Innovation as a Tool for Sustainable Development in Small and Medium Size Enterprises in Slovakia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Research gaps, and deficits are not shown in the article. Their fulfillment builds the level of originality of the research. It can be reduced to a narrow perspective - it concerns the study of SMEs in one country.

2. The results of the research have value from the perspective of the country in which it was conducted, and in part as a comparison between countries.

3. The methodology used is simple and widely used - this is its weakness. As well as the lack of valuation of the strength of the factors, rather than only listing and grouping them. On the other hand, the results of the study have a simple interpretation, giving a general overview of the sets of innovation factors.

4 The results are correctly described. This relates to the aim of the research towards the lack of questions/hypotheses posed. However, the results concern the identification of innovation factors in general, not factors for sustainable development. The research did not address this problem.

5 The article lacks a section on critical analysis of the literature and identification of research gaps based on this. Citations are correct but limited in number, in the same way as the bibliography.

6 Table 1 should include additional criteria to characterize the research sample (indicated in the review). Not sure if Table 3 has the correct column description - the first quantity is absolute and the second is relative (?). Table 4 is the same as Figure 2 - a list of factors in two groups.

Research subject and problem
In general, the content of the article is subordinate to the purpose. However, the title must correspond to the purpose, object and subject of the research. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify it: 'Innovation as a tool for sustainable development in SMEs in Slovakia'. The research problem is not defined, only the objective. This needs to be added.

Objectives and tasks
The main objective in the article was stated in the introduction (background to the research). Sub-objectives should be bulleted. The research tasks must correspond with them. It is necessary to bullet them in the introduction. Combined with the methodology, they form the framework of the research (the presented 'road map' can be considered the equivalent).

Research gaps
The article does not include a critical review of the literature - so a very important part of the article is missing. This means that the deficits of the research that has been conducted so far have not been demonstrated. It is necessary to discuss and explicitly point out these deficits - the existence of research gaps (theoretical, methodological and empirical), which became the premise of the research undertaken and the formulation of the research problem. This also means the need to expand the bibliography and citations, which are poor.

Questions and hypotheses
Research hypotheses have not been formulated and are not being tested. Also, the research questions have not been formulated. Asking questions is necessary to guide the research, set tasks and adjust the methodology. Thus, improvement of these issues in the article is required.

Methodology (selection of methods and tools)
It is necessary to clearly indicate the advantages and limitations of the selected main method of research (Kano model) and justify its selection for the study. The mechanism (detailed technique) used for building the dendrogram should be briefly stated. Since the dendrogram method is a simple research tool, therefore, the results of the research are only an ordering of innovation factors into groups (clusters). A better solution would be to use methods that also allow for the valuation of their power to influence sustainable development. A general comment is that it is not explicitly shown in the article that the research is on innovation factors related to sustainable growth. The list and names of the factors indicate that they are 'in general' factors of innovation, their implementation and perception as necessary for the companies studied. A very clear explanation is needed in this regard and, most importantly, the survey sheet should be included as an appendix to the article.

Data and research test
The data and their selection have not been sufficiently characterized. First, a formula (technique) for calculating the size but, more importantly, the structure of the research sample should be added. Reference should be made to the characteristics (main structures) of the entire SMEs population in Slovakia and confront it with the characteristics of the structures of the research sample. At the very least, it is necessary to add information on the structure of the companies in the sample by object of activity, place of business and volume of revenues. Secondly, it is absolutely necessary to describe how the companies in the sample were selected in practice in order to maintain the principle of representativeness according to the criteria: legal form, number of employees, object of activity, place of business, volume of revenue. This is because one should be aware that in an extreme case, all enterprises in the research sample may be from a single 'city' and a single a 'sector'. In that case, the sample is not representative.
Without adding this information and characteristics, it is not possible to assess the value of the research done and the reliability of its results.

Interpretation of the results
The results obtained are sufficiently presented in a separate section of the article. However, they are limited only to the ordering of factors (listing within two groups), with much doubt as to whether they pertain to sustainability development or the need to implement innovation at all (a previous comment).

Discussion and conclusions
A discussion of the results obtained is presented in the article and can be considered sufficient as a polemic with the results of other studies.
The key three conclusions of the research are presented in the conclusion. They should be linked to the research questions posed ( while these are lacking).
The conclusion should be expanded to indicate the limitations of the research undertaken and to point the way for new research, which is open with the current one.

Structure and composition
In general, the structure of the article is correct. However, the section providing a critical analysis of the literature (an earlier comment) is missing. Thus, the bibliography also needs to be expanded.

Formal requirements (language, edition)
In general, the language and writing technique are correct. Also the form of presentation of information ( tables/figures) is appropriate.
The bibliography of the article excessively includes one author (E. Loucanova). The contribution of the last three authors is of negligible merit.

General opinion
The article has positive scientific value, although its methodology is not innovative. There are some infirmities in the article that need to be resolved. The article evidently represents a limited report/presentation as a piece of research within another project.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

The language of the article is generally correct and, above all, understandable. Overly elaborate linguistic constructions and multiple subordinated sentences are not created, which facilitates the perception of the content.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your comments. We strongly appreciate your time and effort to improve our manuscript and we are thankful for all your comments. Below, we reply to each reviewer separately.

Numbering of lines to identify inserted text and changes is implemented through: Monitoring changes - All revisions - Display all revisions in the text.

1. Research gaps, and deficits are not shown in the article. Their fulfillment builds the level of originality of the research. It can be reduced to a narrow perspective - it concerns the study of SMEs in one country. Modified and added, line 71-96
2. The results of the research have value from the perspective of the country in which it was conducted, and in part as a comparison between countries.
3. The methodology used is simple and widely used - this is its weakness. As well as the lack of valuation of the strength of the factors, rather than only listing and grouping them. On the other hand, the results of the study have a simple interpretation, giving a general overview of the sets of innovation factors. Modified and added in part Materials and methodology.

4 The results are correctly described. This relates to the aim of the research towards the lack of questions/hypotheses posed. However, the results concern the identification of innovation factors in general, not factors for sustainable development. The research did not address this problem.  Modified and added, line 362-553

5 The article lacks a section on critical analysis of the literature and identification of research gaps based on this. Citations are correct but limited in number, in the same way as the bibliography. Added part 2 Research subject and problem, added and modified according to recommendations

Not sure if Table 3 has the correct column description - the first quantity is absolute and the second is relative (?). – Modified.

Table 4 is the same as Figure 2 - a list of factors in two groups. - Table 4 is presented in order to clarify the names of the investigated factors for the readers, as they are presented in a shortened version in Figure 2 - such long names cannot be given in the statistics program.

Research subject and problem
In general, the content of the article is subordinate to the purpose. However, the title must correspond to the purpose, object and subject of the research. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify it: 'Innovation as a tool for sustainable development in SMEs in Slovakia'. The research problem is not defined, only the objective. This needs to be added. – modified

Objectives and tasks
The main objective in the article was stated in the introduction (background to the research). Sub-objectives should be bulleted. The research tasks must correspond with them. It is necessary to bullet them in the introduction. Combined with the methodology, they form the framework of the research (the presented 'road map' can be considered the equivalent). Modified – line 97-115

Research gaps
The article does not include a critical review of the literature - so a very important part of the article is missing. This means that the deficits of the research that has been conducted so far have not been demonstrated. It is necessary to discuss and explicitly point out these deficits - the existence of research gaps (theoretical, methodological and empirical), which became the premise of the research undertaken and the formulation of the research problem. This also means the need to expand the bibliography and citations, which are poor. Added line 71-104 and line 230-235

Questions and hypotheses
Research hypotheses have not been formulated and are not being tested. Also, the research questions have not been formulated. Asking questions is necessary to guide the research, set tasks and adjust the methodology. Thus, improvement of these issues in the article is required. Modified and added – table 3 and others text in article

Methodology (selection of methods and tools)
It is necessary to clearly indicate the advantages and limitations of the selected main method of research (Kano model) and justify its selection for the study. Added line 230-249

 The mechanism (detailed technique) used for building the dendrogram should be briefly stated. Since the dendrogram method is a simple research tool, therefore, the results of the research are only an ordering of innovation factors into groups (clusters). Added line 389-394. A better solution would be to use methods that also allow for the valuation of their power to influence sustainable development. Added line 362-384.  A general comment is that it is not explicitly shown in the article that the research is on innovation factors related to sustainable growth. The list and names of the factors indicate that they are 'in general' factors of innovation, their implementation and perception as necessary for the companies studied. A very clear explanation is needed in this regard.  Added line 299-208.

 

Data and research test
The data and their selection have not been sufficiently characterized. First, a formula (technique) for calculating the size but, more importantly, the structure of the research sample should be added. Added 322 - 330. Reference should be made to the characteristics (main structures) of the entire SMEs population in Slovakia and confront it with the characteristics of the structures of the research sample. At the very least, it is necessary to add information on the structure of the companies in the sample by object of activity, place of business and volume of revenues. Secondly, it is absolutely necessary to describe how the companies in the sample were selected in practice in order to maintain the principle of representativeness according to the criteria: legal form, number of employees, object of activity, place of business, volume of revenue. This is because one should be aware that in an extreme case, all enterprises in the research sample may be from a single 'city' and a single a 'sector'. In that case, the sample is not representative.
Without adding this information and characteristics, it is not possible to assess the value of the research done and the reliability of its results.

Added 337-348

Interpretation of the results
The results obtained are sufficiently presented in a separate section of the article. However, they are limited only to the ordering of factors (listing within two groups), with much doubt as to whether they pertain to sustainability development or the need to implement innovation at all (a previous comment). Modified and added, see Table 4 – Total Strength and p-value

Discussion and conclusions
A discussion of the results obtained is presented in the article and can be considered sufficient as a polemic with the results of other studies.
The key three conclusions of the research are presented in the conclusion. They should be linked to the research questions posed ( while these are lacking). Added line 454-461, 482-486,  531-535
The conclusion should be expanded to indicate the limitations of the research undertaken and to point the way for new research, which is open with the current one. Added line 602-606

Structure and composition
In general, the structure of the article is correct. However, the section providing a critical analysis of the literature (an earlier comment) is missing. Thus, the bibliography also needs to be expanded. Modified, line 71-206 and other

Formal requirements (language, edition)
In general, the language and writing technique are correct. Also the form of presentation of information ( tables/figures) is appropriate.
The bibliography of the article excessively includes one author (E. Loucanova). The contribution of the last three authors is of negligible merit. Modified, see References

 

General opinion
The article has positive scientific value, although its methodology is not innovative. There are some infirmities in the article that need to be resolved. The article evidently represents a limited report/presentation as a piece of research within another project.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language of the article is generally correct and, above all, understandable. Overly elaborate linguistic constructions and multiple subordinated sentences are not created, which facilitates the perception of the content.

Thank you for providing the helpful feedback and advices to improve the paper as well as for the positive assessment of the scientific value of the article.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting paper and I enjoyed reading it. However, there are essential weaknesses that need to be addressed.

 

1) The introductory/opening section should communicate a little clearer the literature gaps, as well as the study's aims & objectives in order to facilitate the flow of the study.

 

2) Overall there are good arguments and well researched points made in this paper, but I feel that author needs to take to a further level.  

 

I strongly recommend that you include the following references focused on the target journal and on the paper’s topics:

 

HAO Z.; ZHANG X.; WEI J. (2022). Research on the effect of enterprise financial flexibility on sustainable innovation. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, 7(2), 100184, DOI: 10.1016/j.jik.2022.100184.

 

Nyagadza B. (2022). Sustainable digital transformation for ambidextrous digital firms: systematic literature review, meta-analysis and agenda for future research directions. Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship, 1(3), 100020, DOI: 10.1016/j.stae.2022.100020.

 

Debbarma J.; Choi Y.; Yang F.; Lee H. (2022). Exports as a new paradigm to connect business and information technology for sustainable development. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, 7(4), 100233, DOI: 10.1016/j.jik.2022.100233.

 

To C.K.M.; Chau K.P. (2022). Characterizing sustainability materiality: ESG materiality determination in technology venturing. Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship, 1(3), 100024, DOI: 10.1016/j.stae.2022.100024.

 

 

3) The research is well-developed.

 

4) At the end of the, the author should include clear statements as to where research should now go.

 

5) Carefully check the references, so as to make sure they are all complete and follow the Guidelines to Authors.

 

6) Finally, when you submit the corrected version, please do check thoroughly, in order to avoid grammar, syntax or structure/presentation flaws.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to read the paper.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is good

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your comments. We strongly appreciate your time and effort to improve our manuscript and we are thankful for all your comments. Below, we reply to each reviewer separately.

Numbering of lines to identify inserted text and changes is implemented through: Monitoring changes - All revisions - Display all revisions in the text.

 

This is an interesting paper and I enjoyed reading it. Thank you very much.

However, there are essential weaknesses that need to be addressed.

 

1) The introductory/opening section should communicate a little clearer the literature gaps, as well as the study's aims & objectives in order to facilitate the flow of the study.

 Added, line 71-113

2) Overall there are good arguments and well researched points made in this paper, but I feel that author needs to take to a further level.  

 

I strongly recommend that you include the following references focused on the target journal and on the paper’s topics:

 

HAO Z.; ZHANG X.; WEI J. (2022). Research on the effect of enterprise financial flexibility on sustainable innovation. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, 7(2), 100184, DOI: 10.1016/j.jik.2022.100184. - reference 26

 

Nyagadza B. (2022). Sustainable digital transformation for ambidextrous digital firms: systematic literature review, meta-analysis and agenda for future research directions. Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship, 1(3), 100020, DOI: 10.1016/j.stae.2022.100020. - reference 27

 

Debbarma J.; Choi Y.; Yang F.; Lee H. (2022). Exports as a new paradigm to connect business and information technology for sustainable development. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, 7(4), 100233, DOI: 10.1016/j.jik.2022.100233. - reference 7

 

To C.K.M.; Chau K.P. (2022). Characterizing sustainability materiality: ESG materiality determination in technology venturing. Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship, 1(3), 100024, DOI: 10.1016/j.stae.2022.100024. - reference 58

 Modiefied and added.

 

3) The research is well-developed.

 

4) At the end of the, the author should include clear statements as to where research should now go. Added 604-606.

 

5) Carefully check the references, so as to make sure they are all complete and follow the Guidelines to Authors. Modified.

 

6) Finally, when you submit the corrected version, please do check thoroughly, in order to avoid grammar, syntax or structure/presentation flaws. Modified.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to read the paper.

Thank you for providing the helpful feedback and advices to improve the paper as well as for the positive assessment of the scientific value of the article.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors' contribution to improving the article should be appreciated. The scope of these improvements varies with respect to the comments and demands made, but the balance tips toward a positive assessment.

There remain noticeably inappropriate issues for improvement:

1. The naming of the research steps as ‘partial objectives’ is inappropriate (101-107). The steps are presented in Figure 1 and do not need to be listed in the text. Research objectives are to be derived from the research problem and are directly related to the research hypotheses. It is absolutely necessary to correctly define the partial objectives of the research.

2. The characteristics of the research sample (313-327, Table 1) must be specified with at least the type of activity according to NACE Rev. 2 as the division/sector level: one letter, two digits.

3. Only one general sentence (577-578), which is without any substantive content, cannot be given as limitations of the research. The limitations of the research are the result of the theories adopted, the methodology adopted and the data used. They must be precisely bulleted and described.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language of the article is generally correct and, above all, understandable. Overly elaborate linguistic constructions and multiple subordinated sentences are not created, which facilitates the perception of the content.

Author Response

Thanks for the comments to improve the article. We tried to incorporate them to the fullest extent. We hope that they will be accepted by you and that they will meet your requirements.

Thank you in advance.

Numbering of lines to identify inserted text and changes is implemented through: Monitoring changes - All revisions - Display all revisions in the text.

 

The authors' contribution to improving the article should be appreciated. The scope of these improvements varies with respect to the comments and demands made, but the balance tips toward a positive assessment.

There remain noticeably inappropriate issues for improvement:

1. The naming of the research steps as ‘partial objectives’ is inappropriate (101-107). The steps are presented in Figure 1 and do not need to be listed in the text.

The text is modified according to your suggestion – lines 105-106

 

Research objectives are to be derived from the research problem and are directly related to the research hypotheses. It is absolutely necessary to correctly define the partial objectives of the research.

The text is modified according to your suggestion:

added Table 1 The determination of research objectives and hypotheses; lines 157-164

text modified – lines 157- 214

 

2. The characteristics of the research sample (313-327, Table 1) must be specified with at least the type of activity according to NACE Rev. 2 as the division/sector level: one letter, two digits.

Modified and added, line 365-372,384-397 and Table 2

 

3. Only one general sentence (577-578), which is without any substantive content, cannot be given as limitations of the research. The limitations of the research are the result of the theories adopted, the methodology adopted and the data used. They must be precisely bulleted and described.

Modified and added, line 633-658, part 6.  Study Limitations and Recommendations for Future Work

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a conditionally accepted paper. Only I suggest authors to improve with current references. With these three references:

de Miguel, P. M., Martínez, A. G., & Montes-Botella, J. L. (2022). Review of the measurement of Dynamic Capabilities: A proposal of indicators for the automotive industry. ESIC Market, 53(1), e283-e283.

Ogunrinde, A. (2022). The Effectiveness of Soft Skills in Generating Dynamic Capabilities in ICT companies. ESIC Market, 53(3), e286-e286.

Sánchez Tróchez, D. X., Cerón Ríos, G. M., & Rivera Martínez, W. F. (2021). Intrapreneurship in Small Organizations: Case Studies in Small Businesses. ESIC Market. Economic & Business Journal, 52(1).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Only to copyedit the paper, specially in references section.

Author Response

Thanks for the comments to improve the article. We tried to incorporate them to the fullest extent. We hope that they will be accepted by you and that they will meet your requirements.

Thank you in advance.

This is a conditionally accepted paper. Only I suggest authors to improve with current references. With these three references:

de Miguel, P. M., Martínez, A. G., & Montes-Botella, J. L. (2022). Review of the measurement of Dynamic Capabilities: A proposal of indicators for the automotive industry. ESIC Market, 53(1), e283-e283. Added in text part 2. Research subject and problem, line 216- 223 and Reference 33

Ogunrinde, A. (2022). The Effectiveness of Soft Skills in Generating Dynamic Capabilities in ICT companies. ESIC Market, 53(3), e286-e286. Added in text part 2. Research subject and problem, line 179-183 and Reference 27

Sánchez Tróchez, D. X., Cerón Ríos, G. M., & Rivera Martínez, W. F. (2021). Intrapreneurship in Small Organizations: Case Studies in Small Businesses. ESIC Market. Economic & Business Journal, 52(1). Added in text part 2. Research subject and problem , line 179-183 and Reference 28