How Smart Technologies Affect the Decision-Making and Control System of Food and Beverage Companies—A Case Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents very interesting and important in 21th century topic. It is well written, methods have been cleraly described. The language is good as well. Congratulations for the authors.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers, we thank you for your time dedicated to reading our article. Your constructive comments encourage us to think better about our work and improve it.
Reviewer 2 Report
- the conclusions are not supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature, please revise
- the discussion part is limited by the interviews within one single firm, limiting the results to one entity and not the Food and Beverage industry
- for the relevance of the results, consider a quantitative method for exploring the interviews` results
Author Response
Dear Reviewers, we thank you for the time spent in the reading of our paper. Your constructive comments push us to think better about our work and to improve it, and we wish to illustrate our reflections and changes made in the paper in light of your suggestions. To facilitate the work of the reviewers, your comments are repeated, and our responses inserted after your comments in italic and in red.
We are looking forward to hearing from you soon.
POINT 1: the conclusions are not supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature, please revise
Response 1: The results were reorganized to be consistent with the literature previously. The conclusions were also revised to respond more consistently to the research demand
POINT 2: the discussion part is limited by the interviews within one single firm, limiting the results to one entity and not the Food and Beverage industry
Response 2: The discussion paragraph has been revised and reformulated to respond more fully to the research question
POINT 3: for the relevance of the results, consider a quantitative method for exploring the interviews` results
Response 3: the paragraph of the methodology has been enriched with the reasons that have led us to use a qualitative and not quantitative methodology
The paper has also been linguistically revised.
Reviewer 3 Report
This article lack data presentation and its statistical analysis. thus, it is similar to review article instead of research article. thus, it make difficult to judge the impact of smart technologies on the decision without sufficient data.
A appendix should be added which necessary information collected and how they are analysed for decision making.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers, we thank you for the time spent in the reading of our paper. Your constructive comments push us to think better about our work and to improve it, and we wish to illustrate our reflections and changes made in the paper in light of your suggestions. To facilitate the work of the reviewers, your comments are repeated, and our responses inserted after your comments in italic and in red.
We are looking forward to hearing from you soon.
POINT 1: This article lack data presentation and its statistical analysis. thus, it is similar to review article instead of research article. thus, it make difficult to judge the impact of smart technologies on the decision without sufficient data.
Response 1: The paragraph of the methodology has been enriched. Information has been added that led us to choose a qualitative methodology and not a statistical analysis.
A appendix should be added which necessary information collected and how they are analysed for decision making.
Response 2: Information on the necessary information collected and how it was analysed was incorporated in the section on methodology
The paper has also been linguistically revised
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Still, the research's original part/added value is limited by the interviews within one single firm, limiting the results to one entity and not the Food and Beverage industry (and one case, the Coffeehive Project).
The article lacks its impact on the industry.
Still, the relevance of the results is lacking. The authors did not consider a quantitative method for exploring the results.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers, we thank you for your time dedicated to reading our article. We would like to explain our reflections and changes in the document in the light of your suggestions. To facilitate the work of the reviewers, your comments are repeated and our responses are inserted after your comments in italics and in red.
We look forward to seeing you soon.
POINT 1: Still, the research's original part/added value is limited by the interviews within one single firm, limiting the results to one entity and not the Food and Beverage industry (and one case, the Coffeehive Project). The article lacks its impact on the industry.
In paragraph 5 "Discussion and conclusion", in particular on page 24, in line 34, the Authors specify that, having analysed a single case study, the conclusions cannot be generalized to all F&B industries.
POINT 2: Still, the relevance of the results is lacking. The authors did not consider a quantitative method for exploring the results.
At p. 7, in line 49, the Authors stated that to explore how smart technologies impact decision-making and control systems, a qualified method was used (Yin, 2017).
In addition, on page 7, line 51, the reasons for the choice of qualitative methodology were explained. (Fawcett et al., 2014).
It is also specified that interviews are one of the four main groups of qualitative data (p. 8 row 33).
Reviewer 3 Report
Acceptable improvement has been made.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we thank you for the time spent in the reading of our paper. Your suggestions allowed us to improve our work.
King regards
