The Impact of Public Services on Urban Innovation—A Study Based on Differences and Mechanisms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

First of all, congratulations for your work. This is an interesting paper with focus of the research aimed at providing the results for better understanding of the innovation effect of public services in cities. The relevance of the research realized by the authors of the paper is obvious. The text of the article is characterized by logicality and the sequence in presentation of information. Hypotheses are well organized. The theoretical framework is consistent and well designed.

I think that this paper could be a good contribution to theory and practice, on the basis of providing an interesting finding.  Below You could find a few suggestions for improving the paper.

(1)  I suggest to authors to include in the literature review and discussion section the following:

-       Osborne, S. P., & Brown, L. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of innovation in public services. Edward Elgar Publishing.

-       Caragliu, A., & Del Bo, C. F. (2019). Smart innovative cities: The impact of Smart City policies on urban innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 142, 373-383.

-       Lao, X., Gu, H., Yu, H., & Xiao, F. (2021). Exploring the spatially-varying effects of human capital on urban innovation in China. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 14(4), 827-848.

(2)  The discussion chapter is missing. It needs to be added.

 Best regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your contribution.

It would be good to make some modifications.

1. The method of displaying the reference in the text should comply with the direction pursued by the journal. As far as I know, this journal does not display the reference author directly but in numbers. (e.g., [1], [2]...)

2. The contributor presents a research model using a formula. I wonder how you checked and solved the relationship between independent variables, that is, the multicollinearity problem.

3. In order to improve the reader's understanding, the measurement units should be indicated in Table 2 main variable and static description.

4. In terms of conclusion and policy implications, it is necessary to clearly add accurate reasons and policy implications, not just interpretation of statistically significant differences by region and city size.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciate that the paper deals with an interesting issue nowadays and has some noteworthy outputs. However, the authors need to follow the below comments/ suggested revisions to improve their paper.

1. The title is very general and does not reflect the content of the study.

2. The terms "differences" and "mechanisms" are not explained in the context of the study.

3. The abstract is incomplete. It can be completed with a sentence regarding to the importance of the studied phenomenon and a complete description of the sample used.

4. In the introduction it is necessary to specify the purpose and originality of the study in relation to the results identified in the academic literature.

5. The authors should develop the formulation of the Hypothesis 2 as it is not clear what the notion "heterogeneous" refers to.

6. Hypothesis 3 is complex and refers to different aspects (i.e., mechanisms). The paper does not indicate compliance with this hypothesis.

7. A Methodology section is required to describe the methods applied in the study (e.g., Fixed effects model, Instrumental variable regression, entropy weight method, Override tool variables method, Bootstrap method, Sobel and Bootstrap test) as to allow replication of the analysis by the reader.

8. Considering the complexity of the analysis, in order to facilitate the reading of the manuscript, it is necessary to create a diagram containing the steps followed in the analysis and the methods used.

9. The authors mention that they used the "entropy weight method" to construct the variables PA and PS. What were the weights they took into account for each of the components considered in the construction of the two variables and what is the justification for applying those weights?

10. For the models presented in Tables 3-7, the validation tests are missing. Also, Notes to indicate what *, **, ** and the values in () represent are needed.

11. Table 7 should include the results obtained for all explanatory variables in each of the 7 regression models.

12. It is necessary a Discussion section in which the authors should interpret the results more than econometrically and integrate them in the literature by comparison with what was previously obtained in the field.

Good luck!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, 

Thank you for taking your time to address the issues raised. The manuscript is now improved.

Reviewer 3 Report

I consider that the authors updated the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer’s comments and recommendations. I appreciate that the paper can be published in the present form. Good luck with your future research!