A Conceptual Framework of Customer Value Proposition of CCU-Formic Acid Product

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

 

I read your manuscript a couple of times to review that. The idea of making the CVP of a product as a platform and publishing it as a scientific paper seems interesting to me. Going over different papers to find the customer's needs, is a little far from my idea of product management, but it may open many opportunities for the future. So, congrats on your work.

 

The overall manuscript seems fine to me, I have several editorial issues to discuss here, but I use a couple of examples:

Although this manuscript is about some business ideas, it is being published in a scientific journal, so I assume it is better to use more academic wording: As an example, I would rather see other words instead of 'Elusive.'

You have some extra words in your manuscript; one example is on Page 6: Advantages (strengths) and weaknesses. The words in parentheses are extra.

Some referring have problems: Second Paragraph of Page 2: Why are references 14-17 and 17-19?

Figures can be enhanced: Figure 1: Use another way of distinguishing between the Imports and Exports lines on the diagram (one dashed, the other solid, or something like this). For color-blind people, it is confusing.

In the Discussion and Conclusion section, one line is Bold, which makes no sense.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Besides these editorials, I also believe that adding better figures and diagrams to show the step-by-step framework comprehensively makes your manuscript more readable.

_________________________________________________________________________________

One last thing, there are parts of the paper that are still like the template of manuscript; please make sure to edit them.

The Credit taxonomy part is still XX instead of actual names.

IRBS, ICS, and Conflicts of Interest parts are still like the template.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

The authors thank the referee for the valuable comments and the time dedicated to reading the entire paper in depth 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting study. However, the authors could consider the following to further improve the quality of work:

·       The abstract should be revised to reflect the research approach (i.e methodology). More so, the research problem and findings, and the contribution of the study could be highlighted briefly in the abstract.

·       The authors should include a caption for the figure on Page 8.

·       Papers were selected from four (4) databases. It would be helpful to comment on the justification for this? Also, were conference papers among papers excluded or included in the screening process? 

·       Is functional value the same as practical value? The authors should clarify this as both were substituted for one another (See page 15 lines 11 and 13). Consistent terminology is important in such research.

·       The authors made some strong arguments and claims with no references to substantiate them. This is particularly so in section 3 of the paper. To ensure the credibility of comments and to avoid the risk of plagiarism, such claims should be referenced. 

·       Are there particular practical implications arising from this paper?

·       The limitations of the study could be usefully added as well as ideas that could take the work further.

Author Response

The authors thank the referee for the valuable comments and the time dedicated to reading the entire paper in depth. You will find the detailed response in the atatched file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx