Managerial Dilemmas and Entrepreneurial Challenges in the Ambidexterity of SMEs: A Systematic Review for Execution System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.  Exploitation and Exploration is a widely used conception, you need not to explain too much.

2. There are two 2.3 in the manuscript, which also have the problem of comment 1.

3. It is suggested to combine the theoretical framework of section2&3 into a literature review. Or simplify and put the second part into the introduction.

4. The performance indicators are too complex, which will introduce a large amount of complex information and cause serious endogenous problems. It is recommended to simplify.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of implementing organizational ambidexterity on managerial performance in Small to Medium-Sized Enterprises by using systematic review methodology. After going over the manuscript myself, I find that although it aims to address an interesting issue, the paper has not been developed sufficiently to warrant publication. The authors have collected a dataset using systematic review methodology and the paper is generally well written and structured. When starting to read an article for the first time, I look at the title, abstract, introduction, and then the list of references towards the back of the paper. I want to understand what the paper does, how it relates to the existing literature, and what is its contribution beyond the existing literature. The lack of clarity about the precise contribution is evident in the nature of the abstract. The paper needs to articulate exactly what it is doing, why it is novel, and why it is important. Also, my reason for this lies principally in the degree of novelty and general international interest in the paper. In my opinion the paper is not a Research Article but a form of a Review.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is a study that aims to examine the impact of implementing organizational ambidexterity (OA) on managerial performance in Small to Medium-Sized Enterprises, by using systematic review (SR) methodology. It concludes that OA in SMEs is positively influenced to the firm’s managerial performance. The paper is clear, relevant for the field and also scientifically sound, while presenting very interesting findings.

However, I suggest the authors to slightly restructure the article in order to be more readable and comprehensive:

Extend the Introduction -which is rather small given the paper’s length- adding a paragraph that briefly describes the scope of each section.

Enrich the Methods section, giving more details about SR and evidence-based management that is selected as the core methodology, covering that selection with additional scientific literature.

IMHO, section 6 should be omitted and its content to be included in sections 5 and/or 7.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

accept

Author Response

We are very grateful and appreciative for the time and effort that the reviewer invested in the thoughtful review. We believe that the revised manuscript is significantly improved and addresses the concerns raised by the reviewer.

Reviewer 2 Report

I find that although the paper aims to address an interesting issue, it remains a review paper and not an empirical article. 

Author Response

Point 1. I find that although the paper aims to address an interesting issue, it remains a review paper and not an empirical article.

Response 1. We agree with the reviewer's comment to change the article type to review paper. We are very grateful and appreciative for the time and effort that the reviewer invested in the thoughtful review. We believe that the revised manuscript is significantly improved and addresses the concerns raised by the reviewer.

 

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to thank the authors for addressing my previous comments. Now, the manuscript is a clear, concise, and well-written review paper.