An Innovative Risk Matrix Model for Warehousing Productivity Performance
, Nur Hazwani Karim 1, Noorul Shaiful Fitri Abdul Rahman 2, Saharuddin Abdul Hamid 1 and Ahmed Maher Mohammed 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I congratulate the authors for their detailed and interesting work.
Nevertheless, there are some comments that must be taken into account in order for the paper to be prepared for being published:
- regarding content, there is no mention of research questions and/or hypotheses of the research, which can support the whole construct of the paper. The research implication section must be completed by a comprehensive discussion of the results from this on flowing the conclusions. Also, it would be interesting to underline the practical implication of this research.
- regarding the form, the paper must be carefully worked on to be provided in the format required by the Sustainability journal criteria for publication (see here differences in font, bibliographical sources in text etc).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This topic is interesting and the authors could provide an attractive methodology. However, I have some questions, suggestions/recommendations to be taken into account carefully.
1. The writing of the paper needs a lot of improvement in terms of grammar, spelling, and presentations. The paper needs careful English polishing since there are many typos and poorly written sentences.
Some examples are as the following:
* Check the usage of the commas carefully.
* Check the articles including "a", "an" and "the".
* Check the required and unneeded blank spaces.
2. Please, motivate the abstract, trying to be more concise. Why this work is necessary?
3. The abstract does not reflect the contribution of the study.
4. Avoid repetitions. I can see several repetitions at different places in this paper. Thorough proofreading is required.
5. Contributions are unclear. This should be made clear from the very beginning of the paper till its end.
6. The literature review is brief. Some of the new papers could be briefly described.
7. Please check all Figures. Authors should be improved in terms of resolution.
8. Please discussed managerial insights and future works in the conclusion section.
In my opinion, I hope my comments are useful. I look forward to receiving the revised version in due time.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors covered, in their competence, the issues identified.
