Optimizing the Financial Performance of SMEs Based on Sharia Economy: Perspective of Economic Business Sustainability and Open Innovation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Quite interesting topic with severe inolacaitons... congratulations. 

My first comment regards the statistical analysis.

I do not argue on the validity of the instrument, but I would like to see more clearly the internal validity (Cronbach's alpha) measurement and I would also suggest to proceed to a exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation and upon these findings to focus on the AVE and CR loadings.  In alignment with this notion, I would expect a more clear SEM analysis with the appropriate fitness indicators and correlations.

Also I can not see the figure 5 which is quite inportant.

 

 

Please correct typos (indicator instead of indikator in table 3)

Author Response

Dear Reviewers

We hereby thank you for your suggestions and input for the improvement of our article. Some of the things we have corrected and revised according to the sugestions and input we received are as follows:

1. Regarding internal validity (Cronbach's aplha) we have corrected it according to the suggestions and inputs we received (pages 9-12).
2. Exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation focusing on AVE and CR loading has been improved (page 11).
3. We have added SEM analysis according to the suggestions and inputs we received (page 13, 14, and 15).
4. We have corrected Figure 5 according to the suggestions and input o reviewers (page 17).
5. Related to Table 3, we have also fixed it (page 10).

Once again, we thank you for your valuable suggestions and input to improve our article.

Regards,

Author

 

Reviewer 2 Report

With all due respect to the substantial value of the submitted article with entitled "Optimizing the Financial Performance of SMEs Based on Sharia Economy: A Perspective of Economic Business Sustainability and Open Innovation", I must make a few remarks:

- Each scientific article should include the main aim of the research, or the main aim of the contribution. Add please!

- I recommend the authors to shorten part 1 Introduction. Alternatively, move some sections (lines 43-104) to section 2. Literature Review and Research Framework.

- 2. Literature Review and Research Framework - I recommend better defining the term Financial Performance.

- Figure 1, please enlarge, the font is small and illegible.

- Please delete line 293, also delete line 323 and 324, also delete line 375, 376 and delete line 587.

- Figure 5 is not visible! Please add Figure 5.

- 6. Conclusion requires shortening and rewording. In conclusion, the authors reiterate the same findings as in Section 5. Discussion. I also recommend the authors to add Limitation of the research.

- Source: 75. Kucharcikova, A.; Miˇciak, M. Human Capital Management in Transport Enterprises with the Acceptance of Sustainable 927 Development in the Slovak Republic. Sustainability, 2018, 10, 2530; http://doi.org/10.3390/su10072530 CORECT TO: Kucharčíková, A.; Mičiak, M ....

- Authors must complete Research Questions (RQ). Lines 134-140 (Thus, the focus of this study is aimed at answering research questions, namely: (1) How to improve the financial performance of SMEs in the perspective of Islamic economics? (2) How is the use of fintech to improve the financial performance of SMEs, (3) How is the capacity of human resources to improve the financial performance of SMEs? (4) How is the development of business diversification and product marketing in improving the performance of SMEs? and (5) What strategies can be taken to increase innovation and business sustainability of SMEs?)

RQ1: How to improve the financial performance of SMEs in the perspective of Islamic economics? And so on... The wording of the RQ must be the same throughout the article!

 

I encourage authors to see the following resources that could help improve their article:

• http://www.actalogistica.eu/issues/2021/III_2021_07_Karim_Setiawan_Indrawati_Mugiono.pdf
• https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2021.9.2(23)
• https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020574

Best Regards and Good luck!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Firs of all, we thank you for your suggestions and input to improve our article. Same things that we have revised according to the suggestions and inputs we received are as follows:

1. We have added the main objective of this study (page 3).
2. The introduction section has been revised and shortened according to the reviewers suggestions and input and we have moved same sections to the literature review and research framework (pages 1-4).
3. We have corrected the definition and terms of financial performance (page 5).
4. Figure 1 has been corrected and clarified (page 6).
5. Same things we have omitted are deleted according to the suggestions and feedback of reviewers.
6. We have corrected Figure 5 according to the suggestions and input of reviewer (page 17).
7. We have revised and corrected the conclussion (pages 19-20).
8. We have added research limitations (page 20).
9. We have corrected the research questions (pages 3).
10. We have corrected the reference improvements according to the suggestions and input we received.

Thank you for all the suggestion and corrections that have been given to improve our article.

Regards,

Author

Reviewer 3 Report

This article is quite interesting, but has serious inaccuracies regarding the presentation of the scientific and methodological content.

Some critical reflections: 

1) Scientifically unsubstantiated Abstract.

Abstract part is highly non-informative in scientific language; these are just common phrases-sticks.

There is no emphasis on scientific significance why authors analyse this socio-economic phenomenon. Theoretical significance?

2) The part of the Introduction was too widened: this shows that the authors try to write everything kaleidoscopic/completely (look like a summary), without attempting to structure the text of what other authors have done, and where is the scientific problem platform_ new dimensions_ new attitudes...

3) What means: "Good business financial performance...( line 129)? It can be stated as a simplified text.

4) How can authors describe the object and subject of the study? This positions are not justified.

5) Too many scientific questions have been raised; some of them may be considered as criteria of this research. What is the main research question?

6) Instrumentation of this research should be more clarified: what criteria's   and indicators was applied. Survey or interview or questionnaire?

"Primary data were obtained directly in the field by conducting visits as 
well as interviews using a questionnaire instrument to respondents who became research sample." ( line 327-328).

7) Sampling: what is the sample type? Probability or Non-probability...

8) Figure 5...some structure of this picture is missing.

9) The interaction of the Financial Performance of SMEs and Sustainability of SMEs and Open Innovation?

However, the interaction remained undisclosed and unjustified: what are the synergies between financial activities and sustainability and open innovation of SMEs ?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

First all, we thank you for your suggestions and input to improve our article. Same things that we have revised according to the suggestions and inputs we received are as follows:

1. We have corrected th abstract section according to reviewer's suggestions and input (page 1).
2. We have corrected the introduction section according to the reviewer's suggestions an input (page 1-3).
3. We have corrected the definition of financial performance according to the suggestion and input of reviewer (page 4).
4. We have corrected the descripsion of the object and research subject (page 8).
5. We have revised and simplified the research questions (page 3).
6. We have improved the research instruments, criteria, and indicators used (page 8).
7. We have corrected the type of research sample (page 9).
8. We have corrected Figure 5 (page 17).
9. We have improved the interaction of SMEs financial performance and SMEs sustainability and open innovation (page 19).

Thank you for all the suggestions and corrections that have been given to improve our article.

Regards,

Author

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, thank you for your efforts in creating a new version of the manuscript/article.

You have made the necessary adjustments that have been specified in the review. Good luck.