Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The main focus concerns how to  predict the success of an innovation in SMEs.

  (Eggers, 2020). à instead names, please, insert number of position in References.

In Section 2.2 lack of explanation/discussion on what the innovation is , although the section title suggests that it should be here.

„For our research, user statistics, the number of smartphones from 2015 to 2021 in 332 Mexico, and sales explicitly made by SMEs were considered „

Lack of justification that smartphone is innovation,

 

„Utilizando la 341 metodología de Bass en combinación con el paquete estadístico R, los resultados de la 342 estimación de los parámetros obtenidos para los usuarios de teléfono inteligente, así como 343 las ventas en general (todas las empresas) y en las ventas en particular de las Pymes de 344 estos dispositivos tecnológicos se muestran en la tabla No.1”

For sure it is not in English

 

„Parameters estimations”. Row 346 – how were the parameters estimated ???

 

In discussion/conclusions, authors should come back to questions and hypotheses , and answer the 2 questions, as well as verify that 2 hypotheses.

 

Very poor paper, I would suggest to reconsider and radically change the research. 

Author Response

Attach you will find our responses in a file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper aims to investigate the methodology to predict the success of an innovation in SMEs. For that purpose, the authors considered the Bass Model for pre-launch forecasting new product demand and the diffusion of new products in Mexican SMEs. Thus, the objective of their study and their proposed model is to represent the level of new distribution developments in a simple mathematical function that has elapsed since the introduction of new products. Their findings indicates that SMEs in emerging markets represent an effective means of supporting innovation.

The following are some suggestions for improvement:

·       *  In the latest paragraphs of Introduction section, the authors stated that the research question they addressed in the paper is how Bass Model can be used to support and improve the innovation process in SMEs, while also seeking to provide additional information for managers of SMEs on the importance of the Bass Model to enhance the function of innovation and the launch of new products. I would like to see here some arguments of why Bass Model is relevant for the innovation process in SMEs? Which are the arguments of the authors to propose this research question?

·    *     In Section 3.2. Hypothesis, where hypotheses are developed, the authors said that the findings found should refute the hypotheses. My question is then that they propose these hypotheses if the findings should refute the hypothesis?

·     *  In the same Section 3.2. Hypothesis, the authors said that to formulate the hypotheses, we worked on the possible variables that impact a new product's performance and future sales, particularly in four cities in Mexico. Which are the cities? I did not find any reference to these cities. Why only four? Why not five or three? In addition, which are the possible variables that impact a new product's performance and future sales? Perhaps a clear mention of these possible variable would better help the reader of the study to clearly understand the study’s purpose and methodology. Perhaps a summarizing table with data used, variables tested would be very helpful for the readers.

·      *  In the section 4. Empirical Analysis and Hypothesis Test Results, the authors said that “The companies analyzed in this study are SMEs that offer manufactured products and services and represent Mexico's most significant sales volume”. In my opinions, it is too ambiguous for the reader to understand the sample and the pertinence of the results obtained. How many SMEs are included in the sample? How were they selected? Based on what criteria?

·      *  In the same section 4. Empirical Analysis and Hypothesis Test Results, the authors said that “For our research, user statistics, the number of smartphones from 2015 to 2021 in 332 Mexico, and sales explicitly made by SMEs were considered”. Why these variables and not others? Please justify?

·      *  From line 341-345 there is a paragraph in another language than English: « Utilizando la  metodología de Bass en combinación con el paquete estadístico R, los resultados de la estimación de los parámetros obtenidos para los usuarios de teléfono inteligente, así como  las ventas en general (todas las empresas) y en las ventas en particular de las Pymes de estos dispositivos tecnológicos se muestran en la tabla No.1 » Please revise and translate into English

·    *    In conclusion, for me it is not very clear what sample the authors used, what arguments are the basis for the selection of their variables, the research methodology is too generally explained, and I think all of these potential uncertainties about their research should be better clarified.

 

Good luck with your paper!

·       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Attach you will find our responses

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Still very poor paper,  lack of deep and wide  analysis of modelled phenomena. 

I would propose One Sentence title ,

You can explain evidence in the text

„However, despite these findings, surprisingly little is known about how SMEs can better cope with crises using a better innovation management model. Therefore, the principal contribution of this research is to fill this research gap by expanding the body of knowledge in the field and providing more evidence on this phenomenon.”

The problem is that you are providing the paper to Journal distributed all over the world, therefore writing about the SMEs and their innovativeness in crises  in that way , looks unprofessionally. It requires explanation and justification, particularly if you wish to formulate the research gap.

Now the research gap is not clear and it must be improved. May be it would be better to write about South America, or just Mexico,  as in USA or in Europe SMEs can be in quite good conditions,

Anyway you should give evidence on the situation in the various countries and discuss it more precisely.

„Figure 2. Adoption Patterns.” – even if it is authors’ work please, explain source of data and discuss the resulted charts

„Pymes sales „-- ?? please, explain what is the pymes sales

„Figure 3. Sales history and Forecast in México SME´s. (‘000´s)”  -- please explain (‘000´s) 

„Source: The authors with RStudio software.”  – May be just  „own work” , anyway source of data is important, authors should provide it.

„Source: The authors with sales data from Statista , „ -  change the style , as it sounds strange

Author Response

Attach you will find my revisions to your comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In general, my comments were addressed satisfactorily. But I still have some minor observations:

1.      Some formulations used by the authors are so strange. For instance, for the figures at the Source, the authors said Source: The authors with sales data from Statista (Fig 3). It sounds so strange…

2.      I have some doubts about the formulation of research questions, specifically the first one. The authors mentioned that the first research question was: how do we develop an econometric model that supports SMEs' innovation? Also, the authors assume that the Bass model could be a management tool to improve the new product launch strategy, and the same model could establish future scenarios for innovation with some accuracy. But the authors applied that model only on SMEs from Mexico cities. I am not so sure that this hypothesis is generally valable for SME’s from all over the world. Perhaps, for the SMEs from Europe the situation could be different. So, I suggest refining the research questions and hypotheses considering the specifics of the sample on which the analysis was made.

Author Response

Attach you will find our responses to your kind comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf