Innovation Strategies for Textile Companies in Bangladesh: Development Using Quadrant Analysis Based on a Productivity Index^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer report on “Innovation Strategies for Textile Companies in Bangladesh: Development using Quadrant Analysis Based on a Productivity Index” submitted to Sustainability

General comments

The paper under review examines an important topic in the Bangladeshi context, that of finding innovation Strategies for Bangladeshi textile companies. The paper is adequately motivated and, in general, well-written. However, there is still room for improvement. I pointed out some issues below in the hope that my comments can help improve the paper.

Specific comments

Introduction

1.     The author should state clearly the contribution of this study in the Introduction.

2.     It would be useful to briefly preview your key findings in the Introduction to better inform the readers.

Literature Review

1.     It would be useful to summarize the knowledge gaps at the end of the Literature Review section. The authors have done this for section 2.2, but it would be useful to provide a summary at the end of Section 2.

2.     Which previous study is the most similar to your study? And what is the key difference between your study and that study?

 

Research Framework

 1.     The paper selected 41 textile limited companies publicly listed on the Bangladeshi stock exchange. Are these all such companies in Bangladesh? Or did you select a subset from the list? If so, what were the criteria for company selection?

2.     Lines 152-153: “In this study, appropriate input and output 152 variables were selected via a literature review.” More information about this “literature review” should be provided.” I can see in Section 4.1 that some space is devoted to discussions on this literature review, but it would be nice to add some notes here to inform the reader that “detailed discussions will be provided in section 4.1”.

3.     Please check the symbols in the formulas—it seems that some “pictures” are blocking part of the formulas.

4.     Please be consistent with your notations: sometimes “equation (1)” is used while other times “Eq. (1)” is used.

5.     Should state clearly what assumptions are needed to apply equations (1)-(7). For example, are there requirements for data quality? Or the underlying shape of the “frontier”?

6.     Lines 192 and 219: The citation of “Barros (2005)” is not in the references list.

 

Case studies

1.     I think section 4 should be called “Results” rather than “Case Studies.”

2.     Discussions of the results of the Quadrant analysis seem inadequate. Since there are only 41 companies in your dataset, you know who they are. So, it would be very informative to add some real case studies to back up your findings and interpretations. For example, you mentioned in lines 274-275 that “These companies should strive to improve IR through the introduction of new technologies and policy innovation.” You might pick some of the companies and describe what went wrong in these companies for the reader to better understand why your findings and recommendations make sense.

3.     Related to the above point: your policy recommendations mentioned “policy innovation,” but this term, as well as other key terms in your recommendations, is rather vague. Can you provide more specific policy options for such innovations?

 

Conclusion

1. There are other limitations that should be discussed. For example, how about textile companies that are not listed on the Bangladeshi stock exchange?

 

Citation style

Not consistent with Sustainability’s house style?

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer #1:

We appreciate the reviewer #1 comments, which surely improve our manuscript.

According to reviewer’s comments, we revised this manuscript carefully. All responses and answers are listed below. All revisions were marked as the highlighted text in the manuscript.

Response: The authors would like to thank the Reviewer #1 for comments. Care has been taken to improve the work and address their concerns as per the specific comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Please, find attached review.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer #2:

We appreciate the reviewer #2 comments, which surely improve our manuscript.

According to reviewer’s comments, we revised this manuscript carefully. All responses and answers are listed below. All revisions were marked as the highlighted text in the manuscript.

Response: The authors would like to thank the Reviewer #2 for comments. Care has been taken to improve the work and address their concerns as per the specific comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear colleague, it has been my pleasure to read your paper and I think that the paper deals with an interesting research topic. Also, key implication for dynbamics among innovation, policy, and internal efficiency. I would have a few suggestions and comments that I would like to share with you in order to improve your paper.

Introduction section can provide more details for MPI with references as this is the key instrument to determine the quality of the present study. Also, summary of key implications can be described

It would be great if there can be a small section to justify why efficiency critically matters in innovation in general.

Implications and limitation can be improved in Conclusion section.

 

Overall, I enjoyed reading your paper and see some potential contribution to the field of innovation study. I hope my comments are merely meant as a constructive contribution to your study.

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer #3:

We appreciate the reviewer #3 comments, which surely improve our manuscript.

According to reviewer’s comments, we revised this manuscript carefully. All responses and answers are listed below. All revisions were marked as the highlighted text in the manuscript.

Response: The authors would like to thank the Reviewer #3 for comments. Care has been taken to improve the work and address their concerns as per the specific comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has been adequately improved.

Reviewer 2 Report

Changes accepted.

I am very pleased that my comments helped to improve the prepared paper.

I wish the authors all the best on their research journey.