A Literature Review on the Application of Digital Technology in Achieving Green Supply Chain Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the review paper is very actual, it connects two up-to date topics as digital technology and green supply chain.

However, the paper contains a lot of imperfections, it should be rewritten and resubmitted.

Clear flowchart of the research and clear methodology is missing. Therefore, the results are also doubtful.

What is your search period? In abstract you write that papers published in the last 10 years were systematically reviewed. Then you write that search of 2010-2023 publications was made. So, is a review period 10 or 14 years? Moreover, 2023 just began, the review does not involve all publications of 2023. You should clearly write the fixed date of search in databases. 

What databases did you search? It is written: "I search through Google Academic, secondly, I screen out articles from relevant databases. Then search out articles from periodicals related to the research content of green supply chain from the database". This is completely unclear. What are "relevant databases"? The particular databases should be specified. "...then search out articles from periodicals..." Really? Periodicals are not subject of scientific research/review. How to understand "periodicals related to the research content of green supply chain from the database"?

Fig. 1 shows Web of Science, Science Direct and Wiley. So you searched these data bases? But what is a number of publications? You write that 144 were reviewed. But Fig. 1, Fig. 3 show larger numbers of papers.

Author Contribution is not presented at the end of the paper as required. Reading the text it is an impression that the paper is written by a single person, as continuously it is repeated "I" (I search..., I screen out..., I organize...).

The sections are mixed up, the figures are mixed up. E.g., Fig. 1 is placed in Introduction, but it is described only in chapter 2.2. "Figure 2 shows..." (starting line 158) is about Figure 3, but not about Figure 2. And where is Fig. 2 (about journals) described? What does it mean title of Fig. 2 "From Journal number"??? Unclear title of Chapter 2 "Literature and Methods". Table 5, "the key refences" - the references are not provided here, the cell is empty. 

The paper contains typos as "diect" (direct), etc. Databases should be written correctly "Web of Science" (not "web of science"), etc. Often used "I", "we"; this is non academic style of writing; you should say "the authors", "the research".   

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for submitting your manuscript.

Your paper focuses on a mainstream topic and it could constitute the basis for a more in-depth analysis and scientific soundly approach on green supply chain management. Several suggestions in this respect: 

Many parts of the Introduction section should be rewritten in order to provide clarity. The text is, in general, difficult to follow and it would benefit from a more accurate proofreading (for instance, many sentences have an impersonal subject but who is the author of the various actions, as in lines 43-46, while some other phrases do not have a subject, as in 59-60). Other paragraphs are obscure, as 177-184, as well the explanation of tables. Also, Figure 3 summarizes information applicable just to the two journals mentioned in the line 178 or to all the journals analyzed? 

Figure 1 is not presented at all in Introduction. 

The paper does not mention or use the previous literature review articles on this topic and there are some important and recent studies in this sense.

This is a synthetic but also very descriptive analysis and the readers are not entitled with the reasons or criteria that stand behind. For instance, what is the mechanism of extracting the key ideas selected as representative? The key themes should be derived by the qualitative analysis of literature and then classified, and not vice versa. A literature review article is not an opinion article and the need to provide arguments and objectivity is continuous throughout the paper.

A better organization of the study would provide coherence and consistency. In this vein, some more additional charts / graphics / tables would be helpful.

There are missing the explanations for the reliability of databases considered for the selection. Why this particular way of choosing the relevant articles and not others? Are the major publishers in the field covered? Is the corpus really representative? More arguments for the eligibility and inclusion of data are needed to ensure that the data are extracted from a rich data source and to maintain an unbiased analysis.

Figure 2 has an inappropriate title.

As a suggestion, the authors could use a qualitative tool for analyzing the corpus of data. Metadata analysis and content analysis are commonly used for literature review, not only close reading, as in this case. There is a need to collect and analyze the data by an objective approach and that should be straightforward for the readers. Also, the study does not provide sufficient arguments for the selection of methodology used: why close reading is enough? Why other methods such as citations and network analysis are not suitable?

What were the criteria for selecting the „key references” that appear also in the tables? The key references are also missing in the last table.

Line 246: The Times is the newspaper?

The article does not contain the specification of its limitations (related to the corpus selection, analysis, methodology, bias results etc.), as a classic and obligatory part of any paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The work does not have a very high scientific level, being just a conclusion of some scientific articles. Perhaps some conclusions regarding the practical applicability of this study would be useful

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors must put much more efforts and reconsider the revision more carefully.

All the revisions should be highlighted in color.

Text needs proofreading ("First of all, First We search...").

Still left non academic style of writing ("we"). And still it seams as the paper was written be a single person "Finally , The author draws the following conclusions..." Authors contribution is not provided as required at the end of the manuscript. 

Titles of figures are nonsense! "Figure 1 Write an article flowchart", "Figure 2 Search and filter document flowcharts".

There are no references to Figures in the text.

Fig. 2, What does it mean "All literature is categorized according to the data base"? 

Fig. 2, Is the only and the final aim to "summarize the literature by age"? What about distribution according digital technologies, according to journals? 

Fig. 3, this is not "Quantitative distribution of all publications in the database", it is distribution according to digital technologies.

Fig. 4, there are not 144 publications. The graph shows at least 164 publications. Please, check. 

The mentioned typos were not corrected: lover case "web of science", typo "diect", etc. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the revised version of your paper. Although it resolved some previous issues, there are still many improvements required to complete a rigorous and scientific research.

Thus, proofreading is mandatorily needed to correct many typos and grammatical errors, and also for a more fluid and clear writing. Phrases such as “The study continues to subdivide them separately ensures the completeness of the research question which can facilitate to discover what to study.” (p. 6) are hard to follow.

“The author” persists (abstract, p. 4, p. 6), inducing the idea that the work is written by one person.

 In this respect, the authors contribution does not appear at the end of the article, as the usual.

Some titles – especially in the case of the new figures, but also in the case of the previous ones – could not remain in this form. See Figure 4, for instance, where “journal” must be plural.

p. 11: “(2) The selection of research angles and methods is relatively single, and the literature is not analyzed from different perspectives such as research methods of problems.” – is a token of the expressions that are hard to comprehend throughout the manuscript.

Thus, for the final version of the paper, the errors must be eliminated completely, and the critical remarks of the reviewers must be incorporated at the deepest level of analysis, not just in a formal way.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Now the paper is improved up to acceptable level. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been satisfactorily improved.

Nevertheless, please proofread the new paragraphs introduced in the article.

Also, verify the use of words „literatures” (!) and „literature” in the draft.

The scientific literature consists in the body of writings on your subject  - so, phrases such as „A total of 144 literature were included”  is hard to comprehend.

Write the title of section 5 in capital letters.