Setting the Grounds for the Transition from Business Analytics to Artificial Intelligence in Solving Supply Chain Risk
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Here are my comments on the paper, Setting the Grounds for the Transition from Business Analytics to Artificial Intelligence in Solving Supply Chain Risk, that was submitted to Sustainability.
1. Line 4, at the end of the authors, remove the comma
2. The citations throughout the paper are not correct. Sustainability employs the use of [1}, {2} etc. Sustainability does not use the (Surname, Year).
3. The introduction of the paper is quite plodding. The authors need to shorten the introduction for the readers.
4. The literature review is also quite plodding. The authors may want to breakdown the literature review into subsections to make it easier for the readers to follow the review of the literature.
5. Line 146, what do the authors mean by the second chapter?
6. Lines 378-411, the authors seem to attempt to summarize the review of the literature. The authors may want to condense the content from lines 378-411 to give the readers a succinct summary of the review of the literature.
7. Lines 423-425. I found it confusing that the authors say qualitative research and empirical research. Which is it?
8. Line 467 The case company and research partners joined forces in February 2019 and are developing-- this should be rewritten as The case company and research partners joined forces in February 2019 and developing
9. Line 495 summarise should be summarised
10. SCR coding., Great variations in how managers described SCR, what specific activities 505 they included in SCRM and how they emphasised each practice became clearIn the first---- should be rewritten as SCR coding. Great variations in how managers described SCR, what specific activities they included in SCRM and how they emphasised each practice became clear in the first
11. Line 533-- what is meant by chapter?
12. In figure 3, Categories and Subcategories of SCR data coding, how are these boxes measured? Each of these boxes are different sizes
13. Line 589-590, not sure what this means? The authors would need to clarify this statement.
14. Line 602, add a comma after the parentheses.
15. Lines 615-617 not sure how empirical comes into this? The authors need to clarify this statement.
16. Line 639 what is meant by chapter?
17. Lines 685-687, precisely how would a firm know this? The use of data analytics by firms is quite meager at best. Many firms do not have the functioning capacity to undertake data analytics.
18. Lines 695-696, perhaps true. How would a firm really know such a probability distribution?
19. Line 743 what are some of the methods of deep learning that can be applied?
20. How does this paper fit under the scope of sustainability? A careful discussion about how the content of this paper fits under the theme of sustainability would be useful.
21. The authors conducted interviews in this paper. Did the authors conduct a pilot study before commencing with the interviews? The pilot study could just select 5 experts on the topic, and they provide the appropriate feedback on the proposed interview questions. Did the authors prepare a guidebook for the interview process?
21. The references do not adhere to the style of Sustainability. The authors would need to carefully revise the references.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors aim to explore and define the conceptual grounds for transitioning from business analysis (BA) to artificial intelligence (AI) in supply chain risk management (SCRM). Risk events, risk-event indicators, data-processing rules and algorithms, analytical techniques, and risk event probability forecasts are the principal building blocks used to define the conceptual AI-suitable SCRM structure. Specific risk events and related risk identification indicators are obtained through empirical research.
The authors' research can provide a reference for transitioning from BA to AI in managing supply-chain risks, which is constructional, but, I have the following concerns:
1. There are only one or two representatives interviewed at each node. Are the interview data convincing?
2. There are too many references cited in the third chapter. Some contents of Figure 3 and Figure 4 overlap. Anyhow, the paper can be more concise.
3. Is the change from BA to AI theoretically saturated with the supply chain risk impact model? It is suggested to conduct reliability and validity test.
4. If Figure 3 is kept, please describe it in more detail, such as what the size and color of the mark represent.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This topic is interesting and the authors could provide an attractive methodology. However, I have some questions, suggestions/recommendations to be taken into account carefully.
1. The writing of the paper needs a lot of improvement in terms of grammar, spelling, and presentations. The paper needs careful English polishing since there are many typos and poorly written sentences.
Some examples are as the following:
* Check the usage of the commas carefully.
* Check the articles including "a", "an" and "the".
* Check the required and unneeded blank spaces.
2. Please check Figures 1-6. Authors should improve it in terms of resolution
3. The literature review is brief. Some of the new papers (2020 and 2021) could be briefly described. Also, a general overview of the topic could also be included. For that, the following are suggested https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-021-05711-7, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2021.03.075, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130056, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-022-04795-0 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2005.12.006
4. Avoid repetitions. I can see several repetitions at different places in this paper. Thorough proofreading is required.
5. No managerial and theoretical implications of the findings is narrated in the paper.
6. Limitations of the model and solution approach are not discussed.
7. Authors can add several sensitivity analyses on other parameters
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Manuscript: Setting the Grounds for the Transition from Business Analytics to Artificial Intelligence in Solving Supply Chain Risk
Structure and logic of manuscript; structure and logic research problems elaboration in the paper are correct.
Abstract; Well-structured with clear aims, scope of analysis, method applied and brief results.
Introduction and literature overview; rigorous elaborated introduction with problem setting, aims of research also with clearly stated knowledge contribution. Very thorough relevant literature overview and completed with conceptualization of AI-based SCRM solutions and SCRM structure suitable for AI-based SCR identification and thereafter with derived research gaps.
Method of research; consistent with clear assumptions and rigorous elaboration of the two-stage model, starting from interviews and through analytical investigation of results.
Results: in-depth analysis of indicators and applied to pre-defined five principal blocks: risk events, risk- event indicators, data-processing rules and algorithms, analytical techniques, and risk event probability forecasts.
Discussion: multifaced and with in-depth reference to the literature.
Conclusions: conclusions are relevant and sufficient.
Summing-up I have no major or minor remarks (pls correct minor mistake in reference list, no 88 and 89) to this valuable manuscript and appreciate proficient writing style, paper editing, and recommend this paper for publishing.
I congratulate the Authors for a decent job and rigorous research of the important and complex problem. It is highly recommended to continue the research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for your responses to improve your paper. Congratulations on addressing these comments to improve this paper.
