Analysis and Evaluation of Business Continuity Measures Employed in Critical Infrastructure during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The subject matter of the article is extremely interesting. This type of analysis is needed and adds value to science and business practice. First of all, maintaining business continuity under unpredictable and destructive environmental conditions has become an important aspect of the organization's functioning in recent years.
The concept of the article, its structure, methodological assumptions, conducted research, analysis of the results - are of a high quality and correspond to the standards for this type of studies.
I recommend the article for publication after introducing the comments of the reviewer / reviewers.
I have three comments that I think will make the publication even better:
1. The bibliography should be rebuilt. At the moment, the list is alphabetical, while: references must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including table captions and figure legends).
2. The author / authors distinguished part "4. Discussion" in the structure of the article, however, it contains statements and analyzes relating only to the author's own research. This, in turn, fits better with "3. Results". Therefore, it is worth moving these analyzes to point 3 and expand part 4 with comparisons of the results with the studies of other authors (discussions can be combined with conclusions.
3. I think that it is worth extending the list of the quoted sources of literature - just changing part of the discussion and recalling the considerations of other researchers, indicating future directions of research. You can combine discussions and conclusions
Author Response
1. The bibliography should be rebuilt. At the moment, the list is alphabetical, while: references must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including table captions and figure legends) - It was done as recommended.
2. The author / authors distinguished part "4. Discussion" in the structure of the article, however, it contains statements and analyzes relating only to the author's own research. This, in turn, fits better with "3. Results". Therefore, it is worth moving these analyzes to point 3 and expand part 4 with comparisons of the results with the studies of other authors (discussions can be combined with conclusions. - It was done as recommended. The discussion (section 5) has been completely rewritten and now presents a summary view of the research results in the context of social responsibility and sustainability development.
3. I think that it is worth extending the list of the quoted sources of literature - just changing part of the discussion and recalling the considerations of other researchers, indicating future directions of research. You can combine discussions and conclusions - It was done as recommended. The references were supplemented with 11 new items of literature, used to describe the context of the conducted research, but also to discuss the obtained results and indicate directions for further research.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to read your work on continuity protection measures applied during the COVID-19 pandemic. The article addresses an important topic from a standard perspective and puts foreward some interesting facts.
However there are some suggestions for improvement>
1. There is a lack of literature reviewed on the topic, and a direct transition from the introduction to the methods. As the paper is mostly descriptive more literature is neccessary to justify the study. Consider including many papers made on the topic of company operations and sustainability during COVID, such as
COVID-19 Pandemic Implications for Corporate Sustainability and Society: A Literature Review
Assessing the Recovery Rate of Inbound Tourist Arrivals Amid COVID-19: Evidence from the Maldives
Impact of entrepreneurial leadership and bricolage on job security and sustainable economic performance: an empirical study of Croatian companies during COVID-19 pandemic
2. What are the most important contributions to the scholarship? Make sure they are well illustrated. As the paper is quite descriptive the theoretical contributions need to be significant.
3. The discussion and conclusion are also quite scarce with only containing the summary table which is more suitable for the results section. The discussion of the results should be performed in the context of past studies.
4. Some standard parts of a research article are missing, such as future studies and limitations. Structure of certain paragraphs that are presented in the form of bullet points should be reconsidred.
Author Response
1. There is a lack of literature reviewed on the topic, and a direct transition from the introduction to the methods. As the paper is mostly descriptive more literature is neccessary to justify the study. Consider including many papers made on the topic of company operations and sustainability during COVID, such as
- COVID-19 Pandemic Implications for Corporate Sustainability and Society: A Literature Review
- Assessing the Recovery Rate of Inbound Tourist Arrivals Amid COVID-19: Evidence from the Maldives
- Impact of entrepreneurial leadership and bricolage on job security and sustainable economic performance: an empirical study of Croatian companies during COVID-19 pandemic
It was done as recommended. A new section (section 2) entitled "Systematization of the relevant literature" was added. References were supplemented with new 11 literature items.
2. What are the most important contributions to the scholarship? Make sure they are well illustrated. As the paper is quite descriptive the theoretical contributions need to be significant.
It was done as recommended. The most important findings, conclusions and implications of the research are presented and highlighted in the last two sections: Discussion (section 5 - completely rewritten) and Conclusions (section 6 - largely rewritten).
3. The discussion and conclusion are also quite scarce with only containing the summary table which is more suitable for the results section. The discussion of the results should be performed in the context of past studies.
It was done as recommended. The section 5 - Discussion was completely rewritten, including new references to other research on the topic.
4. Some standard parts of a research article are missing, such as future studies and limitations. Structure of certain paragraphs that are presented in the form of bullet points should be reconsidred.
It was done as recommended. The text has been largely rewritten and supplemented with comments and conclusions. Limitations of the presented research and an indication of further research directions were included in Section 6 - Conclusions.
Reviewer 3 Report
The topic of the paper is interesting, and the methodology seems fine, however, I have some concerns regarding the relevance of the topic to the journal's aims.
1- Authors should clearly define the aim and objective of the research. What are they going to say regarding contribution to practice/knowledge?
2- "Critical infrastructure" should be clearly defined. Also, authors should clarify their intention from this concept in the BCM context.
3- The literature review section is not provided comprehensively to let us know the contributions.
4- In table 1, what does the "original study" mean? The structure of the methodology section should be revised and supported with confident references.
5- The discussion section does not have enough analysis of the results and clear managerial/applicable results. Please elaborate on this section.
6- Authors are invited to develop the future research section.
7- Please do profession proofread to improve the quality of writing.
Author Response
1- Authors should clearly define the aim and objective of the research. What are they going to say regarding contribution to practice/knowledge?
It was done as recommended. Two research questions were defined in Section 1 Introduction. The logical and methodological framework of the entire research focuses on answering these questions. Conclusions and implications, which are contributions to science and practice, are highlighted especially in Section 5 Discussion (completely rewritten) and Section 6 Conclusions (largely rewritten).
2- "Critical infrastructure" should be clearly defined. Also, authors should clarify their intention from this concept in the BCM context.
It was done as recommended in the section 1 Introduction.
3- The literature review section is not provided comprehensively to let us know the contributions.
It was done as recommended in the new section 2 "Systematization of the relevant literature".
4- In table 1, what does the "original study" mean? The structure of the methodology section should be revised and supported with confident references.
It has been changed to "author’s own elaboration".
5- The discussion section does not have enough analysis of the results and clear managerial/applicable results. Please elaborate on this section.
It was done as recommended and Section 5 Discussion was completely rewritten.
6- Authors are invited to develop the future research section.
It was done as recommended in Section 6 Conclusions.
7- Please do profession proofread to improve the quality of writing.
It was done as recommended. The entire text has been language corrected.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been improved to some extent. In addition to prior comments the content of the paper is scattered and overlapping.
Steps explained in the introduction should belong to methods, and methods section if involving sampling should also be better structured. And some parts of results have been included in the methods. Overall the structure is not appropriate, and a sample article with more traditional outline can be followed.
Overall the bullet points style of writing and presenting points in the article should be avoided. Put your conclusions and ideas, or descriptions into sentences forming a paragraph around the main idea instead.
Overall there are too many tables, so consider which ones could be merged, or some put in appendix, or just presented as text.
Include limitations and future studies.
Author Response
The paper has been improved to some extent. In addition to prior comments the content of the paper is scattered and overlapping. - The structure of the work in relation to its content has been rearranged
Steps explained in the introduction should belong to methods, and methods section if involving sampling should also be better structured. And some parts of results have been included in the methods. Overall the structure is not appropriate, and a sample article with more traditional outline can be followed. - The text relocation were made and the content was rearranged in accordance with the recommendation
Overall the bullet points style of writing and presenting points in the article should be avoided. Put your conclusions and ideas, or descriptions into sentences forming a paragraph around the main idea instead - It was done as recommended
Overall there are too many tables, so consider which ones could be merged, or some put in appendix, or just presented as text. - Moved the three largest detailed tables to the appendix.
Include limitations and future studies. - Inserted in the last section of Conclusions
Reviewer 3 Report
The Paper can be published now.
Author Response
We thank you very much and are grateful for the time you have taken to give us your comments, which allowed us to improve the quality of the text.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Improvements were made. You can further strengthen the theoretical support and backgroud of the study.
After the Epidemic, Is the Smart Traffic Management System a Key Factor in Creating a Green Leisure and Tourism Environment in the Move towards Sustainable Urban Development? Sustainability, 14(7), 1-22. doi: 10.3390/su14073762
Impact of COVID-19 on stock price crash risk: Evidence from Chinese energy firms. Energy Economics, 101, 105431. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105431
Managing skill certification in online outsourcing platforms: A perspective of buyer-determined reverse auctions. International Journal of Production Economics, 238, 108166. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108166
Author Response
Improvements were made. You can further strengthen the theoretical support and backgroud of the study. - The following have been added:
- the definition of BCM and the rationale for selecting the CI + KS group for the research (lines 92-98 + 1 new literature item [8]),
- characteristics of the LDA method (lines 138-142 + 2 new literature items [11-12]),
- definitions of CI, KS and key subcontractors and suppliers as basic characteristics of the research group (lines 294-317),
- supplementing the directions of further research with 3 new literature items [55-57].
After the Epidemic, Is the Smart Traffic Management System a Key Factor in Creating a Green Leisure and Tourism Environment in the Move towards Sustainable Urban Development? Sustainability, 14(7), 1-22. doi: 10.3390/su14073762 - included in Research limitations and further studies section - new item [56]
Impact of COVID-19 on stock price crash risk: Evidence from Chinese energy firms. Energy Economics, 101, 105431. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105431 - included in Research limitations and further studies section - new item [57]
Managing skill certification in online outsourcing platforms: A perspective of buyer-determined reverse auctions. International Journal of Production Economics, 238, 108166. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108166 - This item is not relevant to the topic of the paper, so it was not included.
