification is available in lines 340-352, offering a more explicit overview of the variables and their corresponding dimensions.
Analytical Tools and Methods: The Methodology section now includes explanations of the analytical tools and methods employed for the study. You can find this information in lines 353-357.
We believe these additions address your concerns and contribute to a clearer and more comprehensive understanding of our research design
Q4. To ensure that the survey results are not biased by specific ethnic groups, we use gender, marriage, age, and education as control variables. This study specifies employees in the technology industry, regardless of job title. However, from the regression analysis, I see no control variables in the tables.
Response:
Thank you for your invaluable feedback. We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of potential biases related to specific ethnic groups and the importance of control variables in survey results. In response to your insightful suggestion, we have carefully considered the inclusion of control variables, such as gender, marriage, age, industry, and education.
In order to ensure a focused and streamlined analysis that centers on our primary research variables—innovation types and market performance—we have made a deliberate decision to exclude the examination of control variables. This strategic choice aligns with the methodology employed in certain studies exploring mediating effects, exemplified by the work of Um, J. and Han, N. (2021), "Understanding the relationships between global supply chain risk and supply chain resilience: the role of mitigating strategies," published in Supply Chain Management (Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 240-255). Notably, this study also omits the impact of control variables on dependent variables.
We firmly believe that this focused approach enhances the clarity and relevance of our study, irrespective of specific ethnic groups. We trust that this explanation addresses your concerns, and we are grateful for your continued guidance.
Q5. Still, the theoretical and practical implications need to be improved.
Response:
Thank you for your insightful feedback. We have carefully considered your suggestion and made revisions to enhance both the theoretical and practical implications of our paper. The adjustments are rooted in the empirical results and are intended to better convey the intended meaning. Kindly refer to the specified lines 570-579 and 596-560 for the detailed changes.
Q6. Please, in Tables 4 and 8 check the write-up, there are Chinese characters in the table.
Response:
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We acknowledge the oversight in Tables 4 and 8 and have promptly rectified the issue. The necessary corrections have been made to ensure the proper representation of the content. Please refer to the revised portions at lines 439 and 495.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
