Accessing the Impact of FDI Goals on Risk Management Strategy and Management Performance in the Digital Era: A Case Study of SMEs in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic is interesting. However, I have some concerns.

1. The gap the study attempt to fill is not clear. What is the state of research in the field and how is the present study different from previous studies?

2. More flesh need to be added to the literature review. The theory supporting  this study need to be clearly elaborated.

3. What is the theoretical and managerial contributions of this study?

4. The methodology is not detail enough. How did you arrive at the sample size? What sampling method did the study employ? Provide some information about the measurement items. Justify the use of non established scale. Did authors conduct a pliot study? 

5. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors presented the most common topics: COVID-19 influence at economy,  SMEs - which have the great role in GDP increasing and FDIs which are important for knowledge transfer.

However, the Abstract, which consists of the background, purpose, presents gaps and findings, does not point the methodology and generally seems to be too long. From technical point firstly should be presented full name then abbreviation in the bracket, not as it is at abstract: FDI.

In section 3. Hypothesis and Analytical Model Authors wrote: „This section presents hypothesis and the theoretical background of this study.”

The background should be presented as first then the hypothesis, as  they should be concluded at the base of desk research and fulfilling the gap. And the Authors present it correctly in further paper’s part.

The literature is presented correctly, the references illustrate the undertaken topic.

To Sum up: the presented article is very good one,  constructed, undertaking interesting and nowadays topic, what makes it interesting for audience.

For additional improvement the paper’s quality the Authors may consider presented above conclusions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Introduction:

The authors must explain better the purpose of the paper and what are the contributions, compared to previous literature.   The literature review seems too brief. In conjunction with the points above, I would urge the authors to highlight more clearly their contribution(s): the gaps they are addressing.

The authors state that “foreign SMEs are divided into two types, i.e., market- and efficiency-seeking’. Please explain what this means, what are the differences. What means digital transformation and what are the implications?

The authors have to improve both theoretical discussions to support their expectations as well as the empirical design to test their hypotheses.

 

Analytical Model:

The authors must fundament the theoretical model better. I do not see any formula used to perform the analysis. What is the analyzed period?

Please explain the meaning of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). What means AVE in Table 2?

The selection of variables need to be documented. Why you choose these variables?

 

Discussion:

Are the findings in line with previous studies or not? Please explain.

Please show if the findings confirm the hypothesis or not.

Please work more on practical implications of your study. What should we do with your research? Why is it important?

The conclusions need to be rewritten to show more clearly what contribution of the manuscript you have. The authors needs to restructure their conclusions by following what problem they want to solve, what methodology they follow to run this problem, what results they obtain, and finally what contribution they present for more general conclusion.

This section should be improved with more specific information in the next draft. It reads as a fine summary now, but it lacks anything memorable. In particular, discussion of current limitations and future research is weak. I ask the authors to spend more time on this section and offer nuance about the limitations of their work as well as fruitful areas of potential study.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper has an original topic, and proposes a novel solution procedure. Suggestions:

1. Include economic theory as a basis for justification of the paper in the Introduction.

2. cite 3-5 additional literature sources.

3. Expand the theoretical and practical implications in the Conclusions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors mentioned face to face interview and questionnaire\survey. This appears to be confusing. Interviews are used for qualitative research but the present study is a quantitative study.

 

Please clarify

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper shows a great improvement and can be published. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx