Smart Manufacturing and Pro-Environmental Behavior: Moderated Serial Mediation Modelling and Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents some interesting work on Smart Manufacturing and Pro-Environmental Behavior: Moderated Serial Mediation Modelling and analysis. However, the paper manuscript needs to undertake the following revisions:

(1)  The paper is better titled ‘Smart Manufacturing and Pro-Environmental Behavior: Moderated Serial Mediation Modelling and analysis’.

(2)  The Keywords should be better rearranged as ‘Smart Manufacturing; Sustainable Production; Environmental Orientation; Green Innovation; Modelling and Analysis’.

(3)  In section 3, it states that ‘The present study employed 479 Composite Reliability (CR), Cronbach Alpha, and Factor Loading as analytical tools to 480 assess the adequacy of convergent validity. Additionally, Average Variance Extracted and 481 Cross loadings were utilized to evaluate the suitability of discriminant validity’, which is good. However, it would be much better to present and illustrate the details of the research method and underlying logic flow in an addition ‘powerful’ diagram.

(4)  Section 4 heading should be better as ‘Results and Analysis’.

(5)  In section 6, subsection headings 6.1 and 6.2 are unnecessary. The section 6 should be brief and highlighted, rather than over structured. Furthermore, section 6 should further highlight the novelty and contributions to knowledge from this research work as presented.

(6)  The following very relevant papers in the topic area should be better include in References, particularly against the above comments (3) and (6):

-      - Development of the energy-smart production management system (e-ProMan): a big data driven approach, analysis and optimisation, Proceedings of the IMechE, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 230(5), 2016, 972–978.

-      - Investigation on quantitative analysis of carbon footprint in discrete manufacturing by using the innovative energy dataspace approach, Manufacturing Letters, 27, 2021, 58-62.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

(1)  The paper is better titled ‘Smart Manufacturing and Pro-Environmental Behavior: Moderated Serial Mediation Modelling and analysis’.

(2)  The Keywords should be better rearranged as ‘Smart Manufacturing; Sustainable Production; Environmental Orientation; Green Innovation; Modelling and Analysis’.

(3)  Section 4 heading should be better as ‘Results and Analysis’.

(4)  In section 6, subsection headings 6.1 and 6.2 are unnecessary. The section 6 should be brief and highlighted, rather than over structured. Furthermore, section 6 should further highlight the novelty and contributions to knowledge from this research work as presented.

Author Response

The title of the article has been revised. Refer to the revised manuscript. this has been highlighted in red color.

The keywords in the article has been reorganized as suggested. Refer to the revised manuscript. this has been indicated in color red. 

The section four has been re-labeled as suggested. For instance; Results and Analysis. Refer to the revised manuscript 

The subsections in the section 6 have been removed and the novelty highlighted

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper looks important and interesting. Its novelty ain't high but still worth published as an example of pro-environmental behaviour with a smart manufacturing in a developing country case. The reading process is not going well. The literature is new but the introduction is too general with a low focus on primary goal. There is to many information in the text about all over the world climate change and there is a need to avoid the repeating about all circumstances related to it. It's too obvious. The same with internal Ghana's sustainable development policy. The literature review section look fine to me. It's logical and divided between section with 10 hypothesis.The main issue is with the research methodology. The research procedure is well described but used methods unfortunately not. The same problem is with items used by Authors (Table II). They didn't described what acronyms mean - AIR1, AIR2, ..., SSC3. It makes uncomfortable to read the paper. If I don't know what variable means there is no point to make any further conclusions. Another issue is with the section 4.4. The first part of it is unable to read. Authors should interpret the results and not repeat them in the main text. After all  I don't know whether discussion and conclusion are correct or not. I'm not able to make any proper validation of the paper until it won't explain issues pointed above.

Author Response

Yes, true. The keywords in the article has been reorganized as suggested. Refer to the revised manuscript. this has been indicated in color 

Yes, true. The section four has been re-labeled as suggested. For instance; Results and Analysis. Refer to the revised manuscript 

Yes, true. The subsections in the section 6 have been removed and the novelty highlighted.

Yes, true. The recommended papers have been reviewed and cited in the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations on your efforts to prepare this interesting study. It has scientific value in my point of view, however some revisions are required before making a publication decision. My suggestions are as follows:

- The statistics provided at the beginning of the introduction section should be strengthen by relevant citations.

- To me, it is not good scientific writing practice to provide 4-5 citations at the same place without providing specific contributions of each of them. In-text citations need revision.

- Similarly, relevant citations for smart manufacturing definition are needed.

- Policies in Ghana related to SDGs must be provided with proper citations.

- The last part of the introduction is needed to be divided into three parts by seperating research questions as bullet-item or an numbered-list and organization of the study as a seperate paragraph.

- Literature review seems to be limited. So, it is recommended to provide more relevant studies with their specific contribution to the knowledge base.

- Presentation of the research framework within the literature review part is not a good practice of scientific writing for me.

- I do not feel comfortable with the organization of the paper. Literature review part may focus on contribution of similar studies published so far to the knowledge base. Methodology can provide the definitions related to PLS-SEM method. Hypotheses design and questionnarie information may be presented in a seperate fourth section or within results section.

- Verbal explanations of results for each hypothesis must be provided within the results section.

- Limitations and further research directions are missing in the conclusions part.

- More studies must be reviewed to provide recent work performed (2023 and 2024) on the problem of the research. There are only 3 scientific publications published in 2023 in the references list.

- Please prepare a letter of response to review comments for revised form of the study.

Author Response

The title of the article has been revised. Refer to the revised manuscript. this has been highlighted in red color. 

The keywords in the article has been reorganized as suggested. Refer to the revised manuscript. this has been indicated in color red. 

The section four has been re-labeled as suggested. For instance; Results and Analysis. Refer to the revised manuscript 

The subsections in the section 6 have been removed and the novelty highlighted.

The recommended papers have been reviewed and cited in the revised manuscript

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The literature review was shortened. It is more adequate to the main topic of the paper. Acronims (shortcuts) must be explained and improved.  Authors pointed what shortcuts mean after the fourth table (notes section) at last. It should be incorporated to the first table (inside or in the notes). Unfortunatelly, I still don't know what exactly means AIR1, AIR2, AIR3, ..., SSC3. It must be explained by Authors. The conclusion section is not supported by any references. So it is just an Author's manifest what should be done (policy implication).

Author Response

All Abbreviations have been well explained in all the figures as demanded by reviewer.

Conclusion part well referenced.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Revised form seems sufficient for publication.

Author Response

Reviewer 2 Round 2: Reviewer is happy with the Major revision done so far.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx