How Knowledge Sharing Affects Business Model Innovation: An Empirical Study from the Perspective of Ambidextrous Organizational Learning
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see attachment
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The link between the article and sustainability should be better emphasized.
Authors should review some sentences, such as “We try to answer”. Maybe change “try” to “aim”.
There are some references that need to be adjusted to the journal style, such as “Xie (2015)” , “Bashir & Farooq (2019)” and “Nonaka (1994)” – there are several others.
Considering the data presented by the authors about the sampling, it seems that they used a non-probabilistic sampling by judgement. Is it correct? Please, clarify the sampling technique in the section 3.1.
In the sampling characterization, the authors state that the focus was on manufacturing and service industry. However, in table 1, there are 7 respondents from agriculture companies. Please, review this.
The software SPSS is written with capital letters.
The steps used in the validation as well as the values considered for it should be presented in the methods section. The references used to base the analysis. The current section of methods does not allow the replication of the research. All the steps should be explained and referenced.
What kind of SEM was used? PLS?
In the discussion section, the authors should not start presenting the implications of the study. Before it, a debate of their findings considering the literature on the theme should be presented. Part of this debate is presented, but it should not be described as theoretical implication.
The theoretical and practical implications must consider the consequences of the research findings to the theory and practice, respectively.
Excepting the item 1, the other paragraphs of the discussion are not clear about the debate between the research findings and the literature on the theme. A better connection should be developed by the authors in the text, explaining better the relationships.
The practical implications also must be re-evaluated considering the consequences of the research. What is not from the research findings should be presented with the references from where the information was taken.
Review the sentence “Aiming at the limitations of current research”, shouldn’t it be something such as “Considering the current state of art regarding…”?
If the sample is non-probabilistic, this should be clearly presented in the limitations section, that is, the findings cannot be generalized, although they can contribute with the debates.
The conclusion should not be presented as items. Additionally, the authors should present a final paragraph, presenting the final considerations of the research findings.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The purpose of the research is interesting and it is worth researching in the context of focusing on the internal factors driving business model innovation and the relationship between knowledge sharing, ambidextrous organizational learning, novelty-based and efficiency-based business model innovation.
I list my comments as follows
- I recommend re-checking the document
- Major language and reformulation errors need to be corrected
- In the methodology part, a series of important aspects were omitted for this study: the structure of the questionnaire, the number of questions asked, close-ended questions, open-ended questions, the number of items.
- The paragraph on line L326 begins "Factor analysis was performed by Spss19.0 software". I recommend arguing why the use of this factor analysis was necessary.
- A brief presentation of the methods to be used in the study.
- In the case of Table 3, were composite indices resulting from factor analysis used? It is not clear how those factors in Table 3 were obtained.
- Re-check the references list.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Innovation is a theme that has many unfoldings, which is why companies still have doubts about how to apply it on a daily basis and what results to expect. This research shows what impacts can be expected. However, I still have some doubts:
1 - Which innovation variables were researched and are part of the business model innovaiton? I think this would be interesting to show so that managers know how to assemble a BMI.
2 - Innovation does not bring only positive impacts, negative impacts can sometimes appear. Didn't you get reliable answers that show this? I think it would be important to say that there can be negative impacts.
To help with these two points, you can consult the article: doi:10.3390/joitmc6040179
In that paper, the authors do a very similar study and point out negative impacts, also from SPSS analysis.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors performed several improvements according to the previous comments. They provided robust and clear answers to the comments presented.
However, there are some points that still need to be addressed:
- References are missing in some important parts of the text (e.g., section 4.1, section 4.3) – the references used to base the procedures conducted and the parameters for validation should be presented in the text.
- The section 4 mixture parts of method aspects and results aspects. The text should be divided into these two sections. In the methods, the procedures and parameters are presented while in the results, the findings of the research are showed. If the separation can not be done, allocate the information in the results section.
- The section 5 instead of results should be presented as discussion. The results are presented in the previous section.
- The conclusion is missing. The authors should present a final paragraph, presenting the final considerations of the research findings. Limitations and Future Research can also be allocated in the conclusion section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The author addressed all the comments I have made. Congratulations on your work.
