Guideline and Strategies of Textile Industry on the Sustainable Development of Benin
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is about the sustainable development of the textile industry in Benin, by applying Analytic Hierarchy Process and SWOT methods to formulate strategic recommendations.
The Title does not match with the abstract. The abstract refer the “this research situates strategic recommendations 7 to address its strengths and weaknesses” and the title is about impact.
The abstract contains statements that need to be validated, and scores that are not possible to understand before reading the manuscript.
The Introduction gives an overview of the exports and industrial data about Africa textiles and Benin, but has several paragraphs with statements about governmental actions, policies and authors’ statements without any reference, or supported by any evidence. In addition, nor the research gap is not identified neither the contribution of the manuscript to the knowledge realm of the field. In addition there are statements in the Introduction that are not scientific “Long established manufacturing companies may want to reconsider their existing approach in light of the finding of this study. Furthermore, the government and social organizations have a clear vision of dealing with this principle, taking into account their experience. Insomuch in the sub-region can be the foundation for future research; decision-making support for government and companies to aid the country's economic value.”
The literature review lacks the analysis of similar studies on other countries and regions, without any analysis of the reliability of the used methods for the type of analysis and conclusions taken. There are also several statements without reference.
The method used to acquire information is fairly explained.
The conclusions add studies and statements not validated by the study.
Author Response
Thank you for all your comments in improving my research paper, as a beginning research student I really appreciated it.
I have tried to improve the work according to the comments you suggested and I hope you will accept them.
I also wanted to point out that I come from a country where it is difficult to get official information, and also very little scientific research which has made it difficult to back up some of the statements with references. I sincerely hope that this kind of work will help future research.
Once again, thank you.
Reviewer 2 Report
· The contribution of the article is not detailed in the introduction.
· The choice of methodology is not fully justified.
· The discussion is weak partial. The central objective of the discussion to be the contrast of the results obtained with the results of the previous literature and explain the reason for the similarity or difference between the findings.
Author Response
Thank you for all your comments in improving my research paper, as a beginning research student I really appreciated it.
I have tried to improve the work according to the comments you suggested and I hope you will accept them.
My result part seems a little weak because i was trying do not talk too much and just make some explanation by the result and show it from figures. But i tried to improve it as i can
Once again, thank you.
Reviewer 3 Report
Figures 1 and 2 needs to be redrawn or change. Please check references for consistency and format structure. Overall, the study is well structured and well written.
Author Response
Thank you for all your comments in improving my research paper, as a beginning research student I really appreciated it.
I have tried to improve the work according to the comments you suggested and I hope you will accept them.
Once again, thank you.
Reviewer 4 Report
Sustainability is a prestigious journal and, as such, requires that published research is of the same quality level. In general, the present work is exciting, and there are not so many publications in the area. In this context, I recommend the article for publication in the Sustainability journal. Still, I encourage authors to carry out a thorough review of the work, in the points listed below:
- On line 111 the word “growth” must start with a capital letter.
- Figure 4 can be improved by replacing curved arrows with straight arrows to form a triaxial diagram.
- Check the numerical scores, in some places the period is replaced by a comma.
- I recommend increasing the font of the words in the image in figure 6.
Finally, I congratulate the researchers for their research and whimsical work.
Author Response
Thank you for all your comments in improving my research paper, as a beginning research student I really appreciated it.
I have tried to improve the work according to the comments you suggested and I hope you will accept them but for the arrow i tried its doesn t look good so i didnt change .
Once again, thank you.
Reviewer 5 Report
According to the Sustainable Development Commission of the UK, "Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
This paper does not really focus on sustainable development. Therefore, I do not think Sustainability is a proper outlet for this study. An industry specific journal would be better.
Another thing that caught my attention is that the authors mention poor management. It would be better if they would substantiate this. What do they mean by this? Is it poor management of the free market players or government?
The authors suggest that there should be government intervention but again this needs more substantiation. They give examples of government intervention cases from other countries but there needs to be specific examples of what exactly the government needs to do and how and why it is going to work.
In addition, the study would greatly benefit from professional proof reading service.
Here are a couple of examples:
Line 19: Cotton is considered one of Africa's leading experts in the textile industry.
(Cotton is not a person so it cannot be an expert).
Line 26: Benin's exportation relies on cotton production
Line 131: Benin has not seized this opportunity and improved its market share.
(Perhaps it should be: Benin has not seized this opportunity to improve its market share. )
Author Response
Thank you for all your comments in improving my research paper, as a beginning research student I really appreciated it.
I have tried to improve the work according to the comments you suggested and I hope you will accept them.
I decided to submit my paper here because I saw some work published in the same field in this reputable journal and I want mine too as a young and new in research.
Once again, thank you.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript was improved, but still needs improvements.
There are a few typo errors to be corrected . English should be improved in general.
The title should not include IMPACT. What is proposed are strategies and guidelines to improve performance.
The gap is clearer but not well stated. The author should make evident the need for strategies and guidelines, and showing that the existing documents/papers are not enough. The text used by the authors assumes the usefulness of this work, without making evident 1) this kind of work is necessary 2) it does not exist elsewhere (the existing ones do not satisfy 1). This text should be changed in the direction of 1) and 2): “The findings are subjected to a rigorous review of publications and national policies. Therefore, the contribution of this current research is manifold. It will specifically assist 78 start-up manufacturing businesses in determining which strategy companies should pursue to solve manufacturing issues. Long established manufacturing companies may want 80 to reconsider their existing approach in light of the finding of this study. Furthermore, the government and social organizations can “learn” from this finding improve their approach on how to deal with the management of textile sector while enhancing sustainable development.”
Quality of figures must be improved.
Author Response
Thanks again for your comments i try again to improve it as i can
Reviewer 5 Report
The authors need to understand that their age has nothing to do with the academic review process. Them being young researchers does not grant them the automatic privilege to be published. The paper is poorly written and does not have the merit to be considered scholarly work. The very first sentence reads: "Cotton is considered one of Africa's leading experts in the textile industry. " Even though I specifically pointed it out, the authors failed to correct it. Cotton is not a person so it cannot be an expert. The paper is filled with similar logical and grammar errors making it very difficult to follow not to mention extremely unpleasant to read. It needs major editing.
I do not see anything pertaining to environmental sustainability. I am afraid I have no choice but to recommend rejection.
Author Response
Ok understood your point of view and thanks again
