The Mediating and Moderating Effects of Top Management Support on the Cloud ERP Implementation–Financial Performance Relationship

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper examines the mediating and moderating impacts of top management support (TMS) on the relationship between cloud ERP implementation and financial performance. The topic of this study is interesting but there are some concerns in this manuscript. I suggest that the authors consider the following revisions to improve the quality of this article:

 

1. The wording and derivation of the hypothesis is not scientific and normative enough, and should be supported by a more comprehensive literature.
2. The authors should explain more in detail about the measurement of three constructs: cloud ERP implementation, top management support and financial performance. What are the measuring items and construct's sub-constructs (dimensions) of the three constructs? Why choose these items and dimensions?
3. With regard to the sample composition, 17.6% of the respondents were from the food, beverage, and tobacco (FBT) industry, and 76% of them had been using cloud ERP for less than three years, with a sizable percentage (80.4%) using public cloud ERP. Is there sample bias in it?
4. The description of the data processing process is relatively rough, lacks important data processing steps, which cannot reflect the scientificity and rigor of the empirical analysis. For example, are there missing values and how to deal with them?
5. Although the whole manuscript is well written in style, some grammar and spelling mistakes remain, which should be corrected in a thorough revision round. For example, ‘CMB’ and ‘CMV’ are inconsistent in line 321 of page 7.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to get acquainted with the research provided. The paper suggests exploring the relationship between top management support, ERP implementation and financial performance. A variety of assessment methods is used in the paper. Though a number of improvements could be suggested.

General remarks:

• The list of references of 136 sources is very long and suggests a lack of analysis of the most relevant papers.
• H1 and H2 are introduced, although H0 is not. Hypothesis 0 is expected to be introduced in the paper.

Literature review

• A clear determination of the research gap is missing. The research gap could become clearer through the analysis of the findings of the existing studies that explore separate dimensions (top management support, ERP, and financial performance) as well as the relationship between them.

• The novelty of the paper is not presented. Once the research gap is introduced, the novelty would become more evident.

Materials and Methods:

• A clear explanation and determination of the indicators to measure the explored dimensions are missing. For example, there is no determination of what indicators are used to assess top management support and its relationship with other dimensions.
• The research protocol and a detailed step-by-step research procedure with an explanation of the methods for data collection and analysis should be introduced.
• A questionnaire with a Likert scale is used as a research instrument for data collection. The explanation of the scale does not meet the requirements of the scale.
• Neither the questionnaire nor the primary data is available. It is not the most important usually, but the possibility to get to know the instrument and primary data could demonstrate more clarity and validity of the research presented.

Discussion and conclusions

• In the section Discussion, only several authors are referenced, and almost all of those references appear for the first time here in the Discussion section. Most of those references are more than 10 years old. Discussion with recent authors would show the significance of the findings presented in the paper.
• Discussion with authors used in the previous sections of the paper as well as integration of the findings of the studies could lead to more grounded conclusions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for sending the paper to the journal. The following issues should be addressed in the next version:

1- The title of the study should be revised according to the model of the study

2- As far, as I know, the cloud ERP is not implemented in developing countries, so first of all, you need to mention due to which reasons?

3- On which basis do you select the sample of the study?

4-Last, not least, the theoretical issues are far from acceptable ones to support your hypotheses.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript can be accepted in the current form.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Despite the improvements that authors claim to make, there are comments that are not taken into account or not explained in the response paper, namely novelty of the research, research gap, etc. Even if the authors claim that everything is very clear in the publication, the scientific argumentation of the previously mentioned issues shouldn't be taken for granted. Some moments are left without proper attention. E.g. Likert scale is still not meeting the requirements. The decision not to use H0 is not argued on the base of any scientific background. 

Nevertheless, the publication has improvements even if some technical and editorial corrections are still needed, e.g. the Likert scale. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear author,

Thank you very much for sending the revised paper. Based on my assessment, the current version is accepted for publication. Congratulations

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx