Effect of Competent Human Capital, Strategic Flexibility and Turbulent Environment on Sustainable Performance of SMEs in Manufacturing Industries in Palestine
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper discusses an interesting topic in a turbulent region. The literature review is well-written and the implications are well-described.
My advice is to improve the article by writing down the key stakeholders in Palestine such as private sector institutions, government institutions, and donors. That can help to improve your recommendations.
Also, it will be interesting to describe the situation in West Bank and Gaza Strip.
As well, how can you assure sustainable performance by measuring: energy efficiency, financial stability, profit, customer satisfaction, and concern for society?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
kindly find attached the detailed response to your valuable comments.
Best Regards,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The text is incomprehensible in some places. Reading the work, I have the impression that there is no key thought around which the report was based. The authors keep coming back to the same statements. I assure you that it is better for the work to be short and concise than illegible. I have put my doubts in the detailed comments. In addition, I do not understand why the authors do not refer to the issues of ecosystem services and basically the work deals with it.
The text is largely generic, which a scientific text based on empirical evidence should avoid.
The author needs to clarify the new contribution of the research in the introduction. This part the author did was too sketchy. It is necessary to clearly state the new and motivating points of the article.
The communication is overall clear but the paper needs editing. The author(s) are advised to use short sentences for better clarity to the readers.
CHC variable with too high Cronbach alpha >0.9 shows that the items have high overlap.
Research results should be discussed and compared in the research context
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
Kindly find in the attached file the detailed reply to your valuable comments/feedback.
Best Regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors
First of all grateful for the opportunity to be the reviewer of this article entitled "Effect of Competent Human Capital, Strategic Flexibility and Turbulent Environment on Sustainable Performance of SMEs in Manufacturing Industries in Palestine". The arguments of the article can be considered novel according to the theoretical approach and the latent variables that were operationalized by the study. Nevertheless, there are some points that should be improved before publication. To illustrate the criticisms, the structure of the revised manuscript will follow.
1. In the presentation of the literature review, the triple bottom line and contingency theories are linked as the theoretical basis of the study. The question arises as to the reasons why only these two theories were used. Since NRBV, TCE, DC, Stakeholders etc. were not discussed and rejected with arguments by the article, for example.
2. In the methodology there is an extensive explanation of the sampling routine and the search for a random sample condition, which is favorable. However, there is a lack of explanation of the steps followed to choose the observation units and the PLS-SEM algorithm that was used to validate the path diagram measurement system.
3. In the construction of the measurement and structural model is presented in a direct way, the reason for the hypotheses formulated, the arrows connecting the theoretical constructs converted latent variables. In this sense, a question arises as to what was the reason for disregarding the theoretical or empirical relationships that the latent variables "Turbulent environment" and "Competent human capital" might have, for example.
4. In the result presentation of the measurement model three of the indicators evaluated, (SP1, TE3, TE5) by the sample have factor loadings outside the region of acceptance according to the criterion of the average varianza extracted. However, in the evaluation of the results in the structural model this situation of the indicators (SP1, TE3, TE5) is ignored.
5. In the presentation of the statistical results of PLS-SEM there is a lack of a summary about VIF, Harman's test, for citing two examples, which are markers for the quality of the model.
In general terms, the authors should work on these points to obtain "Accept in present form".
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
Kind find in the attached file the detailed reply to your valuable comments/feedback.
Best Regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed all my comments.
