Discovering Sustainable Business Partnerships through a Deep Learning Approach to Maximize Potential Value

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Although the abstract was written in a fairly informal manner, it was still necessary to include data, a methodology, and particular results. 

2. The Opening Statement, Background Information, Research Question, and Significance of the Study all needed to be updated in order to improve the introduction's coherence. 

3. Include the following in your literature review: any discrepancies or contradictions in the results of different research; any gaps in the literature; and how the literature informs or contributes to the justification for your study. 

4. The author has to explain why the data was obtained from the KoDATA company in South Korea rather than from other data sources. 

5. The table, figure, and references must adhere to the author's guidelines for the Sustainability journal.

6. DOI should be incorporated into the references section in the event it is missing.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Professional English editing is required.

Author Response

Please find an attached document containing the point-to-point responses for the reviewer's comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research proposes measuring the value of partnership networks in various sectors of small and medium-sized companies. The results become relevant given the methodological proposal and the differences in approach compared to previous research.

 In the abstract: I suggest improving the abstract. Highlight that the results show the importance of expanding the partnership network—partnerships limited to the direct network present fewer gains than partnerships in extended networks.

 In the Methodology topic: I suggest separating the explanation of the method of presentation and analysis of results into a different topic. In the current version, the results and analyses are part of the structure of the methodological proposal.

 In subtopic 4.2 data analysis, on line 264, the authors discuss Figure 4, but I believe the paragraph discusses Figure 5. I suggest reviewing it.

In Figure 5, each histogram should clarify which one represents each link (direct link and direct and indirect link, respectively). This adjustment will improve understanding of Figure 5.

 In topic 5, Discussions and implications, in the literature review carried out by the authors, it is clear that there are studies that contribute to the development of business partners. In this sense, as the research results also contribute to the identification of new business partnerships, I suggest that in the Discussion, the similarities and differences between the contribution of this research and the contributions of previous works are contrasted.

Author Response

Please find an attached document containing the point-to-point responses for the reviewer's comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Kindly address the following questions.

1.How have prior studies in this field primarily approached the issue of business partnerships, and what is the gap that the current study aims to address? Explanation on these aspects to be elaborated more.

2.What evidence does the study provide regarding the benefits of establishing business partnerships for small and medium-sized companies?

3.What was the rationale of using ANOVA and post hoc test particularly  Games-Howell tests.

4.How might the findings of this study be useful for SMEs in different industries when considering potential business partnerships?

5.Are there any specific limitations or challenges associated with the proposed method for estimating the potential benefits of business partnerships?  Limitations to be expanded.

6.What are the theoretical and managerial implications of your work?

7 .Can the findings be generalized? If not ,how would the findings vary beyond South Korea.

8. The results and discussions should be backed by with previous studies. How do you correlate the findings to the previous literature ? These discussions  are very minimal.

9.References are too less in the entire manuscript.

10. Figure 2 is too difficult to read and comprehend.

Author Response

Please find an attached document containing the point-to-point responses for the reviewer's comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Having the opportunity to read your paper and based on the following comments, the paper needs some revisions:

1- Still unclear what is the research gap and research originality

2- What is the research problem? Why is the paper necessary to conduct?

3-The research method is unclear and rough; at first, you need to conduct tenfold training data, then you go ahead according to the results.

 

Author Response

Please find an attached document containing the point-to-point responses for the reviewer's comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for sending the revised draft of the paper; the paper has improved substantially and stands at a good level.