Investigating the Impact of International Markets and New Digital Technologies on Business Innovation in Emerging Markets
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is good, it has a good structure, method, data collected and analyzed properly.
I recommend mentioning the limitations of the research.
Author Response
In response to the first dear reviewer:
- The first reviewer's comment :” I recommend mentioning the limitations of the research.”
1.1. Response: revision was done; research limitations are highlighted in yellow.
Reviewer 2 Report
The introduction is well argued, but a final section is missing describing what follows, both in terms of structure and content. No further bibliographic references are considered necessary in this case.
The Literature Review is extensive and adequate, however the structure is not recommended in this type of study. The hypotheses are recommended to be found within the methodology section. Both this section and that of "Materials and Methods" should be reviewed in its structure, since although they are clear and complete in their content, they are not as clear or effective in their structure. It is recommended, for example, to review the structure of the following article (you may include a citation of this):
Oltra-Badenes, R., Gil-Gomez, H., Guerola-Navarro, V., & Vicedo, P. (2019). Is It Possible to Manage the Product Recovery Processes in an ERP? Analysis of Functional Needs. Sustainability, 11 (16), 4380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164380
The hypotheses are well defined and well constructed according to the objective of the study. They are sufficient and representative. The objective of the study and the methodology followed are perfectly clear.
The Results section is totally explicit and clear, both in content and in writing and structure.
Regarding the Conclusions section, it re recommends a greater space for the discussion of results and greater detail in the conclusions obtained, since they seem very generic and somewhat scattered.
The bibliography is sufficient and sufficiently representative of the analyzed studies, and perfectly supports the research discourse.
In general, a clearer discourse on the link between the research and the object of the Journal "Sustainability" is recommended.
Author Response
In response to the second dear reviewer:
- The second reviewer's comment:” The introduction is well argued, but a final section is missing describing what follows, both in terms of structure and content. No further bibliographic references are considered necessary in this case.
The Literature Review is extensive and adequate, however the structure is not recommended in this type of study. The hypotheses are recommended to be found within the methodology section. Both this section and that of "Materials and Methods" should be reviewed in its structure, since although they are clear and complete in their content, they are not as clear or effective in their structure. It is recommended, for example, to review the structure of the following article (you may include a citation of this):
Oltra-Badenes, R., Gil-Gomez, H., Guerola-Navarro, V., & Vicedo, P. (2019). Is It Possible to Manage the Product Recovery Processes in an ERP? Analysis of Functional Needs. Sustainability, 11 (16), 4380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164380”
2.1. Response: hypotheses were put in method and highlighted in green concerning reviewer comment. The final part of the introduction was revised and highlighted in green in line with the sent sample. Also, the recommended reference was used and highlighted with green in the conclusion.
- The second reviewer's comment:” Regarding the Conclusions section, it re recommends a greater space for the discussion of results and greater detail in the conclusions obtained, since they seem very generic and somewhat scattered.
The bibliography is sufficient and sufficiently representative of the analyzed studies, and perfectly supports the research discourse.
In general, a clearer discourse on the link between the research and the object of the Journal "Sustainability" is recommended.”
3.2. Conclusion was revised and highlighted in green based on the content relevance approach and results extracted from the sustainability context.
