Navigating Digital Transformation and Technology Adoption: A Literature Review from Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in Developing Countries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My notes are mostly technical. In the Abstract - there is no need for topics before the sentences. Please remove - Context, Method, Results and etc. Most of figures are with bad quality, some of them are not readable. Please replace them. What is 'd' means in Figure 4? Double-check RQ 4 in table 2. Why 'Population' in Table 3 is not in Italic? Double-check the text for misspellings (see line 621 - 'mses'). I have no notes on the methodology, the study, the discussion of the results and the conclusions. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the Authors:

 

Dear authors, first I would like to express my gratitude for the opportunity to review your article. After a thorough analysis of the manuscript, I would like to provide some constructive suggestions to enhance the clarity and impact of your work:

 

 

1.Introduction

 

Reviewer: “Digital transformation is about enhancing existing methods and fostering innovation and creativity through digital applications in specific domains.” How can you be so sure? Which study concluded this? These kinds of statements need to be confirmed with existing literature.

 

Reviewer: “For numerous companies, the challenge—and opportunity—lies in strategically adapting and augmenting their technology infrastructures and business processes to meet future demands. Organizations that lag in embracing these transformations risk being outpaced by their more forward-thinking counterparts.” Authors cannot base their arguments solely on their own convictions but must cite studies that validate them.

 

 

Reviewer: “Therefore, there is a critical need for research that examines digital transformation through a lens that respects and integrates the sociocultural specifics of

each setting.” The reason for carrying out the study cannot be based solely on the authors' own convictions. The authors need to reinforce the gap in the literature they intend to study, as well as the need to do this study, with the existing literature.

  

 

2. Background

 

2.1.1. Digital transformation and technology adoption

 

Reviewer:  The literature review clearly describes the topic under analysis, but it fails to provide the reader with studies that clearly demonstrate that technological adoption is being implemented. In this sense, the study would have a more obvious scientific contribution, with a brief reflection on recent studies that show that this digital transformation is in fact taking place. For example, the study by Sousa et al., 2024 - (https://doi.org/10.20867/thm.30.2.10) states that there is the possibility of companies increasing their competitiveness in the market through the adoption of virtual devices, helping companies to stand out in an increasingly competitive market. In addition, the study by Jorge et al., 2023 - https://doi.org/10.34624/rtd.v43i0.32992) proposes that the adoption of new digital commerce strategies can have a real impact on companies and how their acceptance by users can increase companies' interest in innovating their business models.

 

2.1.3. Developing countries

 

Reviewer: Authors should include more citations throughout the literature review.

 

 

3. Methods

 

Reviewer: The authors need to provide more information about the methodological process, especially explaining the choice of this approach. In addition, it is important that they mention which study(s) validate this approach and how they guarantee the validity of the process. On the other hand, the authors should explain how the selection and analysis criteria were established, and how they arrived at the research questions.

 

 

5. Discussion

5.1 Bibliometric analysis

 

Reviewer: The authors need to explain their choice of bibliometric analysis. Why did they use the VoSViewer software? What technique did they use? What studies validate this approach? How were the articles selected for this analysis? To avoid methodological information being scattered throughout the article, we suggest creating a section dedicated to methodologies before presenting the results.

 

6. Conclusions

 

Reviewer: Before the conclusions, it is suggested that the authors present a section discussing the main results of the study with the existing literature. The fact that the analysis has generated a lot of information does not allow the reader to clearly identify the study's contribution. It is therefore essential to discuss what is important about this analysis. Regarding point “6. Conclusions", the authors should objectively highlight the conclusions drawn from this analysis, comparing them with the gaps identified in the literature, i.e. mention which of the gaps in the literature have been answered and which of the initially proposed objectives have been achieved, so that the scientific contribution of this study is clearer. In addition, the authors should detail the study limitations.

 

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language just needs a minor revision.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the manuscript is well-organized and covers an important topic, several areas require substantial revisions to improve clarity, depth, and academic rigor.

# The manuscript often lacks focus in its discussion, particularly in sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.3, where the narrative becomes repetitive and lacks clear direction. The authors should streamline these sections to maintain a clear focus on the key aspects of digital transformation and technology adoption.

# The review would benefit from including more recent studies and a broader range of sources. I sugges using the following studies:

- https://doi.org/10.1504/IJKBD.2020.108369

- https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16110479

# The introduction provides a good overview but should better articulate the study's unique contributions. Clearly state the research gap your study aims to fill (Lines 1-30).

# In section 2.1.1 (lines 78-100): This section needs to be more concise and focus on critical insights from previous studies. Avoid overly general statements and concentrate on specific findings relevant to SMEs in developing countries.

# In section 2.1.2 (lines 102-120): Expand on how cultural factors specifically impact technology adoption in SMEs in developing countries. Provide examples from the literature to support your arguments.

# In section 4 and 5, (lines 173-190): These sections should provide a more in-depth analysis of the findings. Use subheadings to organize the discussion around key themes and provide a critical analysis of the literature.

# The conclusion should be more succinct and highlight the main contributions of the study. Clearly outline the implications for policy and practice. Provide specific recommendations for future research, including potential areas where digital transformation can significantly impact SMEs in developing countries.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

We are in front of a study that captures an analysis of the specialized literature from recent years regarding the adoption of new digital technologies by small and medium-sized enterprises in developing countries.

The research aimed at a critical review of the specialized literature, a fact that allowed the authors to easily reach a series of very important conclusions for those who, in the future, are interested in research in the field.

At the same time, it surprises the desire to systematize the research, which goes a little too far, in our opinion, when in the Abstract we already have four distinct elements: context, method, results and conclusions. For fluency, we consider that the material would have to win without mentioning, in the Abstract, the four elements.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, although I feel that the study could better explain the gap in the literature that prompted the research, I acknowledge your efforts to improve the scientific contribution of the manuscript. Therefore, I would only recommend a brief revision of the English language.

Good luck.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language just needs a brief revision.