Impact of Government Policies on Research and Development (R&D) Investment, Innovation, and Productivity: Evidence from Pesticide Firms in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your paper. The topic addressed is very interesting, as well as the results. However, there are a few issues to be further addressed.

This study employs the unbalanced panel data from 2001 to 2007. Considering that the study focus on very dynamic domains, such as research and development investment and innovation, ow relevant can be the results based on data older than 15 years? Moreover, in such a long time also the government policies may also change (even in China). Please comment on this issue. Also, make clearer why more recent data (2010) were not used even they were available.

Figure 1 and 2: Also, the data in this figures stops in 2013, almost 10years ago … Why?

Line 290-291: It is said that the results of this study are still relevant to policymakers in the late 2000s. we are in 2022 and the results are expected to be relevant now and in the future ….

The implications of the research results should be outlined.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I find the topic of the reviewed paper, entitled Impact of government policies on research and development (R&D) investment, innovation, and productivity: Evidences from pesticide firms in China, crucial and up to date. The author(s) did a careful literature review using the latest research. The research is conducted correctly. The research methods used should be considered correct and relatively advanced. The study presents the recommendations. The entire structure of the paper is correct. However, the quality of this paper could/should be improved.

Below there is a list of my critical remarks on the reviewed paper:

• I recommend changing the word “evidences” into “evidence” in the title of the paper.
• Please present the aim of the study in the text (corresponding to the one presented in the abstract).
• Please formulate the research hypothesis/hypotheses as the study is empirical.
• The time and length of the research period are relatively short and outdated. However, I find that positive that the authors see this limitation of the study. I understand that gaining newer (most latest data) is a challenge for authors’ future research.

Overall assessment

The quality of this study is relatively high. I find the reviewed paper valuable. I recommend making changes (considering the remarks mentioned above) that could/should improve the quality of the reviewed paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf