Innovative Business Strategies in the Face of COVID-19: An Approach to Open Innovation of SMEs in the Sonora Region of Mexico
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- In the introduction section it is necessary to add an explanation of the urgency of this study, related to the selection of objects in SMEs and the location of the object.
- What is the explanation of the relationship between constructs in the model measured in this study? Can you give a detailed explanation of this?
- What is the explanation of an unproven or rejected hypothesis? Can it be associated with a more relevant context with valid reference support?
- It is necessary to provide an explanation of the Multi-Group Analysis required in data processing for this research.
- Novelty in this study can be further strengthened by providing comparisons for similar cases with different methods of resolving problems.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we infinitely appreciate your comments, observations and recommendations. We have tried to answer each of them. Thank you very much for your support.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
I appreciate your work. The idea is interesting as well as ambitious, however your paper requires extensive interventions before being published. You may consider the following suggestions to improve your study:
-The introduction should give background and rationale for the research problem the article deals with. Information not directly related to the study needs to be removed.
-The literature part is weak, too general. It needs to be improved with relevant empirical studies supporting your hypothesis.
-It is not clear how you built the questionnaire and what previous relevant studies you referred to while building it.
-In rewriting the author/s should pay more attention to the description of the research methodology and tools used. The clear criteria of methods and tools chosen relevant for the hypothesis would make the article much more convincing.
-Your discussion part looks like a findings session instead. In the discussion part you need to compare your study findings with the previous studies that needs to be reported in the literature part.
-The theoretical, practical and managerial contributions of the study are missing. They should be introduced to the reader in the introduction part as well as emphasized in the conclusions part.
-The article needs to be proofread by a native speaker of the English language.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we infinitely appreciate your comments, observations and recommendations. We have tried to answer each of them. Thank you very much for your support.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The discussion of the results is somewhat confusing in the paper. A summary table is recommended to clarify the concepts for the reader.
Despite the topicality of the subject, a large amount of literature prior to 2015 is used.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we infinitely appreciate your comments, observations and recommendations. We have tried to answer each of them. Thank you very much for your support.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has been improved substantially. The authors have addressed all the recommendations.
