Measuring Using Disruptive Technology in the Supply Chain Context: Scale Development and Validation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is interesting and the researched problem has scientific potential. However, some problems need to be solved:

1. Literature review is weak, and it must improve. For example, the current Theoretical background section is under one page and has a paragraph and a sub-paragraph with a few general sentences.

2. The use of self-administered questionnaires can generate a problem that may affect the relevance of the research: the bias effect or common method bias - CMB (see: Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee, JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003; 88(5):879-903.). Such problems arise when data on independent and dependent variables emanate from the same respondent and the same measurement scale exists throughout the questionnaire. Authors must take action to prevent common method bias - CMB (see https://doi.org/10.3390/systems10040121)

3. Considering that you have a data set based on a questionnaire, the paper would gain value if SEM were used to establish the relationships between variables.

4. The current form of the conclusions briefly repeats what was stated in the results and discussion sections. The conclusions must be improved.

The article presents scientific value and can be published after carefully reviewing the reported issues.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for the insightful comments and suggestions. We made whole possible alterations that were suggested and detailed the changes in below. Prior to response your comments we want to inform you that all the revisions and improvements are highligted yellow in revised version of our manuscipt. In addition, we have added explanations about the alteration made to the right of the relevant texts by choosing whole parts of the MS Office Word file that have been revised. We sincerely appreciate your formative comments on our paper. We would like to thank you again for your precious time and insight to to strengthen our study.

Yours Truly,

Corresponding author on behalf of the authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Disruptive technologies have been a part of our lives for many years and their importance has been accelerating. To survive in today's competitive environment, to benefit from their contribution to the supply chain, and to examine their relationship to supply chain operations, measuring the level of utilization of these technologies is necessary. Therefore, this paper develops and validates a measurement instrument for supply chain management practices in the area of technology. The supply chain context chosen in this paper is of great practical importance. The proposed measurement instrument is also of significant theoretical and practical value. However, the following problems still need to be improved:

1. In addition to introducing the research background, research questions, research methods, content and conclusions of this paper, the abstract part should also explain the research significance and research contributions of this paper.

2. In the introduction part, the introduction from the fourth industrial revolution to the supply chain need a good transition to reflect the research theme "Measuring Using Disruptive Technology in the Supply Chain Context".

3. In the materials and methods part, the process of generating and purifying the items is described in study1, but the items generated are not described. So it is recommended that the specific items generated be listed

4. In the materials and methods part, Arabic numerals are used at the beginning of the sentence in study1, and it is recommended that they not be placed directly at the beginning of the sentence.

5. In the materials and methods part, the last three rows of data have data writing errors in Table 4, and the authors are advised to double-check and correct them.

Based on the above comments, it is recommended to review carefully after careful revision.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

We would like to thank you for the insightful comments and suggestions. We made whole possible alterations that were suggested and detailed the changes in below. Prior to response your comments we want to inform you that all the revisions and improvements are highligted yellow in revised version of our manuscipt. In addition, we have added explanations about the alteration made to the right of the relevant texts by choosing whole parts of the MS Office Word file that have been revised. We sincerely appreciate your formative comments on our paper. We would like to thank you again for your precious time and insight to to strengthen our study.

Yours Truly,

Corresponding author on behalf of the authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper can be published in current form.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been revised well according to my suggestion, so i suggest to accept it