Next Article in Journal
Development and Evaluation of a Prototype Self-Propelled Crop Sprayer for Agricultural Sustainability in Small Farms
Previous Article in Journal
Damage Simulation Analysis of Canal Concrete Lining Plates Based on Temperature-Stress-Water Load Coupling
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Supply Chain Relationship Quality and Corporate Technological Innovations: A Multimethod Study

Sustainability 2022, 14(15), 9203; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159203
by Xulong Dai 1,2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3:
Sustainability 2022, 14(15), 9203; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159203
Submission received: 15 June 2022 / Revised: 13 July 2022 / Accepted: 25 July 2022 / Published: 27 July 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Author analyzed the influencing factors of technology innovations in supply chain enterprises by using Bootstrapping and the fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis method. The manuscript is carefully written; however, it is recommended to make some revisions before it can be published:

1. The manuscript was submitted to Sustainability journal. Therefore, author has to do more efforts in explaining how manuscript is related to sustainability.

2. Abbreviation “fsQCA” should be defined the first time it appears in the abstract. Moreover, it’s recommended not to use abbreviation in the title of manuscript.

3. In Discussion section authors should discuss how results can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies.

4. Separate Conclusions could be added to the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments, the manuscript was revised based on your suggestions. Please see the attachment.

 

Best wishes

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author,

thank you for the opportunity to review your contribution to the Sustainability journal, MDPI. I ask you to take my recommendations as notes to improve your research and make your journal contribution more interesting and accurate for readers.

                    Figure 1 - The author could provide a more detailed description and draw attention to the expressive value of the image. I recommend adding links/edges on the left side of the picture, what is related to what, and how it follows when the cycle is created.

 

Line 522, it is more appropriate to divide "5. Discussion and Conclusions" into two separate chapters. It would be great if the author included the limits and benefits of this research in the conclusion. In order to increase normative support, it would be worthwhile to look at the given issue with regard to management systems according to ISO standards: supply chain security: ISO 28001:2007 Security management systems for the supply chain — Best practices for implementing supply chain security, assessments and plans — Requirements and guidance or family 28000 as well as ISO 30401:2018 Knowledge management systems — Requirements family ISO 56000.

Yours sincerely

Your reviewer

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments, the manuscript was revised based on your suggestions. Please see the attachment.

 

Best wishes

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article deals with a comprehensive analysis of the influencing factors of technology innovations in supply chain enterprises and the application of supply chain relationship quality (SCQR). The main focus lay on the automotive industry. The research goal is to explore the influence of SCRQ on enterprise technology innovations based on the framework of knowledge resource orchestration. The topic is up-to-date, covering wider aspects of supply chain optimality. 

A strong part of the presented research could be considered the research objectivism, based on the almost 300 questionnaires, with a high level of returns (almost 70%). 

A part that could be improved could be considered the methodological part. The methodology represents the overall research approach, but the hypothesis is already described in chapter 2, not within the 3 chapter, where probably overall methodological framework should be described.

At the same time, hypotheses 1 and 2, could be considered trivial, which is not necessary to confirm or falsify by the research, because it is possible to positively answer in advance, without any further research. For this reason, there is recommended to improve the methodological part, together with the reformulation of the hypothesis, and chapters 4 and 5. 

Thank you.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments, the manuscript was revised based on your suggestions. Please see the attachment.

 

Best wishes

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop