Lean and Green Product Development in SMEs: A Comparative Study between Small- and Medium-Sized Brazilian and Japanese Enterprises
, Gisele TaÃs Piovesan 1, Dalmarino Setti 1, Shoji Takechi 2, Kim Hua Tan 3 and Guilherme Luz Tortorella 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
your study is interesting but there are some shortcomings, especially in the first sections. The paper is confused in its structure, I recommend that you clarify the objectives, methodology and results achieved better and focus your research on findings. I especially suggest (i) analysis of the research questions, (ii) better documentation of the selection of criteria for evaluating SMEs (iii) analysis of the reasons of case selection.
Kind regards,
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments. Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article analyzes the lean and green product development in SMEs by comparing Brazilian and Japanese enterprises.
The Introduction and literature review provides sufficient information to understand the background of the topic providing historical and recent evolutions in the field. The methodology is well presented and suited for this analysis. The conclusions are supported by the results.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments. Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper focuses on a very relevant theme. The Introduction provide an overview of the study. Theoretical Framework part of the paper looks satisfactory. It should be expanded to include some discussions related to the subject, justification the theoretical approach chosen and that too from the latest journal articles of the scientific journals of recognized merit. Evaluation Method looks appropriated, but the section Case Selection should be improved. It is necessary presented, the criteria were used in choosing of SMEs, beyond the criteria the sector of activity.When was the data collected?
The Results and Discussion should be improved for example in Table 6 when you put E1 it refers to company E1 in Table 4, and the Analysis of companies must be elaborated, with your characterization.
The conclusions are succinct and interesting, and the managerial implications presented are scarce, should be improved.
The authors refer in Abstract: "the study also addressed how Open Innovation adoption may contribute for innovation and NPD practices. They can present in the paper, more clearly this contribution.
Review the formatting of the paper, it is not in accordance with the journal's rules (in line 79 appear “(Marques, 2014)”).
Congratulations on the work.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments. Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I am pleased to see that the manuscript has improved. Congratulations!
Reviewer 3 Report
The article has been improved. Congratulations
