Impact of Digital Strategic Orientation on Organizational Performance through Digital Competence
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Abstract
（1）The research background is mentioned in the first sentence of this section. It is recommended that the author supplement the limitations of previous studies there and condense the research background and the limitations of previous studies into 1-2 sentences.
（2）In the presentation of the research results in this section, it is recommended to incorporate the methods and research objects into the presentation of the research results, and present the research results in the form of "method + object + conclusion".
Keyword
（1）The keyword " Digital Strategy Orientation " is not mature enough and it is recommended to delete it.
（2）The keyword " Digital Competence " is not mature enough and it is recommended to replace it.
1. Introduction
（1）The first two paragraphs of this section are expressed the realistic background, and the content is a bit lengthy. It is recommended that the author condense it and put it in a paragraph.
（2）The theoretical background is mentioned in the third paragraph of this section, but this section lacks the corresponding literature support. It is recommended that the author supplement the literature when describing the theoretical background; and it is better to combine these theoretical backgrounds with the realistic background in the first paragraph.
（3）The expression of innovation is not obvious enough.
（4）In this section, there is no description of the research method. It is recommended to use 1-2 sentences to describe the research method.
（5）In this section, there is no description of the significance of the research, and the author is suggested to add the practical and theoretical significance of the research.
2. Literature Review
In this section, although the viewpoints of previous studies are pointed out, it does not critically express one's own opinions, and does not point out the deficiencies and defects of previous studies.
Some important literatures using structural equation models have been omitted.
e.g.
Hair, J., Hollingsworth, C. L., Randolph, A. B., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2017). An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117(3): 442-458.
Li, X., Du, J., & Long, H. (2020). Understanding the green development behavior and performance of industrial enterprises (GDBP-IE): scale development and validation. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(5), 1716.
Li, X., Du, J., & Long, H. (2020). Mechanism for green development behavior and performance of industrial enterprises (GDBP-IE) using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(22), 8450.
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Henseler, J., & Hair, J. F. (2014). On the emancipation of PLS-SEM: A commentary on Rigdon (2012). Long range planning, 47(3), 154-160.
Sarstedt, M., Hair Jr, J. F., Cheah, J. H., Becker, J. M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). How to specify, estimate, and validate higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 27(3), 197-211.
etc.
6. Discussion
（1）The enlightenment content expressed in this section is rich, including both theoretical and practical aspects, which demonstrate the significance of the research well. However, for the article framework, it is recommended that the author create a new "conclusion" section, and put the relevant content of this section with enlightenment in the conclusion section for presentation.
（2）In this section, it is recommended that the author discuss whether the results of other similar researches are consistent with the results of this research.
（3）In the newly created "Conclusion" section, use 1-3 sentences to express the research purpose, research content, research methods, and research results of the article. At the same time, the research conclusions should also be expressed in the "Conclusion" section. The conclusions should be listed by point and should be universal and novel.
Author Response
Thank you for precise comments.
We are eager to revise the manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The abstract of a research paper should contain a statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, methods, data analysis, results, and conclusion. It should be restructured.
Objective/Gap: the need for this research is not clearly stated. The main objectives of the study are not clear. The introduction should start with a discussion of the scope and significance of the issue and or problem. Next, the manuscript needs a review of the literature to provide the reader with a synthesis of previous work.
The theoretical assumptions of the research questions development are confusing and are not well justified.
The sample size is very small.
The discussion section can be improved by supporting results with the previous studies.
The authors should add a conclusion section in the revised manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you for precise comments.
We are eager to revise the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper has a timely subject but it has many weaknesses both theoretically and as methodology.
The abstract section needs to be rewritten. On p. 1, r.: 8-10 is mentioned: “This study explores the relationship between the digital competence and organizational performance by digital strategic orientation in the context of digital transformation at the level of the company.” And on r.: 17-18 “This study explores the mechanism of digital strategic orientation on organizational performance in the context of digital transformation of Chinese enterprises.” I suggest unifying the meaning of the study – “This study explores……”
The ideas of the research could have been more effective through the use of elaborative and concise sentences. The abstract as is it does not provide a concise account of the work and conclusion of the research study. It needs to be more structured and synthesized for research clarity.
The Literature review can be improved by discussing how past research makes this research necessary and relevant in more detail.
The logic behind the four hypotheses is not persuasive. Moreover, the hypotheses do not logically flow from the theory.
It is important to add more details regarding the research data collection, analysis, and interpretation of results. The research approach should include the methods employed as well as a real dialog between literature and methods.
I suggest to provide a brief description of the methods of data employed and its application and appropriateness for data analysis.
The results were not well-presented to readers to understand the focus of the research study.
The data from the tables are not critically analyzed, which can provide an unclear path for future researchers to replicate the study.
The results must be interpretive rather than just descriptive and connect the research results with relevant literature citations for validity and reliability.
The four hypotheses developed for the study were not explicitly defended/refuted. A discussion of the hypotheses concerning the results is needed.
The Discussion is not well-presented as it does not integrate the results of the research study to provide a coherent scholarly argument.
The Discussion section should connect the research results with relevant literature citations and correlate the literature reviews with the results on improving existing knowledge in the field.
Discussing of the results could be improved by interpreting them in support of theories related to the research topic.
The title of some figures is not suggestive – for example the title of Figure 3. Additional Analysis.
The answers to the three main research questions of this study are not clearly presented.
Good luck!
Author Response
Thank you for precise comments.
We are eager to revise the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This paper lacks any academic robustness, it is rather a collection of subjective ideas of the authors. The provided information is not backed up by solid data, even it is often misleading (see e.g. the presentation of COVID-19). Propositions and arguments are not connected (see e.g. COVID-19 and digital competence), the methodology section is weak. I do not understand the composition of the sample and the verification of the yielded data. The literature review is incomplete and the number and quality of the references could not satisfy expectations regarding articles for Sustainability. Many things can be corrected, but here, I am puzzled ... I do not see any meaning of presented charts and graphs and have no idea what is exactly the research aim and what are the hypotheses and whether they are confirmed or rejected. What is the contribution? How this article does contribute to the science and what advice for practionners is offered? I have no idea. I see just random ideas, some numbers, discreationnary so called calculation and that is that.
Author Response
Thank you for precise comments.
We are eager to revise the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors carefully revised their manuscript. At present, the quality of this manuscript has been significantly improved.
However, there are some mistakes in table 7.
Author Response
Thank you for your kind comments
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript can be considered for publication.
Author Response
Thank you for your kind comments
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper was improved, but still, need improvements as follows:
The logic behind the four hypotheses is not persuasive. Moreover, the hypotheses do not logically flow from the theory. See the H1, H1 and H3.
In this second version of the paper, Table 3. Factor Loadings, AVE, CR, and Cronbach’s Alpha Values - and Table 7. Mediation Effect of Digital Competence- are not clear.
A discussion of the hypotheses concerning the results is needed. The authors should clearly present the originality of their research in relationship with others researchers.
The answers to the three main research questions of this study are superficial. This is one of the weaknesses due to the limited literature review and the methodology.
Good luck!
Author Response
Thank you for your kind comments
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Despite many changes, the paper is not suitable for the publication in a journal such as Sustainability. The research sample is small, not properly explored and collected replies are misleading and impossible to be verified. Further, they do not match the research questions and aims. The methodology is misleading and the literature review is not complete. Hence, imperfect data is projected into a no solid background. The number of references is low, their relevance is not satisfactory.
Author Response
Thank you for your kind comments
