Building Partnership or Competition: Village Business Sustainability in Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

The submitted paper approaches a very interesting theme, the duality between partnership and competition in Indonesia, with the sustainability of village businesses as a central issue. Overall, I believe that the paper has potential and is interesting for the journal's audience, but has a number of conceptual issues that need to be addressed:

1.      Introduction - Please clarify the main aim of the paper, motivation, originality of the study, research gap, and paper's contribution. Please specify why the situation in the target country is relevant enough to generalize the conclusions or state which comparable contexts may support the same conclusions.

I believe that your description of the data (for example table 1, which I noticed that need titles to the columns + the references to Table 1) would be better placed in the description of data in your section 3, for example around lines 197-202 where you seem to repeat the information. Also, there are statements or ideas that repeat in other sections of the paper with no obvious scientific additional value (i.e., the capital source of village-owned enterprises in lines 51-55 repeats in lines starting with 189). Please check and revise.

 

2.      Review of the literature: This section of the article needs to be improved significantly with relevant research studies on the main topic of the article: partnership and competitiveness. The title of your paper seems captivating and announces a dual analysis: partnership or competition. I would expect a deeper analysis on what we already know, based on existing literature, about partnership and competition. In my opinion these two aspects should be further explored in your literature review, and since they are the main topics of your paper, I suggest to separate the literature review into two subsections in your section 2 (Literature review), one for partnership literature review and one for competitiveness. By framing the study within literature, it will be easier to find a relevant research gap.

The literature review on village-owned enterprises in section 2 of your paper may become a subsection 2.3. It is interesting to create the context of your country-based analysis.

 

Please revise your references to community aspects in lines 112-113 and 120-121 since the ideas are nor very clear to read.

 

3.      Methodology: Please be more specific on the research data and methods you used to support your conclusions.

In lines 161-162 you mention to have performed in-depth interviews. Such interviews should substantiate your findings. Please provide information on the number of performed interviews, the type of questions you addressed and the specific steps you took to process the responses and formulate the conclusions. An appendix with the questions addressed during the interview would be helpful.

 

4.      Please carefully check the in-text citations and the corresponding reference numbers. In line 102 you inserted the citation for Timothy and indicated [11], but in the reference list Timothy is [14]. Same for Adiyoso in line 107, Ito line 114. Also, please check that all the references used within the text are referenced in the reference list and that all the cited papers in the reference list are cited in the paper.

 

Overall, I believe that your submitted paper has important potential, but you need to provide a more extensive literature review and revise your empirical analysis results and discussions.

Author Response

Dear

Reviewer

We thank you for the revision notes and the opportunity to make improvements. The revision notes allow us to learn how to convey our research ideas better.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your paper.

The general evaluation is as follows:

-          The language used is appropriate.

-          The summary is well written.

-          The introduction is well written as it introduces the reader to the topic.

-          The result and conclusion are also clearly written.

The article reports the use of qualitative data obtained by the researchers through direct observation. A more detailed explanation of these data should be given in the article.

In Figure 2, the explanation of the grey, yellow and blue colours should be written.

 

Thank you.

Author Response

Dear

Reviewer

We thank you for the revision notes and the opportunity to make improvements. The revision notes allow us to learn how to convey our research ideas better.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The article has an interesting topic. The topic is relatively current, because these companies were formed at the begining of this century and work is still being done to improve legal regulations, which is also the case in Indonesia. Therefore, the paper is primarily useful for researchers and practitioners  from Indonesia. The abstract is partially problematic. The phrase "village-owned entreprise" is used too many times in the abstract which makes it hard to read, maybe consider "recomposing" that repetition. Regardless of the fact that it is generally not recommended to use abbreviations in the abstrac, here perhaps the abbreviations would be in the function of easer understanding and reading. Of course, it goes without saying that the meaning of the abbreviation is given at the first occurrence. Based on the abstract, the authors' idea is that this paper provides the opportunity for decision-makers to see how they can improve the position of these companies and from that paper. That's fine, but the academic implications should be mentioned, because the paper should also have a scientific contribution, and the authors have apostrophized  the practical contribution. In the conclusions, limitations of work and research are given, which is fair. In the text, the abbreviation BUMDes appears near figure 2, and there is no explanation of what this abbreviation means. It would be desirable to have slightly more recent data (here it is 2018), but it is assumed that it is not available. Unify the source under all the figures, and not write the source under figure 2, then the name of the figure. In figure 2, it is the other way around and it is correct (as in figure 3).  In several places, there are spaces between a period  (or two periods :) and a parenthesis or the rest of the text (in lines: 28, 45, 57, 100, 193, 270...) In line 293, there is also a double parenthesis next to the space. In the list at the end, most of the references are written without spaces between the year of publication, journal number and pagination. In the places, where the range of pages is indicated (references number 2 and number 8) it should be written pp, not just p. 

Author Response

Dear

Reviewer

We thank you for the revision notes and the opportunity to make improvements. The revision notes allow us to learn how to convey our research ideas better.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Thank you very much for the review opportunity of this paper. I would like to address following issues in this paper and suggest authors to improve these matters throughout their manuscript.

1. Introduction: The introduction provides a good overview of the topic, but it lacks a clear research objective or research questions. Specify the main objectives of the study and outline the research questions that the study seeks to address. This will give readers a clear understanding of what to expect from the research.  

2. Literature Review: The literature review provides a decent foundation for the study but could benefit from recent studies and relevant statistics from after 2021. Update the literature review to include recent sources up to the current year (2023) to ensure the information is up-to-date and accurate.  

3. Materials and Methods: In the "Materials and Methods" section, more details are needed regarding the data collection process and the sampling method used for selecting informants. Clarify how many informants were interviewed and how they were chosen to ensure the study's credibility.  

4. Results: The "Results" section contains detailed information and data, but it lacks clear analysis and interpretation. Discuss the implications of the findings in relation to the research questions and the existing literature. Explain the significance of the results and how they contribute to the understanding of the topic.  

5. Discussion: In the "Discussion" section, it would be helpful to provide specific recommendations or suggestions for addressing the competition between VOEs and small businesses in rural areas. Offer potential solutions or strategies that can help promote cooperation and collaboration between these entities to foster economic growth in rural communities.  

6. Conclusion: The abstract should be a concise summary of the research and its key findings. Ensure that the conclusion briefly reiterates the main results and their implications for the rural economy. Avoid introducing new information in the conclusion.  

7. Citations and References: Check the formatting of citations and references to ensure they follow a consistent and appropriate style (e.g., APA, MLA). Cross-check the references to ensure they are complete and accurately cited in the text.  

8. Data Updates: Throughout the paper, use updated data from 2023, if available, to maintain the accuracy and relevance of the study.   Finanlly, to my opinion, this paper lacks some sufficient proofs. 

 

Author Response

Dear

Reviewer

We thank you for the revision notes and the opportunity to make improvements. The revision notes allow us to learn how to convey our research ideas better.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

The topic of this paper is innovative and important, analyzing the role of Village-Owned Enterprises in promoting rural economic development, which has important academic value.

 Suggestion：

The paper mentions in the “Discussion” section that rural small businesses have been influenced by Village-Owned Enterprises , but these are general statements. If specific statistical data on rural small businesses could be provided, such as changes in the number of enterprises, asset size, industry distribution, and market share changes, and compared with data on Village-Owned Enterprises , it would make the argument more comprehensive and rigorous.

Author Response

Dear

Reviewer

We thank you for the revision notes and the opportunity to make improvements. The revision notes allow us to learn how to convey our research ideas better.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear authors, thank you for providing the revised form of your article, it is much improved in my opinion.

As a small suggestion for your introduction section, I consider that subsections 1.1 - 1.5. would be better referred to in words than highlighted as subsections. For example, instead of using subsection 1.1. you may state "This study aims to analyze the following research question:..."; or "Reflecting on the contribution that this research brings to practice....".

Author Response

Cover letter

August 28, 2023 

Reviewer 1 of Sustainability Journal

Sustainability Editorial Office

Dear Reviewer 1 of Sustainability Journal,We are sending a cover letter to inform reviewers 1 that the manuscript has been revised under the suggested improvements.  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

I have gone through the revision. However, the following crucial things are still missing. 1. Academic and Managerial contribution of the study. (May be written in conclusion with precise listing) 2. Rewrite the Abstract mentioning the contribution you made.

After this corrections by the author, I would recommend the manuscript for publication.

Author Response

Cover letter

August 28, 2023 

Reviewer 4 of Sustainability Journal

Sustainability Editorial Office

Dear Reviewer 4 of Sustainability Journal,

We are sending a cover letter to inform reviewers 4 that the manuscript has been revised under the suggested improvements. (file  attachment)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

 

I was invited to review the article entitled " Building Partnership or Competition: Village Business Sustainability in Indonesia”. The aim of the paper is to understand the role of business practices of Village-Owned Enterprises and their implications for the sustainability of small rural business, specifically those located in the Bandung Regency, Indonesia.

It is with great pleasure that I accept the review and hope to be able to contribute with knowledge. See the Annex Report Revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this work. In general, the writing is fairly good. However, no novelty or contribution was found because the uncleared variables and underpinning reasons.

Even though this work contributes to the research theme, the current manuscript has several issues that need to be considered. I listed some comments that I hope the author(s) will find them useful in improving the paper.

1. The introduction part needs to be further explained. 

General information could be explained including the research problem, research gap, underpinning theories, and how all constructs in this study should be studied.  

2. Literature Review/Hypothesis development

Please provide a more reasonable argument and underpinning linkages. The current version is relatively short in length.

Please also recheck the theoretical framework and hypothesis development. They should be aligned and linked. 

3. Research methodology section needs to provide an explanation of the positivistic worldview. Why this study adopted this approach?  

4. There is no measures or study tools sections. 

5. In the result section. The author(s) should provide more explanation why it is such a case.

6. Discussion section needs to be further revised. 

Please argue, explain, and compare the research findings with the related works. The authors need to provide more supporting shreds of evidence on the results found from this study. Are there any contradictory or in line with this research results? and in what aspects? 

7. In the Implication section, please separate and identify the theoretical and managerial contributions.