Survival Analysis of Small Business during COVID-19 Pandemic, a Brazilian Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The writing is confusing and disjointed. The paragraphs look like loose sentences placed side by side. I suggest connecting the information better by following a line of reasoning. There is no objective, no research question. It doesn't specify the crisis of 2015-2017 or the improvement of 2018-2020. It would be relevant to contextualise the country's political scenario over the years studied and how this may have affected the results.

What is the theoretical gap? What is the relevance and contribution of the study? Why research just one state in a country with 26 states? Why is this state particular? Why not do a comparative study? You could compare the three states of the southern region or compare the state with another from another region to see if there are significant differences in behaviour. How does this study contribute to theoretical progress?

The references lack international studies, recent studies and more relevant studies.

The theory adopted is poorly justified and weakly argued. How can we discuss RBV without mentioning Barney, Teece, Eisenhart, Rumelt and Penrose? Why adopt only Porter's vision from 2012? I suggest using other theoretical lenses for greater robustness. Some possible suggestions would be transaction cost theories, the firm, asymmetric information, RBV with different authors' perspectives, contingency, networks, the population ecology of organisations, and the life cycle of organisations.

Section 3.1 can be integrated into the text to validate statements made without references.

Results: in 2019, there was still no pandemic in Brazil; it presented the worst result, and there was no discussion about it.

The paper presents no discussion, only a description of results not connected to the theoretical framework.

There are no practical, theoretical, managerial or political implications.

Weakly organised limitations and no relevant lines of future research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I recommend proofreading by a native speaker. I also recommend revising the writing style to be more direct.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, pls. find the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The added literature is still outdated, focussing on books, reports and local studies. Very few recent, post-2020 papers are referenced, preventing a good data discussion. I suggest searching Scopus and Web of Science to understand how old theories and books connect with current contexts. The added part is limited to briefly describing what other old papers have done, a paragraph for each paper without any connection of ideas and how the gap exists in current times.

The discussion remains fragile since the literature review is neither consistent nor up-to-date. I suggest including recent studies from more extensive databases to broaden the understanding of the literature and how it applies to the problem and realities studied. I also recommend separating the results section from the discussion and, in the debate, including subsections on theoretical, managerial and social contributions/implications, another on limitations and future studies and leaving the conclusion only for the accurate contributions (1 or 2 paragraphs).

Focus on fundamental limitations such as the unavailability of data to extend the sample, making comparative studies with other states and regions impossible.

References do not follow a common formatting pattern.

The results are generally good, but the literature review is still outdated and descriptive. It needs to be argumentative: what is there? How are they connected? What is the real gap? What is the relevance? It's impossible to argue with the near absence of recent studies. This also makes it impossible to discuss results that point to relevant contributions and implications.

Finally, I suggest that the authors research some papers in the same area and choose some published in high-impact journals to understand how to make a text more argumentative and effectively report a discussion based on the literature to show the advances the research has made.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

 

 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf