Measuring Supply Chain Performance for Khanh Hoa Sanest Soft Drink Joint Stock Company: An Application of the Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is well developed but I only suggest authors to include few sentences regarding future avenue

Author Response

Number	Comments or questions	Response
1	This study is well developed but I only suggest authors to include few sentences regarding future avenue	Note comment on page 19: A broadened scope involves the collection of longitudinal and cross-sectional data for future analyses and comparisons using the SCOR model.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Number	Comments or questions	Response
1	In the introduction section, there is an imbalance in the content between sections 1.1 and 1.4 compared to sections 1.2 and 1.3. I suggest the author either merge them and provide appropriate additional content or separately enhance sections 1.2 and 1.3. Section 1.2 lacks clarity in research objectives and research questions, while the content in 1.3 is somewhat vague and does not effectively highlight the uniqueness of this study, requiring further modification.	There are many changes that have altered this section of the study. Please note the changes between lines 66 to 128 in the new version.
2.	The literature review is best presented as a separate section rather than being included in the introduction. Additionally, you need to supplement the existing literature gap in the introduction.	The literature section has been placed in the methods section. Please note new version.
3.	In line 69, "which has dual means of operation, traditional and modern," what is meant by traditional operation? What is modern operation? This needs clarification.	Hence, this model is ideal to evaluate the performance of a company with dual means of operation, traditional (manual operating logistical networks) and modern (computerized and digital operating platforms of interconnected networks) and to determine efficiency of operation before and during a major event like the COVID pandemic.
4.	On line 114, is it ERN or EBN? Please verify this again.	It should be EBN.
5.	Section 2, "Materials and Methods," requires additional information. For example, you should specify the distribution channel breakdown to determine whether it is reasonable to only provide feedback forms to agents. Additionally, when you mention, "The authors interviewed the managers..." it is important to specify how many managers were interviewed, whether they were all sales managers, and whether their job roles were similar. Empirical articles require a clear description of the data source.	Note the changes in the rewritten methods section. They were all sales managers. See changes in the text.
6.	The content between the headings "4. Discussion and conclusion" and "4.1. Recommendations" should be presented as a new subsection to enhance the clarity of the article's structure.	Recommendations has a separate subheading.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Research Paper needs the following revisions and is subject to re-review and after re-review the final decision for the paper will be made:

1. Revise the Abstract- Start with Background, then add the scope and problem definition. Then highlight what is the aim/objective of the paper and what novelty is there in the proposed technique. In the last lines, highlight in what %age and in what parameters the proposed methodology is better as compared to existing techniques and what is the overall analysis of the proposed technique.

2. Keep the Introduction focussed on the Background, Scope, Problem Definition, and other related information. Don't add a Literature review to the section. Add the objectives of the paper at the end of the Introduction and then add the Organization of the paper.

3. Add a Literature review after the Introduction and add min 20-30 Papers and every paper to be elaborated with what is proposed, what is the novelty, and what results are observed. In the last lines, highlight in 9-15 lines what overall technical gaps are observed that led to the design of proposed methodology.

4. Check all the figures especially, 1, 2, and 3 need more elaborations. 

5. Also, some bbrevaitions are repeated severally in the titel, abstract and body of the work. examples Supply chain (SC), supply chain operations reference model (SCOR), etc.

6. Add proper Algorithm and flowchart of the proposed methodology.

7. Information on Tables 3, 4, and 5 cann be adequately represented in graphs and plotted.

8. Show the model based on which simulations are carried out and take screenshots with regard to the simulations / working-based styles.

9. Add future scope to the paper.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It requires a complete revision for enhancing the English properly.

Author Response

Dear Sir Thanks for the worthwhile comments. I have made all the requested changes suggested.

Sincerely,

Corrections and inquiries	Response
Revise the Abstract- Start with Background, then add the scope and problem definition. Then highlight what is the aim/objective of the paper and what novelty is there in the proposed technique. In the last lines, highlight in what %age and in what parameters the proposed methodology is better as compared to existing techniques and what is the overall analysis of the proposed technique.	Completed. Note changes in the manuscript.
Keep the Introduction focused on the Background, Scope, Problem Definition, and other related information. Don't add a Literature review to the section. Add the objectives of the paper at the end of the Introduction and then add the Organization of the paper.	Completed. Note changes in the paper.
Add a Literature review after the Introduction and add min 20-30 Papers and every paper to be elaborated with what is proposed, what is the novelty, and what results are observed. In the last lines, highlight in 9-15 lines what overall technical gaps are observed that led to the design of proposed methodology.	Completed. Note changes in the paper.
Check all the figures especially, 1, 2, and 3 need more elaborations.	Completed. Note changes in the paper.
Also, some abbreviations are repeated severally in the title, abstract and body of the work. examples Supply chain (SC), supply chain operations reference model (SCOR), etc.	Completed. Note changes in the paper
Add proper Algorithm and flowchart of the proposed methodology.	Completed. Note figure 1 in the paper.
Information on Tables 3, 4, and 5 can be adequately represented in graphs and plotted.	Tables 3 and 5 have been adequately represented in graphs. Table 4 proved to be difficult to represented in one graph.
Show the model based on which simulations are carried out and take screenshots with regard to the simulations / working-based styles.	Completed. Note figure 3 in the paper
Add future scope to the paper.	Note the future scope “However, with the present contact the hope is that longitudinal data can be collected, and AHP and machine learning techniques can be used to improve the analysis [56]. A broadened scope involves the collection of longitudinal and cross-sectional data for future analyses and comparisons using the SCOR model.”

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 article is an interesting case study. The authors present the various stages in the SCOR model in detail and indicate the results based on their analysis. It is worth pointing out in the conclusion that the life of the SCOR model has evolved over almost three decades, and today attention is also being paid to the sustainability aspect especially for suppliers. This was missing from the study. Also missing was a reference to modern forms of purchasing, among others, lean procurement.  It is worth mentioning this in the recommendations, which, after such an extensive description of the research, will enrich the final conclusions. 

Author Response

1.	Sustainability was missing from the study	1.      Sustainability has been mentioned in two places. a.      The plant survived the ravages of COVID-19 and is still operational which indicates that the business is sustainable. b.      .….but on the whole business performance remains good and adjustments being made will increase sustainability.
2.	Also missing was a reference to modern forms of purchasing, among others, lean procurement.	1. The just-in-case inventory system is more appropriate than the just-in-time, even though costly, given the risks of insufficient materials at the required time. Modern and lean forms of purchasing can be explored by adopting new technologies that will facilitate the delivery of inputs and reduce just-in-case purchasing.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study conducted on Supply Chain Performance Measurement -A Case Study of SCOR Model in Khanh Hoa Sanest Soft Drink Joint Stock Company. I have the following suggestions:

1. Abstract of this article should be further simplify and emphasized on the key findings.

2. Title of this article is difficult to read. It is recommended to avoid jargons and technical word in title of the study.

3. Introduction section and literature review sections should be further enhanced and develop the coherence between paragraphs. Also, authors should cite the up-to-date literature from the scientific journals. Following articles can be cited:

https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1910/1/012011

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-11-2021-1744

4. Methodology section is not very clear. Why author employed this research method and what are the benefits of this method? It should be incorporated in one paragraph in methodology section.

5. Conclusion section needs to be improved and highlight the key practical implications, theoretical contributions, current study limitations and future research avenue.

Author Response

. Conclusion section needs to be improved and highlight the key practical implications, theoretical contributions, current study limitations and future research avenue.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study uses SCOR model to evaluate the supply chain performance of two enterprises. By analyzing financial and non-financial indicators, the study concludes that the use of information technology within enterprises is limited and needs to be utilized to further improve supply chain performance in the future. I consider this article inappropriate for publication in our journal for the following reasons:

1. Case study method is very limited. In my opinion, the conclusions of this study are only suitable for these two companies, so it lacks representative conclusions. In addition, the research conclusions are not rich, which is difficult to make a valuable supplement to the literature on supply chain performance.

2. The research method is SCOR model. The author will improve the SCOR model in the future, and it will be more interesting to verify its feasibility with empirical evidence.

3. Lack of research purpose and significance. In my opinion, this seems to be more of an exercise in applying the SCOR model than a paper. It lacks innovation, and the research value is very limited.

4. The research conclusion is to use information technology to improve supply chain performance, which has been mentioned in many studies. So the value of the conclusions is limited.

5. Writing needs to be structured more clearly.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This study uses SCOR model to evaluate the supply chain performance of two enterprises. By analyzing financial and non-financial indicators, the study concludes that the use of information technology within enterprises is limited and needs to be utilized to further improve supply chain performance in the future. I consider this article inappropriate for publication in our journal for the following reasons:

1. Case study method is very limited. In my opinion, the conclusions of this study are only suitable for these two companies, so it lacks representative conclusions. In addition, the research conclusions are not rich, which is difficult to make a valuable supplement to the literature on supply chain performance.

2. The research method is SCOR model. The author will improve the SCOR model in the future, and it will be more interesting to verify its feasibility with empirical evidence.

3. Lack of research purpose and significance. In my opinion, this seems to be more of an exercise in applying the SCOR model than a paper. It lacks innovation, and the research value is very limited.

4. The research conclusion is to use information technology to improve supply chain performance, which has been mentioned in many studies. So the value of the conclusions is limited.

5. Writing needs to be structured more clearly.

Author Response

Writing needs to be structured more clearly.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx