Sustainability of Romanian Small and Medium Enterprises Using the Electronic Signature as a Driving Digital Tool
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The article has been completely rebuilt from the original version. The authors have adapted to the comments of the reviewers. I find that the project's goal and hypotheses have been formulated better. The article deals with a current and scientifically important topic. I have no objections to the methodology and structure of the article. Correct literature was used. The drawings were prepared correctly, and the research limitations and further research challenges were indicated.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article is the second revision submitted for review, improving research methods, statistics, and other suggestions. Because this article is mainly to investigate the use status and results of national and regional. Contributions to creativity and research are relatively small, such as technical assistance to the world's electronic signature, risk assessment, process methods, use policies of various countries in the world...etc. The author's survey results also contribute to the country and region; finding a suitable session for the paper to submit is recommended.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. A digital signature and a title background would be much appreciated. how does the implementation impact the SME? does it matter for having or not having them? leading to better performance of SMEs?
2. The qualitative results were not presented. Could you include them?
3. How big was the qualitative and qualitative sample size?
4. SWOT analysis was proposed, do include them
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper has improved. Congratulations. Just some issues in the figure locations that during the preprint stage can be adjusted.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe work is very interesting and could contribute many elements related to electronic forms in Romanian SMEs. However, the proposed methodology is not conclusive because only one of the five respondents completed the questionnaire, which takes away weight and validity, not only from the survey but also provides a very important bias to the work. Perhaps if the second study being analyzed were left out and the authors kept the first study, they could obtain much more conclusive results. Many times less is more.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe contribution value and research method are low. Still, I reluctantly accept it because this is a special journal issue.
Before being published by the editor-in-chief, you must still pay attention to whether there are misaligned pictures (LINE 499) (Line 577-580)...., text descriptions, and other issues on the layout. This is related to the journal's quality and the authors' honor. Please be careful and strict with the article.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of the English language is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
The difficulty in getting responses from providers is understandable, but unfortunately a consequence cannot be determined from a single response. It is not statistically valid. The methodology as currently presented is not suitable for this study. I suggest adapting the methodology to the information you have available.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Due to the effort to improve the methodology and the changes made to the manuscript and despite the weaknesses in the original methodology used, I suggest strengthening said methodology with a strong bibliographical analytical addition, where some authors who refer to the chosen topic are cited by the authors. The authors should go in a table within the methodology to help strengthen the original methodology and serve as validation and improvement of the general methodology. With that addition, it would be an interesting contribution for me.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
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
Comments and Suggestions for Authors The electronic signature is already a standard in many countries, so it is digitization that is rather natural in the economy. In many areas it is difficult to even navigate this instrument. Perhaps it would be worth pointing out in the article the barriers related to the fact that enterprises do not use this signature in a common way yet. The article should be corrected / supplemented: • The article is too local in nature - Romanian companies. It does not show how it looks, for example, against the background of the EU. • The results of the research should be analyzed more extensively and the results obtained should be discussed in the context of the formulated hypotheses; • Please highlight what the article brings to science and indicate further research challenges in the presented topic. • Please consider supplementing the article with a description of what can increase the use of this tool in SMEs in Romania.Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments to Authors
Thank you for submitting your manuscript titled Sustainability through Digitalization. A Case Study for Digital Signature in Romanian SMEs. This manuscript aims to study the benefits of digitalization to Romanian SMEs that use digital signatures. The topic is exciting and worthy of research. The case reasonably fits the issues in the sustainability journal's scope. However, this study has some concerns. Some manuscript issues need careful reconsideration, especially the paper's readability, structure, and scientific soundness. Also, the Introduction lacks a straightforward research question and hypothesis. The authors have provided a descriptive introduction without clearly focusing on the research problem.
Also, my key concern in this manuscript is the data analysis and research problem. Some experiments are needed for further development and are explained in the manuscript. The data analysis is not appropriate. Overall, the manuscript needs significant revision. Thus, I highly encourage authors to resubmit the manuscript after addressing the issues.
Abstract: It lacks specific details about your findings. To improve your abstract, I suggest Authors strengthen it further, providing key findings and policy implications. It is also better to present the abstract in a single paragraph.
Introduction: It would be more appropriate if the Author(s) included and discussed the study's primary objective in the last part of the Introduction. The Introduction lacks a straightforward research question and hypothesis. The authors have provided a descriptive introduction without clearly focusing on the research problem. I suggest that Author/s restructure the introduction section to give an essential background of this study. Provide an overview of the manuscript structure.
Materials and Methods: The methodology section is not well structured. Also, please remove the writing of the first paragraph (Lines 200-203) and revise this section correctly.
Results: The results section presents some interesting findings. However, the authors have not provided a clear and concise summary of their results. The findings presented in the paper should be restructured. I suggest the Author/s re-write this section. I hope the Author/s should find a scientific/proper way to explain the characteristics of SMEs(pl see Lines 248-256 etc.)
Discussion: The discussion lacks depth and fails to provide clear arguments. The authors should provide more critical analysis of the findings and relate them to the existing literature. I believe it would be more appropriate if the Author/s could present and discuss the main results under the sub-sections of the data analysis section, and tables and figures should be named properly. lease remove table 16, figure 17 etc. from the manuscript.
Conclusion: The conclusion is weak and lacks a clear summary of the main findings. The authors should revise the conclusion to further develop the section by providing limitations, future research directions, and policy implications.
Finally, the Author(s) is/are encouraged to correct mistakes in academic writing, in-text citations, and references in the paper. Proofreading is necessary. I encourage authors to resubmit the manuscript after addressing the issues mentioned above.
All the best.!
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe overall idea of the paper is fascinating as well as the described research subject. However, there are several aspects that the authors do not address suitably, and some issues need to supplement.
1. The integrity of the title description and the use of symbols are suggested for the authors to rethink and adjust.
2. The statistical analysis method in this article seems to be only a cumulative statistical description, without using methods such as tests or difference analysis. Therefore, there is no reliability and validity to be judged on the data.
3. In the semi-structured items of the first and second questionnaires, in the analysis, discussion, and conclusion of this article, there is no explanation of the results of any qualitative research.
4. This is a well-known use and risk of digital signatures. Therefore, the arguments and empirical evidence are weak and insufficient.
5. Regarding research limitations, there are no specific instructions on which parts are not discussed.
In general, the manuscript has been prepared very honestly. However, the statement of the content of this article is too simple, and the research method is too loose so the article does not show its importance.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I believe you made not negligible efforts in writing your article, however I am convinced that it is yet not suitable for publication.
A valid literature review is missing. Statements like " Digital transformation will have a positive impact on people, on the entire planet [49], [50], [51], [52]" and many others have no informative value. Also citations from the Sustainability journal from last 2 years are used with amazing frequency. You should try to seek for a wider analysis to be able to describe the current state of the art in your topic. The reader is interested to read some challenging synthesis or comparative analysis instead of for example: „Research in the field of sustainable development highlights the importance of 96 innovative technologies, new practices, and behaviors [24], [25], [26], [27], [28].
I miss catching conclusions which may be referenced by international audience. Yours are almost intuitive. Your abstract is not in standart format.
This article is not ready for publication, unfortunatelly.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
