The Effect of Supply Chain Management Strategy on Operational and Financial Performance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled: "The Effect of Supply Chain Management Strategy on Operational and Financial Performance: Evidence from Small and Medium Manufacturing Firms in Korea".

I would like to congratulate the authors for writing this paper. This manuscript is interesting, well-written, organised and the choices made in the research seem to be relevant. 

However, for publications, this paper requires some changes/additions/ and edits. I hope these comments and suggestions may be useful for improving your study. Good luck!

 

INTRODUCTION:

The introduction might be improved. To reinforces the value and importance of your proposal, I would recommend following this structure: (a) general contextualization of the topic, showing the importance of the subject; (b) progressively contextualize the pertinence of the study; (c) state the objectives covered by your article; (d) highlight the main contributions; and (e) indicate the structure followed. It is important that all your ideas are well linked.

 

LITERATURE REVIEW:

This chapter should include the main theoretical approaches that have a place in this context, and, after that, the authors should link them with the evidence obtained from previous studies.

In this chapter, the authors must formulate the hypotheses, supported by previous studies.

 

RESEARCH DESIGN:

It is not clear what chapter 4 is about (the title is missing, since 3.3.3 changes to 4.1) - line 204.

Then, on line 286, Chapter 4 - Results begins.
There seems to be some error in the structure.

 

DISCUSSION:

The discussion of results is a little poor.
You should explore this chapter further and link the results obtained with the literature review.

 

- CONCLUSIONS:

Reference should be made to the authors referred to in the literature review, indicating whether the conclusions of this study are in accordance with them.

Beyond the result discussion, it is necessary to enhance both the theoretical and practical contributions that this article implies to current literature.

 

OTHER ISSUES:

It is important to improve the sources of the literature. Of the 57 references, 36 items in the bibliography are prior to 2010 and only 2 are more recent than 2017.
Therefore, I recommend adding new updated references.

 

IN SHORT:

The research model is quite interesting and the results are relevant.
They must improve the theoretical framework (updating the bibliographic references) and link it with the results obtained.

Author Response

26 April 2021

Prof. Dr. Marc A. Rosen

Editor-in-Chief

Sustainability

 

Dear Editor,

Please find enclosed my revised manuscript entitled “The Effect of Supply Chain Management Strategy on Operational and Financial Performance: Evidence from Small and Medium Manufacturing Firms in Korea,” which we are submitting for your consideration.

I have incorporated a number of changes based on the valuable comments by the reviewers as follows.

Reviewer 1

1. INTRODUCTION:

The introduction might be improved. To reinforces the value and importance of your proposal, I would recommend following this structure: (a) general contextualization of the topic, showing the importance of the subject; (b) progressively contextualize the pertinence of the study; (c) state the objectives covered by your article; (d) highlight the main contributions; and (e) indicate the structure followed. It is important that all your ideas are well linked.

Response: I thank the reviewer for providing clarity with this comment. In lines 71–110, I modified the structure of introduction as recommended by reviewr.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW:

This chapter should include the main theoretical approaches that have a place in this context, and, after that, the authors should link them with the evidence obtained from previous studies.

In this chapter, the authors must formulate the hypotheses, supported by previous studies.

Response: I thank the reviewer for this valuable feedback. In lines 112–169, I reflected the opinions by proposed the reviewer as many as possible.

3. RESEARCH DESIGN:

It is not clear what chapter 4 is about (the title is missing, since 3.3.3 changes to 4.1) - line 204.

Then, on line 286, Chapter 4 - Results begins.

There seems to be some error in the structure.

Response: I thank the reviewer for this question. In lines 222–224, I modified reviewer’s comments by moving Chapter 4.

 

4. DISCUSSION:

The discussion of results is a little poor.

You should explore this chapter further and link the results obtained with the literature review.  

 

Response: I thank the reviewer for this valuable feedback. In lines 352–389, I had a discussion by linking the results of this study with previous studies.

 

5. CONCLUSIONS:

Reference should be made to the authors referred to in the literature review, indicating whether the conclusions of this study are in accordance with them.

Beyond the result discussion, it is necessary to enhance both the theoretical and practical contributions that this article implies to current literature.

 

Response: I thank the reviewer for pointing out this important issue. In lines 391–479, I indicated the conclusions of this study by linking the authors referred to in the literature review with the research results. And more specifically, I modified theoretical and practical implications in this study.

 

6. OTHER ISSUES:

It is important to improve the sources of the literature. Of the 57 references, 36 items in the bibliography are prior to 2010 and only 2 are more recent than 2017.

Therefore, I recommend adding new updated references.

 

Response: I thank the reviewer for this valuable feedback. In lines 512–652, I added new updated references.

 

7. IN SHORT:

The research model is quite interesting and the results are relevant.

They must improve the theoretical framework (updating the bibliographic references) and link it with the results obtained.

 

Response: I thank the reviewer for this question. In lines 112–169, I thank the reviewer for pointing out this important issue. I indicated the conclusions of this study by linking the authors referred to in the literature review with the research results. And more specifically, I modified theoretical and practical implications in this study and I added new updated references.

I think that these revisions have helped to improve the quality of the paper. I hope that we have addressed the reviewer’s comments in a satisfactory manner.

I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

Rok Lee, Ph.D., Professor

Gyeongsang National University

501, Jinhudae-ro, Jinju, Gyeongsangnam-do, 52828, South Korea

Phone No: +82-10-6314-4004

Fax No: +82-55-772-2476

Email Address: [email protected]

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author,

Thank you for the opportunity to read and review this paper. First, your research addresses an emerging issue in the area of supply chain management strategy.

The authors study "The Effect of Supply Chain Management Strategy on Operational and Financial Performance: Evidence from Small and Medium Manufacturing Firms in Korea".

Overall, the research is consistent. On the one hand, I found the paper to be generally well written and much of it well described. I felt confident that the authors conducted careful and thorough field processing. However, I would like to point out a few minor aspects to improve your manuscript

1. Title: it is suggested to shorten the title, it was a bit long.
2. The introduction can be improved by including a description of the originality and value of the article. That is, to what extent the article contributes to the advancement of knowledge.
3. It is advisable to improve the review of the background of the research and to include more recent references. I could hardly find any references from the last three years.
4. It is suggested that the discussion section of the results be improved by indicating how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies and the working hypotheses.

The content of the article is in line with the scope of the Journal. It is a new and original contribution. The article could be accepted for publication after minor modifications. No further revision is required.

In sum, I again thank you for giving me this opportunity to learn from your research project and I wish you the very best. Best Regards,

Author Response

26 April 2021

Prof. Dr. Marc A. Rosen

Editor-in-Chief

Sustainability

 

Dear Editor,

Please find enclosed my revised manuscript entitled “The Effect of Supply Chain Management Strategy on Operational and Financial Performance: Evidence from Small and Medium Manufacturing Firms in Korea,” which we are submitting for your consideration.

I have incorporated a number of changes based on the valuable comments by the reviewers as follows.

 

Reviewer 2

1. Title: it is suggested to shorten the title, it was a bit long.

Response: I thank the reviewer for pointing out this important issue. In lines 2–3, “The Effect of Supply Chain Management Strategy on Operational and Financial Performance.” I shortened the title.

 

 

1. The introduction can be improved by including a description of the originality and value of the article. That is, to what extent the article contributes to the advancement of knowledge.

Response: I thank the reviewer for this question. In lines 27–110, I modified the introduction as recommended by the reviewer.

 

1. It is advisable to improve the review of the background of the research and to include more recent references. I could hardly find any references from the last three years.

Response: I thank the reviewer for providing clarity with this comment. In lines 512–652, I added new updated references.

 

1. It is suggested that the discussion section of the results be improved by indicating how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies and the working hypotheses.

Response: Thank you for your comment. In lines 352–479, I had a discussion by linking the results of this study with previous studies and the working hypotheses.

 

I think that these revisions have helped to improve the quality of the paper. I hope that I have addressed the reviewer’s comments in a satisfactory manner.

I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

Rok Lee, Ph.D., Professor

Gyeongsang National University

501, Jinhudae-ro, Jinju, Gyeongsangnam-do, 52828, South Korea

Phone No: +82-10-6314-4004

Fax No: +82-55-772-2476

Email Address: [email protected]

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author(s):
Many thanks for considering my comments and suggestions, and congratulations for this new version.
I think that your article, in its current version, can be published.
Thanks again!