Contemporary Management Practice Applying the Dynamic Absorptive Capacity Measurement Model (PM⁴AC) for Improved Business Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract

            The abstract shows the aim of the paper which is to develop a model for quantifying dynamic absorptive capacity, which will be capable of identifying new traces of external knowledge, adsorb it as internal knowledge, and applying the same for business purposes. The rationale behind developing this model has also been marked by this paper abstract, which presents poverty, less complexity, and low competitiveness as challenges for developing mechanisms to adapt the Columbian production sector to a globalized environment. The final outcomes and methodology of the paper are also briefly summarized in the abstract.

Introduction

            The introduction of the paper clarifies some basic concepts like dynamic capacity, resource-based vision, dynamic absorptive capacity, and potential absorptive capacity. The section has also explained the aim and scope of the paper.  

Literature Review

            The paper does not contain any literature review. It is purely an analytical paper where the PM4AC model has been proposed, which is an absorptive capacity model, followed by validation of the same.

Methodology

            Although the paper does not have a separate methodology section, it has mentioned the methods it has used to develop and validate the PM4AC model in the abstract, introduction, results, and conclusion sections. Data has been collected through questionnaires from 148 small and medium-sized Columbian enterprises. Structural equation modeling (SEM) has been used for determining the subsets of dynamic absorptive capacity, and analysis dimension.

Results

            The results have been presented in this paper through tables, and a diagram of the PM4AC model. The said form of illustration of the paper outcomes has made the model easily understandable. The validation of the model has also been done by constructing a table, where each dimension of the model is related to interview outcomes and alignment with the PM4AC measure. A table of model-fit measurements has also been shown in the results section of the paper. Each model-fit measurement has been interpreted for better understanding. A diagram presenting a blueprint of the PM4AC model is constructed which shows the variables and their associated dimensions. In simpler words, the conceptual diagram of the PM4AC model has clarified the basic concept of the model. The variable factor loadings for each dimension of the model, namely, acquisition, assimilation, transformation, and exploitation have been presented in the form of a table. Therefore, the results section of the paper has successfully clarified the final outcomes of the application of the model and its validation.

Conclusion

 

            The conclusion section has summarized the major relevant findings of the paper, such as the name of the model proposed, its validation, and its application in the business environments. The section has also highlighted the kind of approach used for determining the variables and outcomes of the application of the model. It has clearly mentioned that the paper has used a quantitative approach for researching the background of the model and developing a valid judgment regarding the validation of the model.  The contributions or applications of the PM4AC model in the business discipline are also got highlighted in this concluding section of the research paper. 

Point 1: I recommend adding a section of literature review that will dealing with the research

 

Point 2: The section Introduction needs improvement. Authors must be adding more information about the study area. For a so large subject the presentation of study area is brief and is mentioning generally only.

 

 

Point 3: The references must enrich   .

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we appreciate the time to read the article, and the comments. Therefore, according to your recommendations, the changes were made in the document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Colleagues,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript and learn about the case in Colombia. 

Despite of different advantages of your research, you will need to improve your work significantly. 

1. Few first sentences in your abstract are not understandable and what you are going to say to the audience. Unclear the conclusion in the abstract too.

2. The introduction requires redevelopment as now it is looking like part of the theoretical framework and especially you chapter 2 small it will be good to add it in chapter 2 and work with the abstract. 

3. The literature analysis is very, very modest. It will be good to add more modern sources that will add to the theory more insights from different authors. 

4. The results should be better described as now authors think that readers must get inside, however it is not working like this. For readers, everything must be clear. 

5. The conclusions are modest and just rewrite the text. 

All the best

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we appreciate the time to read the article, and the comments. Therefore, according to your recommendations, the changes were made in the document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear author/s, this study introduces significant topics in the sustainability field. Although this study is full of potential, to position it among the best studies on sustainability and corporate responsibility issues, the authors must direct their efforts to address current weaknesses. I will try to summarize my main concerns below. First, the authors the authors should better clarify: - current gap in the literature and the choice of the theory that supports this study; - concepts of Corporate Social Responsibility, Social Media and Business Strategy, as well as the link between them. In more detail, the authors should be to be able to provide a clearer explanation and well thorough about the role of Followership Behavior into relationship among these three dimensions of the firms, mostly when we want to identify sustainable organizations. On this point, the authors can find recent articles published. In add, you can see: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1873, https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1446, you may also consider the following articles https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-10-2021-0368, https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-09-2021-0097. Second, the methodology section should include more details about the analysis. The authors have to clarify the aims and scope of the typology study. Besides, they have to provide details concerning the criteria followed to choose the techniques for analysis. You may also consider the following article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070. Third, the discussion of results is well done, however I would like to read a more critical discussion. The authors should make a further effort on this point. Fourth, the new conceptual framework and research propositions need to be better addressed: I suggest reading this article https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.12.006. It can support the authors to improve the paper. Finally, the paper should be read from a native English speaker. Please, remove some redundant sentences and spelling errors.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we appreciate the time to read the article, and the comments. Therefore, according to your recommendations, the changes were made in the document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

I would like to point out at the outset that I have no comments as to the scientific value of the article. However, he believes that the specificity of management science implies the need to search for specific solutions that can be used in practice. In my opinion, the authors of the article showed knowledge of quantitative methods, but they completely forgot about the reader, who probably will not be interested in studying mathematic formulas. The article does not answer the simple question: What does it mean? What can I find out?

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we appreciate the time to read the article, and the comments. Therefore, according to your recommendations, the changes were made in the document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Though paper has potential, it is not very strong. Opportunity should be given to authors to improve the paper.  

Paper is short and needs to be more descriptive. Authors are asked to substantially improve paper. Paper must be suitable to read for the diverse audience of the journal. First of all it's necessary to define the aim of the paper in abstract and introduction. In the methodology section you must explain the method used, the data, the sample. In this section we define the hypotheses or the research questions. Why specifically 148 respondents?

References must be complete. References in the list should be complete in respect of Author Name, Year, Title of Article, Journal Name, Vol., Issue No., Page nos.

Literature review is too short and is poor. Improve literature review by referring recent developments. Refer a few articles published in journals like Sustainability, IJMFA etc. I ask you to refer: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/joitmc5030072, https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0972150921996011, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19020842, https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-06-2019-0129, https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072244, https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJIPM.2021.117175

There must be harmonious relation amongst all sections of the paper starting from Abstract till Conclusion. Structure of the paper should be: Abstract, 1. Introduction, 2. Literature review (Structured Literature Review), 3. Research Questions, 3. Methodology, 4. Discussion, Analysis of the results, 5. Conclusions, limitations and future directions, References

Careful proofreading is required.  

Implement all changes and resubmit the camera-ready paper.

Best Wishes!

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we appreciate the time to read the article, and the comments. Therefore, according to your recommendations, the changes were made in the document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for revision.

Reviewer 4 Report

Paper is ready to be published.

Reviewer 5 Report

Please address all the earlier reviewer comments and resubmit the paper. Review comments are not addressed properly and fully. 

Submit Camera ready paper.