Next Article in Journal
Marketing Strategies of Travel Agencies: A Quantitative Approach
Next Article in Special Issue
CSR, Co-Creation and Green Consumer Loyalty: Are Green Banking Initiatives Important? A Moderated Mediation Approach from an Emerging Economy
Previous Article in Journal
Research on the Mode Choice Intention of the Elderly for Autonomous Vehicles Based on the Extended Ecological Model
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Study of the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility Report and the Stock Market
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Sustainable Smart Healthcare Information Portfolio Strategy Evaluation: An Integrated Activity-Based Costing Decision Model

Sustainability 2020, 12(24), 10662; https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410662
by Chih-Hao Yang 1,*, Hsiu-Li Lee 2, Wen-Hsien Tsai 3 and Sophia Chuang 3
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sustainability 2020, 12(24), 10662; https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410662
Submission received: 16 November 2020 / Revised: 6 December 2020 / Accepted: 10 December 2020 / Published: 20 December 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and CSR Reporting)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

As regards introduction, I suggest to better explain the research gap and the consequent research question. Moreover, I do not clearly understand the purpose of the paper: is it to develop a new model or to apply a model?

Regarding methodology, I think you should discuss why you choose that specific methodology. 

Please, be sure to highlight with a proper title the result section.

I suggest to explain the contribution from both practical and academic perspective. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is very interesting and the use of multicriteria methodology provides insightful results. There are three comments to be addressed:

  1. The discussion and conclusions should be different chapters and to be both more expanded. The discussion should discuss the findings in contrast previous studies and reports. The concluding remarks should focus on the contribution and practical implications.
  2. Referencing system does not follow the journals referencing system
  3. Reference 4 in the referencing list should be updeated as the authorship is missing and it starts with the title of the paper.   

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop