Examining Environmental Turbulence Intensity: A Strategic Agility and Innovativeness Approach on Firm Performance in Environmental Turbulence Situations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review such an interesting article. A few small suggestions that in my opinion will increase its value for the reader:

1. It is worth adding information on the research methodology in the abstract.

2. The introduction should to link the aims of the article and the conducted research with the scope of the journal (for example through SDGs 8 and 9?).

3. In the Background section, it is worth emphasizing the innovativeness of companies.

4. In the Discussion section, it is worth discussing the results of the study in more depth with the results of the literature review.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you so much for your review and comments. Your review and comments provide us an opportunity to extend our paper. We sincerely appreciate your positive comments. We have completed the revisions in accordance with your suggestions. You can find them in the attached file.

Thank you again for your time and consideration.

 

Best regards,

Mr. Tuğkan ARICI

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Please consider my recommendations below:

1. The title should be changed so as to increase the future visibility of the article. ”Strategic agility and innovativeness approach” is quite vague

2. Please re-organize the text of the last section into 2 distinct sections, one for Discussions (and herein, please structure discussions on 2 major sub-topics, one for ”strategic agility” and one for ”innovativeness”) and one for Conclusions where you should corroborate everything together.

3. Insert more text on sampling method and representativeness of your sample in the total population. 

I look forward to checking the revised draft of your manuscript.

Yours faithfully,

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you so much for your review and comments. Your review and comments provide us an opportunity to extend our paper. We sincerely appreciate your positive comments. We have completed the revisions in accordance with your suggestions. You can find them in the attached file.

Thank you again for your time and consideration.

 

Best regards,

Mr. Tuğkan ARICI

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

We believe that some methodological details developed in this work should be provided in the abstract.

We do not understand the reason for the use of the letter H to list the assumptions. Perhaps there is a some confusion with the word hypothesis?

And, if they are hypotheses, as it seems from what is written later in the text, shouldn't they be part of the Methodology section?

The authors mention that "The research questions, source, and factor loads are presented in Table 1", however, in such table, there is no question listed, please, clarify this situation. (Line 268)

We believe that the methodological aspects should be better taken care of, and restructured. 

In table 2 there is a text that does not appear to be written in English, the language of the manuscript.(Line 299)

We also believe that there are some formatting problems with the text.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you so much for your review and comments. Your review and comments provide us an opportunity to extend our paper. We sincerely appreciate your positive comments. We have completed the revisions in accordance with your suggestions. You can find them in the attached file.

Thank you again for your time and consideration.

 

Best regards,

Mr. Tuğkan ARICI

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The article is well written and interesting. The structure and form do not raise objections. Only table 2 requires translation of some words into English.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you so much for your review and comments. Your review and comments provide us an opportunity to extend our paper. We sincerely appreciate your positive comments. We have completed the revisions in accordance with your suggestions. You can find them in the attached file.

Thank you again for your time and consideration.

 

Best regards,

Mr. Tuğkan ARICI

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. 

 

The paper is well written. However, there are still few issued to modified to improve the quality of the paper.

 

1. There is no need for excessive  citation in the introduction part. 

2. There should be a separate literature review part in this paper. 

3. The authors can include few of the issues from the recent earthquake in Turkiye. 

4. The authors are advised to compare their finding with the finding of other contemporary studies. This can be presented in a tabular format at the end of analysis part. 

5. Limitations and future research directions could be highlighted in the conclusion part. 

 

Best of luck for the second round of revision !!!!

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you so much for your review and comments. Your review and comments provide us an opportunity to extend our paper. We sincerely appreciate your positive comments. We have completed the revisions in accordance with your suggestions. You can find them in the attached file.

Thank you again for your time and consideration.

 

Best regards,

Mr. Tuğkan ARICI

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 5 Report

The paper has been substantially revised as per the comments and hence I have no hesitation to recommend it for publication. 

 

Well Done & Congratulations, Dear Authors.