Green Innovation in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs): A Qualitative Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Author:
This paper adopted a qualitative approach and analyzes the green innovation in SMEs. The research topic is meaningful. However, there are a few suggestions for revisions for the author's reference:
1. This study selects three SME cases in an inland region of Portugal. As Sustainability is an international article, I think the selection of research object has limited international reference for other countries. Or the authors should explain why they choose the three SME cases in an inland region of Portugal. And, in my opinion, the three small companies in restaurant, retail sectors the author just chooses for qualitative analysis are also not representative.
2. The literature review is not well organized and written in this manuscript. It is recommended to revise this part.
3. It is also suggested to introduce the methodology detailly in this study.
4. The results and discussions in section 4 are lack of scientific support.
5. some references missed the journal name. it seems this manuscript was not written carefully.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
- This study selects three SME cases in an inland region of Portugal. As Sustainability is an international article, I think the selection of research object has limited international reference for other countries. Or the authors should explain why they choose the three SME cases in an inland region of Portugal. And, in my opinion, the three small companies in restaurant, retail sectors the author just chooses for qualitative analysis are also not representative.
R: Dear reviewer thank you. Now we explain that our sample wes by convenience. In addition, we present this concern as a limitation of our study.
- The literature review is not well organized and written in this manuscript. It is recommended to revise this part.
R: Some paragraphs were re-written and more recent citations were inserted.
- It is also suggested to introduce the methodology detailly in this study.
R: The Methodology section was extended and reinforced.
- The results and discussions in section 4 are lack of scientific support.
R: More support was included.
- some references missed the journal name. it seems this manuscript was not written carefully.
R: These typos were considered accordingly.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article requires rethinking, supplementing the content (according to the comments made), and redrafting.
· The article was not prepared in accordance with the guidelines of the journal, the format of the publishing house was not adapted; · No clearly formulated research goal / questions in the article; · General literature review, key items of world literature on this topic are missing. The authors present the definitions and dependencies on the basis; · Conclusions from the research are very general, not allowing any conclusions; · There are no clearly defined limitations for the presented research results; · There is no discussion in the article, and yet the topic is already widely described and presented in the literature; · There is no definition for future research challenges.Author Response
The article requires rethinking, supplementing the content (according to the comments made), and redrafting.
The article was not prepared in accordance with the guidelines of the journal, the format of the publishing house was not adapted; · No clearly formulated research goal / questions in the article; · General literature review, key items of world literature on this topic are missing. The authors present the definitions and dependencies on the basis; · Conclusions from the research are very general, not allowing any conclusions; · There are no clearly defined limitations for the presented research results; · There is no discussion in the article, and yet the topic is already widely described and presented in the literature; · There is no definition for future research challenges.
R: Dear reviewer thank you for your comments. Now, some parts of our paper were re-written, extended and reinforced. In addition, more recent literature was inserted. On the other hand, more limitations and future agenda were presented.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper investigates an interesting issue and the paper is well presented.
However, I have some comments:
The authors should mention the motivation and contribution of the paper much better.
Also, it will be good if the authors compare their results with the results of the previous studies.
Moreover, I suggest the authors to give some country experiences. For this, please see below a suggested paper:
Gogokhia, T. and Berulava, G. (2021). Business environment reforms, innovation and firm productivity in transition economies. Eurasian Business Review, 11(2), 221–245.
Author Response
The paper investigates an interesting issue and the paper is well presented.
R: Dear reviewer, thank you for your general comment.
However, I have some comments:
The authors should mention the motivation and contribution of the paper much better.
Also, it will be good if the authors compare their results with the results of the previous studies.
Moreover, I suggest the authors to give some country experiences. For this, please see below a suggested paper:
Gogokhia, T. and Berulava, G. (2021). Business environment reforms, innovation and firm productivity in transition economies. Eurasian Business Review, 11(2), 221–245.
R: According to your suggestions, some parts of our papwe was specificied, extended and reinforced.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Please see attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer thank you. Despite you critics abou tour study, we believe that it was improved with inclusion of several suggestions presented by other three reviewers.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
i think the authors didn't address my comments carefully.
I am still confused about the selection of the three cases. i think they are not representative SMEs . in this case, the conclusions obtained may not representative and repeatable.
moreover, i think the manuscript is not well-written.
Author Response
- This study selects three SME cases in an inland region of Portugal. As Sustainability is an international article, I think the selection of research object has limited international reference for other countries. Or the authors should explain why they choose the three SME cases in an inland region of Portugal. And, in my opinion, the three small companies in restaurant, retail sectors the author just chooses for qualitative analysis are also not representative.
R: Dear reviewer thank you. Now we explain that our sample was by convenience. In addition, we present this concern as a limitation of our study.
I am still confused about the selection of the three cases. i think they are not representative SMEs . in this case, the conclusions obtained may not representative and repeatable.
R: Now, we reincorded some parts in Methodology section. We presente sthe criteria usud to choose our three SMes for our study and justify the small sample used in qualitative approach.
I think the manuscript is not well-written.
R: Some parts of our paper were re-written and reinforced with recente citations.
The results and discussions in section 4 are lack of scientific support.
R: More support and discussion was included in this section.
- some references missed the journal name. it seems this manuscript was not written carefully.
R: These typos were considered accordingly.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors made a slight improvement to the article. The research methodology was clarified. The studies presented in the article are still not representative. The conclusion in this regard is very limited. Separate results from discussions. The discussion should refer to previous research that can be found in the literature. The authors did not address the comments in their letter to the reviewer.
Author Response
The authors made a slight improvement to the article. The research methodology was clarified.
R: Dear reviewer, thank you for your general commment.
The studies presented in the article are still not representative.
R: Now in Methodology section we explain as in qualitative approach the sample is generally small. We present also the criteria used to choose these rhree SMEs for our case studies.
The conclusion in this regard is very limited.
R: As suggested, we reinforced the Conclusions section. More contributions were presented. We reinforced this last part and limitations and future agenda was also extended.
The discussion should refer to previous research that can be found in the literature.
- As recommended, we reinforced the results discussions. More previous research
was inserted.
The article was not prepared in accordance with the guidelines of the journal, the format of the publishing house was not adapted;
R: Now we believe that the guidelines of the journal were fallowed.
No clearly formulated research goal / questions in the article;
R: In Introduction section, we resent more clearly our research objective and the contributions of our study were reinforced, as well as the research gap was more clearly identified.
- General literature review, key items of world literature on this topic are missing. The authors present the definitions and dependencies on the basis;·
R: The literature review was extended and more recente literature was inserted.
Conclusions from the research are very general, not allowing any conclusions; · There are no clearly defined limitations for the presented research results; ·
R: As suggested, we reinforced the Conclusions section. More contributions were presented. We reinforced this last part and limitations and future agenda was also extended
There is no discussion in the article, and yet the topic is already widely described and presented in the literature; ·
R: More support and discussion was included in this section.
Reviewer 3 Report
My suggested points have not been considered.
Author Response
The paper investigates an interesting issue and the paper is well presented.
R: Dear reviewer, thank you for your general comment.
However, I have some comments:
The authors should mention the motivation and contribution of the paper much better.
R: In Introduction and Conclusions sections, we reinforced the contributions of our study.
Also, it will be good if the authors compare their results with the results of the previous studies.
R: More support and discussion was included in this section.
Moreover, I suggest the authors to give some country experiences. For this, please see below a suggested paper:
Gogokhia, T. and Berulava, G. (2021). Business environment reforms, innovation and firm productivity in transition economies. Eurasian Business Review, 11(2), 221–245.
R: According to your suggestions, some parts of our papee was specificied, extended and reinforced.
Reviewer 4 Report
I accept!
You've done an excellent job of responding to all my comments. I have a few additional things for you to consider; please read my review.
All best, {:=>)
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
I accept!
You've done an excellent job of responding to all my comments. I have a few additional things for you to consider; please read my review.
R: Dear reviewer thank you for your “positive” feed-back about our paper. All comments and concerns presented by you were considered accordingly.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
congrats! this manuscript is improved. it can be accepted.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you.
The authors are grateful to the referee of the journal for is/her extremely useful suggestions to improve the quality of the paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is not prepared in accordance with the journal form. The accompanying version contains editorial comments. I accept the authors' corrections, the article presents an average level, but I can accept the authors' explanations and additions.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you.
These typos were considered accordingly.
The authors are grateful to the referee of the journal for is/her extremely useful suggestions to improve the quality of the paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
It can be accepted.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you.
The authors are grateful to the referee of the journal for is/her extremely useful suggestions to improve the quality of the paper.
