Research on the Path of Manufacturing Enterprises Supply Chain Integration from the Configuration Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I appreciate the confidence given to me to review this work. I hope that the comments made in this review will help the author to improve his work.
I should mention that for years I have collaborated with MDPI as author and editor, so I know their editorial standards, and I notice that this article lacks the following at a glance:
1. The template recommended by the publisher is not used.
2. The style of references recommended by the publisher is not used.
3. There are many typographical errors throughout the text. I see that many words that should not be capitalized are capitalized.
1. The abstract
The abstract talks about a problem, but the objectives sought are not clear. It lacks a description of the methodology used, the results, and the conclusions.
2. Introduction
The introduction does not allow me to really know the problem to be studied. There is no analysis of what has been done in previous studies, and their limitations are discussed to identify the problem and propose an objective.
I believe that the authors should work hard on this section.
I recommend unifying the introduction sections with the literature review. The introduction should culminate with establishing a study objective to move on to a proposal of the methodology to achieve it.
3. Literature review
Unify with the introduction. Perhaps it can be reduced. Focus on mentioning which are the areas of opportunity left by the other authors to propose their objective.
The article's contribution is mentioned in a certain way. Still, three variables were initially defined, but two of them were excluded in the literature review. For example, risk avoidance and intelligence degree are not defined.
4. Methodology
Under the conditions in which the methodology is described, it would be almost impossible for another researcher to replicate your research. Some observations are the following:
1. The use of a questionnaire is mentioned. However, it is not indicated how the questions were obtained, on what scale they were evaluated. The design of the questionnaire appears in two sections below. The questionnaire should be described and preferably placed as an annex or supplementary material.
2. The acronyms in Table 1 were not defined.
3. Much of the information contained in the methodology section, such as the tables, are actually results. Move them to the results section.
4 Results
The results report is confusing since much of the information that appears in methodology should appear in results.
Overall conclusion. A complete restructuring of your work is recommended.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article entitled „Research on the path of manufacturing enterprise supply chain integration from the digital perspective” is very interesting. It shows some very important research results which were done on the basis of QCA method.
In order to make this article scientifically better I propose to change and/or add some important information:
- Please reconsider the title of this article, because You have not written anything about the digital perspective in the theoretical part of this paper.
- In paragraph (par.) 12 the author(s) write(s) that he/she/they set(s) a qualitative … research method, but in par. 61 mention(s) about “quantitative and qualitative analysis”. You must explain on what method your qualitative analysis is based. In the research part (empirical) of the article there is only a quantitative analysis presented. So, please explain it or remove the inappropriate one.
- When You use an abbreviation for the first time, please explain it (for example you have not explained the meaning of “fs” in “fs QCA”).
- Do not use number “0” before the Introduction section.
- In the Literature review section I propose to make little changes in the titles of its parts:
1.1 can be entitled: “The concept and the essence of the supply chain integration” or something similar. If the title 1.2 is “The Internal factors of the supply chain integration”, so I suggest naming 1.3 “The External factors of…”.
1.4 “The path selection of the supply chain integration” or another one title. But what you need to present here is the literature review in this area.
- In par. 169 it ought to be written: “The marginal contribution of this paper to… science”.
- In par. 170 and others it is written: “the influence of intelligence” but it ought to be ”the influence of artificial intelligence”.
- Figure no 1 is entitled “Theoretical model”. It suggest changing it into: The sketch/ the outline of the theoretical research on the supply chain integration or another one (It is not a theoretical model in a scientific sense). You used blue colour of the line (figure 1). What does it mean? Please give some explanation under the figure.
- In par. 185 it is written that “Tianjin is the largest…”. I would change it into: “one of the largest industrial cities in China”.
- In the Data Collection part of the article please fill up some necessary information (You can make a table for the first 3 of them):
- the size of the researched enterprises (How many are there: micro, small, medium, large, very large?)
- the type of activity of the analysed enterprises (in manufacturing there are many under-sections),
- the type accordingly to its capital origin: domestic, foreign or mixed enterprise,
- the time when the research was conducted.
11) In table 1 some abbreviations such as: GP, SCP, IS, RA, DOI, SCI are used. I suggest explaining their meaning under the table in a note part. The same comment applies to table 2 with reference to the following abbreviations: CR, KMO, AVE.
12) In par. 423 the Author(s) has/have written: “survey data of 216 manufacturing…”, but it ought to be “185 valid questionary data of manufacturing…”
In my opinion this article is valuable but some corrections have to be done.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks a lot for your responses. My comments are as follow:
- There are several texts in black color (page 2)
- The title Literature review is the second section and not section 1. Section 1 is the introduction.
- Several Upcase letters appear in the text.
- SPSS25.0 and AMOS23.0 must be added has a reference.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
