Sustainable Digital Transformation for SMEs: A Comprehensive Framework for Informed Decision-Making

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the Author

Overall, an interesting paper to read. In my view,  the authors should be invited to prepare a revised version before publication could be considered. From my perspective, the points that need to be addressed are as follows:

 

1.         Include in the abstract a paragraph explaining the methodology used and how the benefits of sustainability practices were identified for the organisation.

2.         In the introduction section it is mentioned that SMEs encounter unique challenges in adopting IT technologies and sustainable practices, but these challenges are not detailed. What are these specific challenges? 

3.         The introduction highlights the importance of integrating sustainability principles into DT strategies, but does not clarify the mechanisms by which digitisation can effectively support sustainability goals. 

4.         There is a need to explore the relationship between SDT at the SME level and broader policies or global trends in sustainability and digitisation, providing a broader framework for the importance and relevance of the study.

5.         I recommend including specific examples or case studies in the literature section to highlight how SMEs have successfully implemented SDT strategies and overcome the specific challenges mentioned. 

6.         Figure 2. describes Keywoards network based on co-occurrence but nothing is mentioned about the clusters resulting from these links. Please explain their importance in the context of the analysis.

7.         The flow chart used to describe the methodology is  general and very simplistic. Please reconfigure this figure with particular elements concerning your study.

8. The methodology for validating the theoretical framework through the case study is described briefly. A more detailed description of the selection of the participating SME, the role of passive participation and the specifics of the case study could enhance the understanding and credibility of the results.

9. While it is mentioned that the SDT framework is advantageous for SMEs due to its stakeholder-centric engagement, it would be useful to detail how this approach specifically differs from conventional digitisation efforts and what direct impact this has on sustainability and operational efficiency.

10. The conclusions should more clearly highlight the practical implications of the study results for SME managers and policy makers developing sustainability strategies.

11. The discussion of the limitations of the study should also provide specific recommendations for future research, suggesting how these limitations could be addressed in future studies to extend the generalizability and applicability of the SDT framework.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper contributes to the discourse on sustainable digital transformation for SMEs. However, to enhance its impact and scholarly rigour, the authors should consider the following revisions:

1. Clarify Research Objectives: More explicitly state the research questions or hypotheses to guide the reader through the paper's purpose and scope.

2. Deepen Theoretical Discussion: More critically analyses existing models and frameworks. Discuss the limitations and gaps in the current literature to more compellingly justify the need for the proposed framework.

3. Balance the Discussion: Incorporate a more analytical discussion of the findings, including potential counterarguments or alternative perspectives. This would enrich the paper’s contribution to the ongoing scholarly debate.

4. Link Conclusions to Broader Implications: Strengthen the conclusion section by more directly linking the case study findings to broader implications for SMEs. Discuss the framework's practical applicability in various contexts.

5. Address Language and Style Concerns: Review the manuscript for overused phrases and ensure that the language is precise and clarifies the arguments. The consistent use of terms like "navigating," "embarking," and "landscape" should be evaluated for their necessity and contribution to the text's overall clarity.

6. Consider Additional Case Studies: Include more case studies or empirical examples to validate the framework across different contexts if possible. This would enhance the paper's robustness and applicability.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is generally well-written, but minor edits for clarity and consistency would improve its readability. Specifically, attention should be given to the overuse of terms such as "navigating," "embarking," and "landscape," which might not always contribute meaningfully to the text's clarity. These are red flags that suggest extensive use of Chat GPT in drafting the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the way my recommendations were addressed. 

Author Response

Thank you very much by revise again our manuscript.
 
We found most of the reviewer’s comments fair and useful. By responding to those comments we believe that we have addressed their concerns and that our article is greatly enhanced now.

Best regards

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors improved the article sufficiently

Author Response

Thank you very much by revise again our manuscript.
 
We found most of the reviewer’s comments fair and useful. By responding to those comments we believe that we have addressed their concerns and that our article is greatly enhanced now.

Best regards

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the Sustainable Digital Transformation is very actual and important. However, after the revision the major contributions of the paper are still missing but the same time several minor contribution are found all over the text. I feel that the orientation to Small and Medium-sized Enterprises is not successful. Several ideas are general to work in any kind of enterprises and the few ideas with connection with SME are not convincing enough. My suggestion is to reorganize the whole project on the base of few major goals.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper was improved, but it needs some improvements as follows:

https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10080885

https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12051205

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-52839-7_14

Improve the critical analysis of the literature, especially in the Discussion section. We recommend seeing the following sources that can be relevant to your research:

The logical flow of the content of the article should be improved. If the editors approve, we suggest that the second version be without "Track Changes" - and the changes be put into value by different colors - for example, the initial text in black and the improvement in green or red.

 

Good luck!

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The structure of the sentences should be improved.

We suggest that authors read every sentence with attention.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The article provides a comprehensive overview but could benefit from a deeper analysis of recent trends in the field to better situate its relevance.

2. Although most references are pertinent, some could be more current or directly relevant to the specific context of SMEs.

3. The research design and methods are generally clear but lack some specifics regarding data collection and analysis techniques, which could strengthen the research's validity.

4. The argumentation is coherent, yet at times it lacks a critical perspective on potential limitations or alternative interpretations of the findings.

5. The results are presented clearly, but the integration of data visualizations or more detailed statistical analysis could enhance the clarity.

6. The article is well-referenced but would benefit from a more diverse range of sources, particularly incorporating recent studies.

7. The conclusions are generally supported by the results, but they could be strengthened with a more explicit linkage to specific data points and findings.

1. Originality: Average - The article presents a unique framework, yet similar concepts have been explored in previous research.
2. Contribution to Scholarship: High - It contributes significantly to the understanding of sustainability in digital transformation for SMEs.
3. Quality of Structure and Clarity: Average - The structure is clear but could be more engaging and dynamic in its presentation.
4. Logical Coherence/Strength of Argument/Academic Soundness: Average - Arguments are generally sound but occasionally lack depth in critical analysis.
5. Engagement with Sources and Recent Scholarship: Low - The article could more robustly engage with recent studies and debates in the field.
6. Overall Merit: Average - While the article offers valuable insights, enhancements in engagement with recent scholarship and depth of argument could elevate its impact.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.docx