The Adoption of Robotic Process Automation Considering Financial Aspects in Beef Supply Chains: An Approach towards Sustainability
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. It would be beneficial to provide more insight into the results in the abstract.
2. Literature review is not enough to support the literature gap considered in this study. The introduction must be substantially integrated through a more exhaustive literature review, with the aim of highlighting the literature gaps and justifying the research objectives.
3. Authors should develop a "true" discussion section, in which they broadly comment on the results obtained. I would like to know how the results were similar to or different from other studies. This is not clear.
4. Please add more information on what kind of pollution the beef supply chain generates into the atmosphere. The article lacks statistical data that will show the scale of the problem.
5. In the first part of the article, it is worth to illustrate a diagram of the beef supply chain.
6. What weaknesses do you see in the simulation method?
7. What makes this study unique and how are the findings advancing the field?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the invitation; the following points are my comments on the manuscript
The adoption of Robotic Process Automation considering financial aspects in beef supply chains: An approach towards sustainability
1. Abstract format should be revised: the study’s abstract does not show a clear idea of the study and does not provide sound academic justification. The authors should indicate whether the current study is (a review, research, report, or communication paper); second, the authors should include the methodological approach used in the study, the main findings, recommendations, and novelty of the study.
2. The introduction part is not well written. The concept of Robotic Process Automation, considering its financial aspects, should be clearly defined to academic readers; academic readers should know what it means to Robotic Process, how it relates to sustainability, and why the beef sector. At the same time, the authors should show the overall financial performance trend in qualitative and quantitative approaches, the study's novelty should be included, and the study's rationale should be included.
3. The literature section needs to be expanded. Recent and similar empirical studies should be included
4. The study has no conceptual framework
5. The methodology section lacks a research approach, research design, sampling techniques, and sample size. At the same time, the authors should rationalize all of the selection criteria
6. The finding and conclusion are not supported by previously conducted studies
7. The study has no limitations and future research indication
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for this interesting and well written article.
My main concern is an original contribution.
See for example:
E-Fatima, K., Khandan, R., Hosseinian-Far, A., Sarwar, D. and Ahmed, H.F., 2022. Adoption and Influence of Robotic Process Automation in Beef Supply Chains. Logistics, 6(3), p.48.
You need to engage more with recent literature on this topic and identify your original contribution.
Also, please provide more detail on the simluation which you used and why?
Has the simulation been used in practice? Why or why not?
Please discuss borader implications.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for making changes.
Kind regards
Author Response
We would like to thank you again for your feedback. There was no additional review points by you, however, we had to make some additional changes in response to other reviewers' comments. The system would still expect us to include some text for all reviewers, in order to be able submit the revised manuscript.
Thank you again.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for modifying the manuscript. I am satisfied with the modifications. However, the only minor correction is the citation. The authors should re-check the journal referring style and correct inline with it
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for revising the article. Please highliht original contribution of your work. Please undertake a thorough edit of the article. Please ensure all references are in-text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
