Knowledge Management Practices as an Opportunity for the Achievement of Sustainable Development in Social Enterprises of Medellín (Colombia)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Please rewrite abstract : The abstract should describe the following items in order of:  1) Research background………………….. 2) the purpose of the research (for example. The study investigates/examines…, but NO research background statements/problem statements at the beginning), 3) data, materials, and methodology (for example. This study employs samples/survey data/time series data of ….), 4) the results (for example, The results show/reveal that ……), and 5) major findings (for example, The findings of this study suggest that …, but NO suggestions/recommendations/implications) in an unstructured manner.

2. INTRODUCTION

The content of each section of the article is briefly described in the last paragraph of the introduction.

3. CONCLUSIONS

 

• This part includes the general summary of the article, its results, and its findings.
• This part includes implications and recommendations for practice.
• This part includes research limitations
•  
•  

4. REFERENCES

Each reference cited in the text must appear in the reference list, and each entry in the reference list must be cited in the text.

Some volume, no, page no, DOI, Retrieved from missing.

 

 

N/A

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

It was quite easy to read the paper in the first two sections: the introduction and theoretical framework. They provide the context of the study and its importance and the fundamentals for the methodology.

Regarding the methodology, I recommend including a diagram or scheme to introduce it. Textual description makes it difficult to understand it. In addition, it would be useful to describe in the methodology the process to treat the information under the narrative research approach. Specifically, the articulation regarding the results from the questionnaire and the interviews.

Authors should include, as an appendix, the instruments to collect the information (i.e. interviews or questionnaires).

Is there a particular reason to avoid including descriptions of the assertions? It would be useful for further studies to include them as an appendix.

What is the justification for working with a non-probabilistic sampling and for convenience? What are the criteria for selecting the 30 SE organizations for the study?

I recommend including more details about the 40 SE organizations in the study. For example, classification by business size.

The results section should be improved. For some sections, it was very difficult to follow the narrative regarding the research findings. For example, on Page 8, from lines 331 to 338, Also, I recommend including supporting material such as tables or graphics to summarize the results.

English writing is clear.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

As a general comment I can congratulate the authors on the basis of scope.

However there are some recommendations from my point of view, which can improve the quality of this research work :

 

.-it might be useful to formulate more clearly how the input data for research was obtained – Line 93 “30 through surveys and the remaining ten from in-depth interviews.”-thus might be useful to present in Annex the survey and to explain the difference between the two used methods.

- it might be useful to detail the coding proccedure –Section 3 – Lines 252-292, has enumerated totally 12+16+16+13 codes and might be useful to present in Annex what it means each one

- it might be useful to explain in which measure the interpretation of the numerical results were made (Lines-294-444, the presentation of the used code probably can be helpful in this respect)

What kind of software was used for statistical analysis (it would be wise to mention a few thought about it).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Excellent article contributing to our understanding of the values and benefits of integrating KMPs into SEs. Your mixed method research has highlighted some important consequences in the organizational aspects and development consequences. 

Although the material and methods section is well articulated, it is unclear to me how the "Components (Subcategories)" have emerged or selected for each "Category". 

This clarification is important to determine the scientific validity of the study as important aspects of these relations have not been sufficiently emerged of more clearly highlighted in the discussions of the results. 

For instance, it is well known that KMPs benefits organizations in their improved collaborations, their efficient knowledge sharing, their enhanced decision-making, their increased efficiency and productivity, and their learning and innovation. We also know from other studies that there are several limits and risks such as the adoption and cultural challenges of introducing and integrating KMPs into well established SEs, the quality and quality and accuracy of information entered and stored in KMPs, the information overload for short staffed SEs, etc. We could also think about other subjects that have not emerged in your study and are not sufficiently highlighted in your review of the literature regarding privacy and security concerns. 

Overall an excellent study with insightful results.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

-    the research questions and methods must be more clearly stated;

-        two hypotheses (278-279) have to present clear the used parameters;

-    in Results section – is necessary formatting and use of tables when explain  correlations between categories explored.

Minor editing of English

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors submit a newer version of the article, taking into account comments from Review 1. Appendix A-B provides additional information to better understand the methodology. Also, Table 2 presents how the methodology is articulated. Tables 3-6 are useful to summarize the main results.

I have an important observation that seems to be an error. In the [73] reference, the following classification is found for the correlation value “To classify the strength of the correlations, we followed the guidance of Dancey and Reidy (2011, p.175), who posit that a coefficient of 0.0 − 0.1 is uncorrelated, 0.11 − 0.4 is weak, 0.41 − 0.7 is moderate, 0.71 − 0.90 is strong, and 0.91 − 1.0 is perfect.” However, the value range authors are using for the study are different: “In turn, the strength of the correlation can be classified as weak if it varies between 0.10 and 0.30; moderate when behaving between 0.40 and 0.60; and vital if it reaches values above 0.70 [73]” (Page 8, lines 281-283). In addition, authors should review the categories in Tables 4-6 for the Strength of correlation. For xample, (KMPs1, SE2, ?????1,SE22=0,2704) is classified as Moderate, according to the [73] should be Weak.

In this sense, there are many correlations whose value is weak. How does this affect their findings?

Author Response

We accept the comments of the reviewer.

 

 

We corrected the reference.  We used the strength of the correlation proposed by Y. Wang, Y. Chen, W. Lin, M. Huang, Y. Xu, y G. Chen (2023)

 

Also, we reviewed and corrected the strength of the correlation in Tables 3, 4, 5  and 6.

 

Corrections that were made are highlighted in the document.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for your efforts. The manuscript was revised according to the comments.

 

The paper is interesting and could successfully serve as a basis for further researches

Author Response

We appreciate the comments of the reviewer.

 

We look forward to developing future research proposals.