Determinants of Sustainable Growth of SMEs in Developing Countries: The Case of Ethiopia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Originality:  The document did not contain significant new information appropriate to justify the publication. Therefore, there is a need to revise the paper title, and the current title does not portray the actual meaning of the paper. 

Abstract: The abstract is not well written. There is a need to revise with explicit contents of the abstract, i.e., the main issue, sampling, a statistical tool, methods, results, and implications. The author(s) should provide a precise and focused abstract.

There is no need to use the word “We” in academic writing, and the writer should avoid using the personal pronoun ‘we’ throughout the paper and can replace it with the word “this study”

• What is the practical and theoretical contribution of this article to literature?
• The sampling criteria, population, year, and unit of analysis for selecting companies are missing. The author should highlight sampling criteria for more clarity to readers.
• As a suggestion for improvement, the author(s) should not use the same Keywords as like Paper Title. It is encouraged to used different keywords which are not in the Paper title. It will enhance paper searchability after publication. 

Introduction: The introduction section is not well written. There are ambiguous statements and no clarity in the introduction section. 

• The introduction section is not started with a broader area and issue or in a global context. Therefore, there is no synthesis in writing an introduction section. 

• In the Introduction section, the brief discussions of methods, tools, sampling, and findings are missing.

• There is no roadmap at the end of the introduction that conveys the structure of the rest of the paper.

Relationship to Literature: The paper does not sufficiently cover recent research in the area. Helpful in this regard would be to include relevant research recently covered in top journals of similar scope. Further, work needs to be done to support the findings based on the current literature, as a recent theory in the area is directly counter to what was found.

 

• Author(s) employed several underpinning theories to justify this research. Although this is the major concern of this paper, the author(s) should highlight how this research contributes to the theory or contribution of the theory. Unfortunately, the author(s) did not discuss much using developed theories in this area.
• There is a need to add more critical recent literature and based on theoretical argumentation.
• The hypotheses development is poorly written; author(s) should cite previous studies relevant to proposed hypotheses, i.e., international and local perspectives studies in the light of underpinning theory.

Methodology: The author(s) did not develop its argument from appropriate theory and explored models previously studied in the same area. 

Results: 

• There is a need for improvement in reporting results such as; the author(s) should report [Beta value OR standard error (S.E) with significance level OR t-value; i.e., (β= xxx. P<0.01) OR (S. E= xxx, t > xxx). However, it could be more effective if the author(s) presents significant results with bold and asterisk (*).
• Discussion and findings: There is no solid discussion on the results.  
  • The author(s) should discuss the limitations of this study and future research direction in a constructive way. Hence, author(s)  should write in prices and in a constructive way under a subsection of discussion.
  • The author(s) did not discuss the theoretical and practical contribution of this study. Therefore, the author(s) should discuss this study's theoretical and practical contribution in the separate subsection under discussion for more clarity.
  • Conclusion: Author(s) should provide concluding statements rather than repetitive statements in the conclusion portion. •         It is highly recommended to write the conclusion section separately from the discussion of the findings
  • Citation and End References The in-text citations and end list of references do not sufficiently correspond. Please cross-check and correct citations and references throughout the paper.
  • The author(s) did cite the latest literature relevant to the target issue in this paper. The reviewer found that the author(s) has cited only a few recently published papers in this article (Most of the cited articles are ten years old). As a suggestion, the author(s) must cite new articles (latest literature) to make a holistic discussion and sturdy paper with high readability 
• I am afraid to say that the only contribution of this paper is exploring the effects of the interaction items, which is marginal. In addition, this article provides limited results, which clouds the validity of potential contribution. (For example, moderation and mediation knowledge should incorporate to investigate this issue).
• Quality of Communication: The paper needs further proofreading. I have tried to read the paper constructively, but I felt it suffers from poor writing. I, therefore, request the author(s) to pass the manuscript for professional proofreading. I suggest that a more careful investigation of prior literature can make this paper distinguishable. Linking this article with prior studies does not seem sufficient, which weakens the justification of incremental contributions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your constructive comments and suggestions. we tried to include your comments in the improved version of our manuscript as per your suggestion and we attached the response files herewith.

Please see the attached file also.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is interesting, but some changes are required before considering it for publication.

These are main recommendations for change.

First paragraph of introduction requires of citations in the different evidences described.

There are some mistakes in formatting. i.e, in the introduction in citations, authors do not close the signs..(])

Please, watch abrupt gaps between sentences. As for example, in the introduction: The coronavirus pandemic has 27 also had an impact on the African bargain, as well as small businesses in African coun- 28 tries. As a result, individual problems become societal problems [5].

In the previous two sentences I do not see the connection authors describe as “a result”..

This has happened in most countries: “In the Ethiopian context, following the arrival of the coronavirus 32 on March 13, 2020, the management besides other concerned bodies are considering how 33 to combat the virus's spread [6,7]. Consequently, the country has been placed on lock- 34 down and declared a state of emergency for all organizations and businesses in the coun- 35 try [7]”, It is extremely personalized to the case of Ethiopia, but I do not see the reasons why..

There are some inconsistencies. For example: As an example, 49 [15,16,14,17].? This is not correct….it does not make sense. Is it just an example or a variety of them???

In line 82 when authors mention: Although the above problems have been studied by other studies, authors should include these other studies, I mean, citations of these other studies.

Why do authors choose Ambo town, the explanation why they focus their analysis in here should be explained in the introduction.

In the introduction, at the end, I miss that author refer to the main structure of the research. Something that should start, after this introduction, second part focus…..an finally conclusions…

In part 2.1. Theoretical Literature Review, I do not see connection between the different theories and the reasoning of hypotheses…Why describing theoretically all the theories unless you are going to consider them in the reasoning of the hypotheses. They should be more connected with political instability and corruption..

Part 2.2. more than the conceptual framework is the model that authors present. Please, modify the concepts.

In the methodology; I miss that authors explain the reasons why they have applied this kind of statistic analysis…

I miss discussion. This article should include a discussion facing how the results agree or disagree with previous analysis, reinforce the value of this analysis again, as presented in introduction in practical implications, and offering alternative explanations to results based in the different theories you have previously referred.

Discussion is extremely important in this kind of articles, as it offers authors the opportunity to enrich the results with alternative reasoning coming from the literature review, their knowledge in the topic and their own experience.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your constructive comments and suggestions. we tried to incorporate all the comments on the revised manuscript and identified the improved section shaded with yellow color.

Please see the attached file also.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a very interesting paper and I do recommend for the publication by Economies withour reservation.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for recommending our paper to publish in the journal.  Thank you once again.

Kind Regards,

Gemechu Abdissa

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I think the paper has improved substantially and I feel all my comments have been considered. Congratulations to authors!