Proposal to Improve the E-Commerce Platform Development Process with an Exploratory Case Study in Chile

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the paper is of interest to the scientific community. We appreciate your work.
However, in order to be published, the paper needs to reinforce the theoretical part and then apply it again to the analysis. Furthermore, the analysis techniques used need to be explained more rigorously and better justified through the literature.

In addition, the title of the paper or the abstract should refer to the fact that it is an exploratory case study, with only two companies analysed and the country of the companies.

There is currently literature published in reputable journals on these topics. This literature should appear in the theoretical review and be applied in the study.

For example, table X (Table 1 - line 105, refers to the user experience, Maturity. It is a 2018 reference published in a conference. There are studies on these topics that are more current and published in a Journal.

The same happens in table 2 (line 146), all the references are old and from congresses.

There is a lack of literature published in prestigious journals, even if they are not directly related to the topic.

In addition, the methodology needs to be explained a little better. For example
- SWOT analysis has been applied in other prestigious studies for the analysis of e-commerce.
- Add the annex with the interview
- What are the mapping variables and the sample?
- Who are the experts who validate it?

Author Response

We thank you for your valuable comments, they helped us to improve the paper significantly. We have tried to improve our based on your feedback. 
The following actions were taken:
(1) We reinforce the theoretical was done . The analysis techniques were explained and  better justified through the literature.
(2) We have written the title and abstract of the article alluding to an exploratory study.
(3) We have searched for citations, books, magazines, articles, technical reports and we add those to this draft.
(4) The methodology was written and explained better, also the graphs, equations, practical forms and dataflows. The methodology was completely rewritten in order to be clear to understand.

All suggested changes were considered and are in blue color

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper proposes an improvement to the process of e-commerce, building in top of the ISO 10008 standard. 

The authors examine the standard in details and give certain recommendations for improvement, especially for microenterprises. 

This reviewer thinks that in this form, the paper is not suited for publication, due to the following:

Prior study is limited. A comprehensive literature overview is required. Currently, the authors focus on a small number of papers for prior study.

The results are not well connected to the presented work. The paper is hard to follow, even for someone not in the field. A better relation between the results must be completed.

Finally, the presentation of the paper is not consistent and needs to be improved. Figures and charts/graphs should follow the same design scheme. Citations need to be uniform as well.

To finalize, this reviewer thinks the paper needs a major revision before considering for publication.

English language should be improved. Pay special regards to the abbreviations. For example, SCLC was mentioned in the Abbreviations sections, but was not used throughout the paper. SDLC is the common abbreviation for software development lifecycle. Neither SDLC nor SCLC was used in the manuscript.

Author Response

We thank you for your valuable comments, they helped us to improve the paper significantly. We have tried to improve our based on your feedback. 
The following actions were taken:
(1) We reinforce the theoretical was done . The analysis techniques were explained and  better justified through the literature.
(2) We have written the title and abstract of the article alluding to an exploratory study.
(3) We have searched for citations, books, magazines, articles, technical reports and we add those to this draft.
(4) We increase the books, articles and technical reports for giving more reliable information on this paper draft.
(5) The figures ,charts ,graphs and dataflows follow the same design scheme. We also corrected the citations in order to be uniform.
(6) The methodology was written and explained better, also the graphs, equations, practical forms and dataflows. The methodology was completely rewritten in order to be clear to understand.
(7) Methodology, results and the explanations in general were rewritten.

All suggested changes were considered and are in blue color

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for improving the paper and following the indications received.
The paper has been significantly improved and can now be published.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We have corrected the comments and have also reviewed the article again for details

Best Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This reviewer has no further comments. The paper can be accepted in the current form.

English language is fine.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We have corrected the comments and have also reviewed the article again for details

Best Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf