The Relationship between Supply Chain Resilience and Digital Supply Chain and the Impact on Sustainability: Supply Chain Dynamism as a Moderator
, Abdel-Aziz Ahmad Sharabati 1,*, Mahmoud Allahham 2 and Ahmad Yacoub Nasereddin 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article discusses how the resilience and digitalization of the supply chain impact sustainability through a structural equation model. Additionally, the authors find that dynamism can enhance their promotional role in sustainability. The authors conduct quantitative research based on real data and obtain meaningful conclusions. However, the article currently has several issues that need further modification to improve the quality of the research:
1. The introduction lacks logical coherence and needs reorganization, particularly in establishing connections between different parts of the context. The research gaps need more detailed description, specifying the questions posed and how the article addresses them.
2. The literature review contains overlapping content between the fourth page of the section on Supply Chain Resilience and the introduction. Please review and modify, especially the content following "Information technology can result in gaining high-quality data, which is one of the major elements for supply chain integration."
3. The introduction contains too much content. Therefore, it is suggested that the author adds a section named "Conceptual Model" as the second section, focusing on elaborating the model and assumptions.
4. The author reviews literature on Resilience, Digital Supply Chain, Dynamism, and Sustainability, but lacks a systematic review of research gaps in the literature.
5. The absence of content in the Discussion section is a major deficiency. The author should deeply discuss the quantitative analysis mentioned earlier.
In summary, the empirical process of this article meets the requirements of an academic paper, but the logical flow and result discussion need more refinement. The missing content in section 4 and the use of repetitive sentences are issues that should be addressed.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
|
The introduction was modified, made more logically coherent, and reorganized, with research gaps mentioned at the end of the introduction |
1. The introduction lacks logical coherence and needs reorganization, particularly in establishing connections between different parts of the context. The research gaps need a more detailed description, specifying the questions posed and how the article addresses them. |
|
The literature was reviewed and the paragraph related to technology and its impact on supply chains was modified and rephrased |
2. The literature review contains overlapping content between the fourth page of the section on Supply Chain Resilience and the introduction. Please review and modify, especially the content following "Information technology can result in gaining high-quality data, which is one of the major elements for supply chain integration." |
|
It has been reformulated and divided |
3. The introduction contains too much content. Therefore, it is suggested that the author add a section named "Conceptual Model" as the second section, focusing on elaborating the model and assumptions. |
|
Research gaps in the methodology are added at the end of each paragraph |
4. The author reviews literature on Resilience, Digital Supply Chain, Dynamism, and Sustainability, but lacks a systematic review of research gaps in the literature. |
|
This section has been added |
5. The absence of content in the Discussion section is a major deficiency. The author should deeply discuss the quantitative analysis mentioned earlier. |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- although the text mentions the return flow of materials, information, the circular economy and the product life cycle, the paper explicitly states that IT simplifies the integration of the supply chain that extends from suppliers to consumers, suggesting that the supply chain is a one-way movement that begins with the procurement of raw materials and ends with delivery to the consumer, the end customer, which is the traditional view of the supply chain
- it is not clearly stated that the prerequisites for the transition of the traditional concept of the supply chain into a modern approach to the supply chain are: 1) material flows in both directions, 2) information flows in both directions, 3) application of circular economy principles and 4) treatment of products throughout the life cycle
- it is not mentioned in the paper that the supply chain can consist of numerous organizations that perform certain activities in one of the phases of the supply chain (dozens, hundreds of organizations) and that each of them is at some level of digitization, which can be and is different, which affects the quality of digitization of the entire supply chain- the resilience of the supply chain is achieved by applying a model that aims to reduce damage due to supply chain disruptions in future crises. The only thing that is certain is that there will be future crises. The model has 4 modules: 1) methods; 2) quality tools; 3) KPIs system, and 4) measures. It is very complex because it implies an understanding of the context and the circumstances that influence the change of context, which has become more and more frequent in the recent past. This is not discussed in the paper. Namely, digitization is only one of the measures that can be used to increase resilience. - the organization is continuously exposed to influences coming from the external context and is vulnerable. Vulnerability can be reduced by applying the aforementioned model, while exposure cannot be acted upon. This is important to understand in order to be able to decide on a course of action. - it is not clearly stated and described what is considered under digitalization of supply chains.
- at the beginning of the work, the supply chain was not clearly defined. Namely, there are many definitions of the supply chain in the literature, especially in numerous ISO standards. When the supply chain is clearly defined, the modern approach to the supply chain, then it will be clearer what should be included in the digitization of the supply chain. - the work did not give an explicit answer to what digitalization of the supply chain means and implies
Author Response
|
Clarifications have been added to the text to show that the traditional view of supply chains focuses on the unilateral movement of materials from suppliers to customers, while modern chains can evolve to include flows of materials and information in both directions, applying circular economy principles, and processing products throughout their life cycle. |
Although the text mentions the return flow of materials, information, the circular economy, and the product life cycle, the paper explicitly states that IT simplifies the integration of the supply chain that extends from suppliers to consumers, suggesting that the supply chain is a one-way movement that begins with the procurement of raw materials and ends with delivery to the consumer, the end customer, which is the traditional view of the supply chain |
|
It has been shown that supply chains can consist of several organizations performing certain activities at one stage of the supply chain and that each of them can be at a different level of technology, affecting the quality of IT in the entire supply chain. |
It is not clearly stated that the prerequisites for the transition of the traditional concept of the supply chain into a modern approach to the supply chain are: 1) material flows in both directions, 2) information flows in both directions, 3) application of circular economy principles and 4) treatment of products throughout the life cycle |
|
The paper has been updated to address the concern regarding the composition of the supply chain, acknowledging that it can involve numerous organizations performing various activities across different phases. Additionally, it now highlights that each organization may be at a different level of digitization, which can impact the overall quality of digital transformation across the supply chain. This clarification emphasizes that varying levels of technology adoption among different organizations can influence the effectiveness of the digital transformation of the entire supply chain. |
It is not mentioned in the paper that the supply chain can consist of numerous organizations that perform certain activities in one of the phases of the supply chain (dozens, hundreds of organizations) and that each of them is at some level of digitization, which can be and is different, which affects the quality of digitization of the entire supply chain |
|
The manuscript has been revised to address the reviewers' comments regarding the resilience of the supply chain and the need for a clearer definition of digitalization. Firstly, the paper now includes a discussion on the complexity of the resilience model, emphasizing the importance of understanding contextual factors influencing change and the diverse measures required to enhance resilience beyond digitization alone. Additionally, the concept of vulnerability and its reduction through the proposed model has been elaborated upon to provide a clearer understanding of its implications for decision-making. Furthermore, the manuscript now begins with a clear definition of the supply chain, acknowledging the varied definitions present in the literature and the importance of establishing a common understanding. This clarification sets the stage for a comprehensive exploration of digitalization within the supply chain context. Moreover, the paper now explicitly addresses what digitalization entails, highlighting its broader implications beyond mere technological adoption and emphasizing its transformative potential in optimizing supply chain processes and enhancing organizational capabilities. |
The resilience of the supply chain is achieved by applying a model that aims to reduce damage due to supply chain disruptions in future crises. The only thing that is certain is that there will be future crises. The model has 4 modules: 1) methods; 2) quality tools; 3) KPIs system, and 4) measures. It is very complex because it implies an understanding of the context and the circumstances that influence the change of context, which has become more and more frequent in the recent past. This is not discussed in the paper. Namely, digitization is only one of the measures that can be used to increase resilience. The organization is continuously exposed to influences coming from the external context and is vulnerable. Vulnerability can be reduced by applying the aforementioned model, while exposure cannot be acted upon. This is important to understand in order to be able to decide on a course of action. - it is not clearly stated and described what is considered under digitalization of supply chain. At the beginning of the work, the supply chain was not clearly defined. Namely, there are many definitions of the supply chain in the literature, especially in numerous ISO standards. When the supply chain is clearly defined, the modern approach to the supply chain, then it will be clearer what should be included in the digitization of the supply chain. The work did not give an explicit answer to what digitalization of the supply chain means and implies |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for providing me with the opportunity to review this manuscript. Overall, it is an interesting topic. The authors have clearly presented the reasons for conducting this topic, such as the research questions or research objectives are clear.
Unfortunately, the manuscript needs to be systematically improved and compared with prior studies. Moreover, the authors must focus on the discussion section to make meaningful findings, offer implications for theory and practice. In details:
1) The discussion section in this article is unsatisfactory. The authors did not point out the uniqueness of their findings compared to other studies; those should be discussed to connect with others.
2) In this study, the section on practical and theoretical contributions must be systematized and more clearly written.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Author Response
|
This section has been added |
1- The discussion section in this article is unsatisfactory. The authors did not point out the uniqueness of their findings compared to other studies; those should be discussed to connect with others. |
|
It was divided and the sections were clearly marked |
2- In this study, the section on practical and theoretical contributions must be systematized and more clearly written. |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you to the author for revising and resubmitting. However, through the review of the previous suggestion, some opinions were not adopted, and I did not see any feedback on the content that was not adopted in the reply letter. After reviewing this article again, I believe it has not reached the threshold for further revisions. The specific reasons are as follows:
The word allocation of each chapter's content is inappropriate. The Introduction includes a literature review and model building, which makes the introduction 10 pages long. Therefore, some parts of the introduction need to be placed in a new section. This opinion was raised in the previous review, but it was not adopted by the author. The content of the fourth section discussion is very short, which is unreasonable. Discussion is a further discussion of the empirical results above, with a focus on management recommendations. Although the author added a discussion, the discussion was not in-depth and did not meet the requirements of an academic paper.
The academic contribution of this article is limited. Firstly, this article focuses on the relationship between supply chain resilience, dynamism, and sustainability. We can find that a large number of scholars have conducted relevant research on them. Therefore, the innovation of this article is not strong. If this article needs to enhance innovation, the author can conduct research by combining specific industries, global emergencies, or specific AI technologies. Moreover, the conclusions of this study are highly similar to some existing literature, which limits their academic value.
In summary, I believe the reason why this article is difficult to accept is due to its low academic value and lack of innovation. More importantly, the author did not carefully consider and revise the previous comments, especially in the fourth section discussion.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you for the valuable feedback from the reviewer. We apologize for not adopting all previous suggestions and specifically appreciate the points not adhered to in the original submission. Based on the comments, we have made specific revisions to the article and hope that this will better meet the academic expectations and requirements.
Regarding the request to divide the introduction and deepen the discussion, we have made amendments to improve the organization of the article and enhance the quality of the discussion in the required section.
We hope that you will see these improvements and revisions in the revised version and find that they meet the required academic standards. We are committed to delivering high-quality scholarly work and look forward to your positive feedback after reviewing the revised version.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCorrecitons are accepted
Author Response
Thank you
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your hard work thorough revisions. I am happy to accept the manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks for the author's revision again. The current version of the article has clear logic and strong readability. By reviewing the modified content, the author attaches great importance to my opinions and gives full consideration and feedback. Although the innovation of this study is not outstanding, it is certain that part of the research conclusions supplement the relevant literature and have certain reference significance for enterprise operation. Sustainability and digital supply chains are interesting topics, but we need to put them in context to make this study more credible.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thanks for the author's revision again. The current version of the article has clear logic and strong readability. By reviewing the modified content, the author attaches great importance to my opinions and gives full consideration and feedback. Although the innovation of this study is not outstanding, it is certain that part of the research conclusions supplement the relevant literature and have certain reference significance for enterprise operation. Sustainability and digital supply chains are interesting topics, but we need to put them in context to make this study more credible. Done
Minor editing of English language required: Done
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
