Social Network Analysis: Applications and New Metrics for Supply Chain Management—A Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is about an interesting and relevant context. However, there are some serious issues concerning objectives, discussion and actual contribution. The authors claim: "This study aims to analyze the role and contribution of SNA application to the characterization and understanding of contemporary supply chains challenges and to identify new metrics a literature review was conducted with a focus on publications from the year 2020 onwards." I think there is a contradiction here. How is it possible to identify new metrics when analyzing such a short period of time? The authors justify their decision by stating that after the COVID-19 pandemic there have been significant implications for supply chains. This is true, but during the last 30 years we have witnessed other important matters which have affected supply chains. Moreover, from the selected papers it is not clear how supply chains were affected from the COVID-19 pandemic and how was that identified with the use of SNA.
The authors have presented some data about the papers they have reviewed. They talked about software tools used by other authors, including UCINET, VOSviewer, NETDRAW, R, Gephi, SPSS, Python, and NetMiner. All these tools are different in nature. What is the relevance here? A similar comment can apply in the case of data sources. What is the point here (when it comes to meet the objective of the paper)? Moreover, from the authors' analysis it is not clear how SNA helped or may help to address supply chain issues.
I would recommend that the authors revisit the articles they reviewed and identify the contribution of SNA is SCM as well as potential extensions of it.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No particular comment

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review article aims to clarify the role Social Network Analysis in characterizing and understanding the challenges of contemporary supply chains. The article is well organized. I would only recommend some minor adjustments to improve the quality of this work.

1. The introductory section must appropriately highlight the motivations and objectives of this research.

2. The introduction section will have to improve given the research gaps. How research question arises?

3. Some citations comprise multiple references, and it would be preferable to provide a concise explanation for each cited reference. For. eg. "area of SCM [7, 14, 16–20]", "... especially in the automotive sector [7, 14, 17–19, 38]."

4. There are some missing references that should be checked and corrected throughout the paper. For eg. "Figure 3Error! Reference source not found", "Figure 4Error! Reference source not found".

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations the paper is very interesting and it is a mark in the knowlegde.

This study contributes to promoting knowledge in the area of Social Networks and their application to supply chains. Furthermore, it allows the identification of new network metrics and the understanding of contemporary supply chain challenges.

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?   This study aims to analyze the role and contribution of SNA application to the characterization and understanding of contemporary supply chains challenges and to identify new metrics  The author can better clarify whether he has achieved the defined goal  2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? The study helps to clarify the subject, the authors should show/clarify what the study contributes to theory and practice. It would be interesting to see the theoretical and practical implications of the study and the measures/strategies to be adopted. 
3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? The author must clarify the added value of the study  4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered? The author can add which indicators or group of indicators are relevant in the new metrics found
5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented
and do they address the main question posed?
6. Are the references appropriate? Yes
7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study explores the role and impact of Social Network Analysis (SNA) in understanding and characterising modern supply chains. The literature review highlights the applications of SNA in various sectors, with an emerging focus on the tertiary sector. The use of network and node metrics is also discussed, emphasising the need for new metrics that are specific to supply chains. However, challenges such as data acquisition limitations and capturing nuanced actor relationships may hinder the widespread application of SNA in supply chain management. The technical aspects of the model is not studied or considered. Therefore, I found the results not persuading.

There are a few major remarks:

1. I do not consider the paper being scientifically innovative. What is the motivation of the research?

2. There is a lack of explanation of methodology, set of used methods and their clear alignment with research goals and achievement of these goals.

3. There is no methodological soundness. Why Social Network Analysis (SNA) in understanding and characterising modern supply chains method? What the benefits ? how the sectors are benefited ? How the KPIs are found? 

4. A comparison with other published works and methods should be provided.

5. The authors have not included the keywords used: Why not comprehensive analysis done? What  are the other possibilities of figure .. Just bar chart , pie chart are not enough?

6. It is not clear on what basis a summary is presented. This needs to be explained to readers.

7. The new knowledge that this study presents in the scientific literature in the field of  PRISMa, SLR and bibliometric analysis are not done. 

8. Discussion should give achievement of results and describe what is innovative and relevant in comparison with other studies.

9. Managerial, research implications, and limitations are not included.

10. English needs proofreading. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It required extensive editing

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made significant improvements in their manuscript. They have successfully addressed my challenging comments which I think helped them to provide the manuscript with the necessary research orientation. After these extensive modifications, my suggestion is that the manuscript is accepted for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I did not notice any particular issue with the use of English. In lines 253 and 269 you have to fix the references to figures.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for revising your manuscript, however , I still did not find the research findings intresting . 

After a comprehensive review of the paper, it is evident that there are several critical issues that need to be addressed. The discrepancy in the paper title suggests that the main focus may not be adequately represented. When dealing with interactions between multiple areas, the literature review should be considered separately to ensure clarity and coherence.

Moreover, the literature review and the model and analysis presented in the paper need to meet the rigorous standards expected for publication. The lack of clarity in the findings in the absence of clear identification of parameters are insignificant. 

Research gap to bridge the knowledge gaps not included.

The theory section needs to be included, and

research questions/objectives need to be included.

Implications for researchers, managers, and policymakers and future research directions must be included.

Furthermore, the methodology process needs to be clearly elucidated, raising questions about the validity and reliability of the research findings. The discussion of the obtained results must be well improved, highlighting the insights of the research findings, and with support from earlier literature, the article has the potential to provide a comprehensive review. However, the identified issues need to be rejustified for publication in terms of new knowledge contributed by carrying out the research.

 

It is important to note that while the rejection is based on these identified issues and  shortcomings highlighted

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please take english services .

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this study, I have identified a critical discrepancy in the paper title concerning the presence of the main focus. It is essential to note that when dealing with more than two areas interaction ,the appropriate way is to consider the literature review separately.

Additionally, the literature synethsis presented in the paper are not meeting the high standard of work. The direction used lacks clarity in identifying which parameters are considered. Also consideration of terms and calculations is not significant and has its own drawbacks.

Furthermore, the methodology process is not clearly elucidated.

In my assessment, the article's noteworthy contribution lies in its potential to provide a comprehensive review, particularly within this journal. Consequently, I recommend rejecting the article based on these identified issues.

Best Regards…

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English to be improved further. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx