Investigating the Role of Supply Chain Environmental Risk in Shaping the Nexus of Supply Chain Agility, Resilience, and Performance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Authors correctly answer to the reviewer request, in a satisfactory way.
A final check of the language is suggested.
Author Response
Reply Reviewer 1
Dear Reviewing Professor
I am very grateful to the professor for taking the time to review our article and give us the most pertinent suggestions. We would like to thank you very much. In response to your suggestion, we modify them as follows;
Q1- Authors correctly answer to the reviewer request, in a satisfactory way.
Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback and positive comment regarding our response to your previous request. We greatly appreciate your time and attention to our paper. We are pleased that our response has addressed your concerns satisfactorily. Your feedback and guidance have been invaluable in enhancing the quality of our paper. We are committed to making any necessary revisions to ensure the paper meets the highest standards of academic excellence.
Q2- A final check of the language is suggested.
Response: Thank you for your constructive feedback on our paper. We take your suggestion to perform a final check of the language very seriously. Ensuring the clarity and correctness of the language is crucial to the overall quality of the paper. We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript to identify and address any language-related issues, including grammar, syntax, and clarity. Your input is invaluable in helping us improve the readability and overall quality of our paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
After a thorough review of your revised submission, I am pleased to inform you that I have decided to accept your manuscript for publication in our esteemed journal.
Your commitment to enhancing the quality of your work and addressing the concerns raised during the initial review process has been commendable. It is evident that you have invested significant time and effort into revising the manuscript, and your revisions have substantially improved the overall quality of the paper.
I would like to highlight some specific aspects of your revised manuscript that I found particularly compelling:
1. Clarity and Organization: Your manuscript is now much clearer and better organized, making it more accessible to readers.
2. Incorporation of Feedback: You have effectively incorporated the feedback provided during the initial review, which has strengthened the arguments and conclusions presented in your paper.
3. Additional Insights: Your revisions have added valuable insights and expanded on critical points, enhancing the overall contribution of your work to the field.
Your dedication to addressing the comments and suggestions made by the reviewers and myself has not gone unnoticed. It is this kind of perseverance and commitment to academic excellence that elevates the quality of research in our field.
I encourage you to continue your research journey with the same enthusiasm and rigor. Your work has the potential to make a meaningful impact, and I have no doubt that it will be well-received by our readers.
Author Response
Reply Reviewer 2
Dear Reviewing Professor
I am very grateful to the professor for taking the time to review our article and give us the most pertinent suggestions. We would like to thank you very much. In response to your suggestion, we modify them as follows;
Q1. Clarity and Organization: Your manuscript is now much clearer and better organized, making it more accessible to readers.
Response: Thank you for your encouraging feedback on the clarity and organization of our manuscript. We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work and are delighted to hear that the revisions have resulted in improved clarity and organization. Your feedback has been instrumental in guiding these improvements, and we are grateful for your constructive input.
Q2: Incorporation of Feedback: You have effectively incorporated the feedback provided during the initial review, which has strengthened the arguments and conclusions presented in your paper.
Response: Thank you for your positive feedback regarding the incorporation of feedback into our paper. We are pleased to hear that the revisions made based on the initial review feedback have strengthened the arguments and conclusions presented in our paper. Your guidance and feedback have been invaluable in guiding us towards a more robust and well-supported manuscript. We remain committed to addressing reviewers' comments and further enhancing the quality of our research. Your acknowledgment of our efforts is greatly motivating, and we are dedicated to meeting the high standards of academic excellence.
Q3: Additional Insights: Your revisions have added valuable insights and expanded on critical points, enhancing the overall contribution of your work to the field.
Response: We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your positive feedback on our revised paper. We are delighted that the revisions have contributed valuable insights to the field and have enhanced the overall impact of our work. Your constructive review has motivated us to delve deeper into our research and refine our contributions to the academic community. We remain committed to maintaining the high standards of our research and will continue to explore ways to further enrich our work. Your feedback has been instrumental in this process, and we are thankful for your guidance.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Please see the comments in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reply Reviewer 3 Dear Reviewing Professor, We wish to express our heartfelt gratitude for your meticulous review of our article and for providing us with exceptionally relevant suggestions. Your expertise and insights have proven invaluable to us, and we genuinely appreciate your contribution. In response to your valuable suggestions, we have made the following modifications, which are detailed in the attached file.Once again, we extend our thanks for your dedicated effort in reviewing our work. Your feedback has greatly enhanced the quality of our article, and we eagerly anticipate any further guidance you may provide. Q1: In line 114 of the manuscript, where it refers to RQ2, it should be corrected to RQ3. Response: Thank you for your suggestion. In response, we have divided Research Question 2 (RQ2) into two separate research questions, RQ2 and RQ3, to clarify their respective focuses and objectives. Q2: In line 242, there is an inconsistent referencing style. Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have corrected it to a consistent referencing style. Q3: In line 295, H2 is not correctly depicted in the model presented in Figure 1 - needs to be refined. Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. To align with the model presented in Figure 1, we have revised H2. Please refer to line 295 in the manuscript for the updated hypothesis. Q4: In line 346, there is an inconsistent referencing style. Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have corrected it to a consistent referencing style. Q5: In line 347, there is an inconsistent referencing style. Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have corrected it to a consistent referencing style. Q6: In line 374, there is an inconsistent referencing style.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have corrected it to a consistent referencing style. Q7: In line 544, It would be helpful to capture the hypotheses backed up by the results succinctly. Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In the conclusion section, we will provide a concise summary of the hypotheses supported by this study and offer brief explanations of their significant implications. Please see lines 545-555.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
1. For hypothesis testing studies it is suggested to embed theory for the research for a solid research foundation and rationale.
2. English writting requires further editing to qualify good academic writting. For example, line 72 states "For instance, let us consider.." Usually we don't use I, us.
3. A good number of hypothesis resulted not supported imply bad reasoning of hypothesis.
4. Contradiction of sample unit. Line 14, '416 companies in Taiwan'; however, Table 1 shows 416 persons.
5. Table 5, construct items and factor loadings. Some constructs include mutiple concepts which would end up in confusion.
1. For hypothesis testing studies it is suggested to embed theory for the research for a solid research foundation and rationale.
2. English writting requires further editing to qualify good academic writting. For example, line 72 states "For instance, let us consider.." Usually we don't use I, us.
3. A good number of hypothesis resulted not supported imply bad reasoning of hypothesis.
4. Contradiction of sample unit. Line 14, '416 companies in Taiwan'; however, Table 1 shows 416 persons.
5. Table 5, construct items and factor loadings. Some constructs include mutiple concepts which would end up in confusion.
Author Response
Reply Reviewer 4
Dear Reviewing Professor,
We would like to express our deep appreciation for your dedicated effort in reviewing our article and for providing us with invaluable suggestions. Your time and expertise are genuinely appreciated.
In response to your insightful suggestions, we have made the following modifications:
Q1: For hypothesis testing studies it is suggested to embed theory for the research for a solid research foundation and rationale.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. Regarding the incorporation of theory into our hypothesis-testing studies, we would like to clarify that our research is firmly grounded in established theoretical frameworks. To provide a solid research foundation and rationale, we have integrated the following theories into the development of our hypotheses:
(1)Resource-Based Theory (RBT): In the formulation of Hypothesis H1, we have leveraged Resource-Based Theory as the basis for verification. This theory underpins our exploration of the valuable resources that organizations possess, which can influence their supply chain decisions and ultimately their performance. Please refer to lines 219-230 of the article for detailed elaboration.(2)Contingency Theory: For Hypothesis H2, we have integrated Contingency Theory to elucidate the role of supply chain environmental risk as a situational factor affecting supply chain management decisions. Recognizing the significance of this factor adds depth and context to our research. Please see lines 258-263 in the article for a comprehensive explanation.(3)Dynamic Theoretical Perspective: In the development of hypotheses H3 to H5, our study adopts a dynamic theoretical perspective to explore the dynamic interplay between supply chain resilience and supply chain performance in an ever-changing environment. This perspective allows us to capture the evolving nature of supply chain management. For more details, please see lines 299-308 in the text.These theories, integrated into our research, provide a strong theoretical foundation that supports the rationale for hypothesis development and underscores the empirical and theoretical basis of our study.Once again, we extend our gratitude for your valuable insights, which have enriched the quality of our paper. Your feedback has been instrumental in strengthening the theoretical underpinnings of our research.
Q2: English writing requires further editing to qualify as good academic writing. For example, line 73 states "For instance, let us consider.." Usually, we don't use I, us. Response: Thank you for your suggestion. In response to your suggestion, we have revisited the manuscript with the aim of ensuring a consistently academic tone throughout the article. We have taken steps to eliminate or minimize the use of first-person pronouns such as "I" or "us" to align with standard academic writing conventions. Please see line 73.
Your guidance has been instrumental in this process, and we are committed to upholding the highest standards of academic writing in our work. Q3: A good number of hypotheses were not supported implying bad reasoning of the hypothesis. Response: Thank you for your suggestion. Regarding the hypotheses in our paper, we would like to clarify that our hypotheses are grounded in the established literature of supply chain theory. Through a rigorous empirical analysis, which includes hierarchical regression analysis and structural equation modeling, we have sought to test and validate the hypotheses presented in our study. We are pleased to report that the majority of our hypotheses (H1-H3, and H5) have been supported by empirical data, confirming the theoretical assertions made in our paper. For specific reference, we invite you to review lines 442-462 and lines 471-481 in our manuscript, where we provide detailed explanations and evidence of the empirical support for our hypotheses. It is important to note that while most of our hypotheses have found empirical support, one hypothesis (H4) did not receive confirmation through our analysis. This result has prompted us to carefully examine the underlying reasons and consider potential avenues for further research and refinement. Q4: Contradiction of sample unit. Line 13, '416 companies in Taiwan'; however, Table 1 shows 416 persons. Response: Thank you for your suggestion. In response to your observation, we would like to clarify that the study involved surveying a total of 416 firms in Taiwan. Each survey was completed by a representative of each firm, which constitutes a single respondent or person who answered the questionnaire. Therefore, the reference to "416 persons" in Table 1 is consistent with the number of firms surveyed (416 companies). There is no contradiction between these figures, as they represent the same dataset from different perspectives. We apologize for any confusion, and we are grateful for your diligence in reviewing our paper. Q5: Table 5, construct items and factor loadings. Some constructs include multiple concepts which would end up in confusion. Response: Thank you for your suggestion. In response to your comment, we would like to clarify that Table 5 displays four multi-faceted constructs related to the supply chain concept. These constructs have been drawn from established measurements developed by previous researchers, each of whom recognized the multifaceted nature of these constructs within the context of supply chain management. Furthermore, to address concerns about potential confusion, our study conducted a factor analysis to empirically verify the multifaceted nature of each construct. Through this analysis, we have provided evidence that supports the inclusion of multiple concepts within each construct. The factor loadings demonstrate the distinct facets within each construct and the underlying dimensions that contribute to its multifaceted nature. We acknowledge the complexity of these constructs and appreciate your diligence in raising this point. Our aim is to accurately represent the multifaceted nature of supply chain concepts and provide a comprehensive understanding of the variables under examination.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
The authors have address reviewers concerns and is ready to proceed for publication
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
The topic is interesting, but the contribution of research is quite inadequate. Therefore, there are many issues have to be improved.
1. Title: The word “environmental risk” should be changed to “supply chain’s environmental risk” or “business environment risk”. This will help reduce the misleading of readers because the scope of the name of this journal is “sustainability” which is about pollutions, energy, climate change etc.
2. Introduction: There is no research gap obviously stated in this article, both theoretical gap and theoretical necessity. Authors should
3. Literature review: As a result of journal name and scope, your article needs to be improved the sense of sustainability. This could be done by adding review and discussion related to “sustainability”. I recommended more than 10 references in sustainable supply chain, green supply chain, circular supply chain, reverse logistics, and other related topics need to be addressed. However, superficial citation is not acceptable. Authors have to clearly state the impact or relevance of sustainability issues with supply chain agility, supply chain resilience and supply chain performance. In addition, font size in figure 1 should be enlarged. Normally, font type and size in figure have to be the same as in context.
4. Research methodology: The power of sample size has to be calculated and declared to ensure the statistic contribution of the research. The weakest point of the article is the sources of respondents. There are more than 60% of respondents are engineer and production supervisors instead of procurement, production planning, warehousing staff.
5. Discussion: This article does not have an active "discussion section” to show the theoretical contributions of this research to the scientific literatures. The comparisons must include confirmatory findings (similarity of each findings) or counterintuitive findings (dissimilarity) to the results of published articles. Authors should argue how their research stands among other published papers within the body of knowledge. The active discussion section needs to be organized into subsections according to the research questions. If possible, one specific research question should be referred in each subsection. Readers will be convinced that the article’s objectives were totally fulfilled if the research findings are clearly answer research questions.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript discusses environmental risks for supply chain agility of a business to drive supply chain resilience and supply chain performance by using hierarchical regression to investigate companies in Taiwan. The overall structure is well-prepared except format of the paper. However, this reviewer has a huge concern about originality about this manuscript.
This manuscript has very high similarity to literatures, close to 42% according to Plagiarism Checker. The biggest similarity proportion came from the following published paper:
(11% similarity) to "Financial performance and supply chain dynamic capabilities: the Moderating Role of Industry 4.0 technologies, International Journal of Production Research" (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.1966850)
It's highly suggested that the authors should do complete rewriting for this manuscript before submitting to the journal again.
Other suggestions to authors:
1. Please use Sustainability template to prepare your manuscript.
2. Almost all texts in the figures are too small to read.
3. Citation format and reference list need to follow Sustainability Journal standard.
4. Please provide research assumptions, research scope and research limitations in the introduction section.
5. Please give more concrete conclusions and results from this study as well as future research in Section 5 Conclusions.
6. This reviewer does not like to see many citations in Section 4 Discussion. Please move these citations to Section 2 Literature Review.
7. 14 papers out of 46 references are published within 5 years. It's about 30% newly published reference. The authors should add more new papers to this research and try to avoid just copy other people's work.
Reviewer 3 Report
The topic presented in the paper is interesting, turns out to be very innovative. The paper is well written, but requires linguistic revision to eliminate convoluted or repetition-filled sentences. My suggestion is minor revision for this work. In particular:
1) Be sure to include the most recent literature, related to year 2021-2022;
2) improve section 2.5 evidencing in the correct way the different sub-paragraphes: research participant, dependent and indipendent variables, ecc...
