Smart Systems and Collaborative Innovation Networks for Productivity Improvement in SMEs
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper Smart Systems and Collaborative Innovation Networks for Productivity Improvement in SMEs deals with a relevant topic as SMEs are usually lagging behind the large firms in the use of ICT and data processing. Based on the literature review the authors have identified 9 SMS thematic areas that they further used to develop the profiling tool. Based on the findings from the testing phase the profiling tool. 36 SMEs participated in the survey but it is not clear how the survey was conducted, what were the questions, how the validation of scores given by the directors was possible only by a tour of the respective facilities that were provided for authors. Furthermore, it is not explained why case studies with 26 SMEs were executed in step 3. Again, it is not clear what exactly the directors were asked, if there was a protocol for interviews, how the collected qualitative data were analyzed. Additionally, the findings of quantitative and qualitative analysis are presented separately, even though the analysis was executed in step 4. Why? I would also like to read more about the findings/insights from the qualitative part of the study.
Author Response
Please find attached file showing the responses to Reviewer 1 comments
Thank you
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The subject of the article and the title is suitable for this journal. The abstract is also appropriate. Advances the topic, objective (the level of awareness and understanding within SMEs of SMS) and main result. The structure of the article is complete, with a suitable introduction. In this it is anticipated that 36 manufacturing SMEs from 3 sectors have been analyzed, but from where? It should also be included in the abstract that there are 3 sectors and indicate the country / countries of these companies. The review literature is correctly structured, comprehensive and up-to-date. The first line begins by saying "UK manufacturing ..." and until now the work in the UK had not been contextualized. Again in the methodology the 36 companies are mentioned, but not the origin. How were these 36 companies selected? And why these 3 sectors? It should be detailed in the methodology. Figure 1 does not look complete. In addition to the objective of the work, the subobjectives should be clarified, and how to respond to each of them with each of the parts of the different techniques used in this work. The conclusions should refer to previous studies and they are met or not in relation to the data obtained in this work. The bibliography format should be reviewed, it is not homogeneous.Author Response
Please find attached file showing the responses to Reviewer 2 comments
Thank you
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have partly improved the manuscript and provided some clarification in the methodological some. Still, several issues need to be addressed which I already pointed out in the first review. For example, what questions have been asked when the interviews were conducted, what observations were made. Usually, there is a protocol, so the collected material can be analysed and comparisons made between cases. In the previous version, the author explained that 36 SMEs participated in the first interaction, after that they worked only with 26 SMEs. This part is omitted in this version and no explanation provided why. Also, it is not explained how the data analysis was conducted, not only the data from the interviews with 36 SMEs but also data that were collected later on.
Author Response
Thank you for your review feedback. Please find responses below to your review. We have added the required information in to the paper and marked it off in red.
- What questions have been asked when the interviews were conducted, what observations were made?.
The paper now shows the questionnaire that led to the creation of the profiling outputs and the questions for the semi structured interviews. Observations on the need to revise the questionnaire has been included and, the outputs for both the profiling and semi-structured interviews are shown
- Usually, there is a protocol, so the collected material can be analysed and comparisons made between cases.
The protocol has been developed further showing the questionnaire results leading to the development of the profiling and the results of the semi-structured interviews are shown in section 5
- In the previous version, the author explained that 36 SMEs participated in the first interaction, after that they worked only with 26 SMEs. This part is omitted in this version and no explanation provided why. Also, it is not explained how the data analysis was conducted, not only the data from the interviews with 36 SMEs but also data that were collected later on.
Since the submission of this paper for review, the research team has been able to work with the remaining ten companies who did not have the time to undertake the final stage of the semi-structured interviews at the time. Now they have been interviewed and their responses have bene included in the results section as a full data set of 36 SMEs undertaking the profiling and semi-structured interviews.
I hope that the revisions meet with your requirements
Thank you
Reviewer 2 Report
The requested changes have been made.
Author Response
Thak you for your feedback and assitance in helping us improve the paper
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the additional clarifications. The methodological part has been improved in a way that is much easier to follow. I have just one small suggestion. Check the Conclusion part where you mention the four-step research approach and adjust it according to the changes in the methodological part.
Author Response
Thank you for your feedback. We have adjusted the paper to identify the 3 stage research process
