Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The structure of the article is not clear and the language expression needs to be optimized. The research content of this paper is not elaborated.

2.Although the article in the third part of the "Existing Literature and Inter-Disciplinary Linkages" listed in the seven specific direction and the author research content, but no data support, it is difficult to determine the organization culture and behavior economics theory in the importance of supply chain interruption management, it is difficult to determine the necessity and importance of this study.

3.The author's literature summary of related fields is not comprehensive and in-depth, and it does not specify how these literatures are relevant to the author's research. In addition, literature reviews can also be organized and expressed more clearly.

 4. The sample selection method in this paper is not detailed enough, which may affect the reliability of the research results. Therefore, future studies may consider adopting more empirical research methods and describing sample selection methods in more detail.

 5. The empirical part of this article does not support the author's point of view well, more case studies are suggested to illustrate the author's point of view, and more references to support the author's point of view.

 6. The section on existing literature and inter-disciplinary linkages. The literature review is organized as to discuss the current state of knowledge on a topic... The literature review is organized as to discuss the current state of knowledge on a topic... If this is the case, we should write something like "Who has researched what recently, who has researched what, who has expanded on the basis of someone's research, etc." This article puts the above contents under the heading "due to the fundamental lack of work in this area". Instead, talk about "what should we do?" "

 7. In the conclusion part of the paper, the author may summarize the main findings and contributions in more detail, and provide more specific suggestions and practical significance. In addition, the conclusion can also express the author's point of view more clearly so that it is easier to understand.

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

Many thanks for your constructive feedback and giving the authors a second chance to improve their paper. We appreciate the time and detail provided by each reviewer and have incorporated the suggested changes into the manuscript to the best of our ability. The manuscript has certainly benefited from these insightful revision suggestions.

To ensure addressing all the questions raised, the responses have been provided within the comments of the reviewers. Hence, reviewers’ comments have been copied and pasted below and responses have been provided in bold and highlighted in blue.  Similarly, in the main manuscript added/revised areas have been highlighted in blue.

Some new sections/headings/subheadings have been created. Also, many sections have been revised to address the reviewers’ comments, and to improve the flow and the structure of the paper. These sections have been highlighted blue in the manuscript document.

Review 1 Comments

1. The structure of the article is not clear, and the language expression needs to be optimized. The research content of this paper is not elaborated.

• Added a discussion section to clarify the structure of the piece.
• Edited English throughout the paper to make it clearer.
• Discussed individual articles in detail throughout section 3 (primary literature review)

2.Although the article in the third part of the "Existing Literature and Inter-Disciplinary Linkages" listed in the seven specific direction and the author research content, but no data support, it is difficult to determine the organization culture and behaviour economics theory in the importance of supply chain interruption management, it is difficult to determine the necessity and importance of this study.

• Opened the primary literature review differently so that it’s clearer what the section is supposed to accomplish.
• Discussed individual articles in detail throughout section 3 (primary literature review).
• In the discussion section (section 4.1) the “why” of the paper has been explored in more depth/ the benefits to theory and practice were made clearer.
• The original contribution of the article was discussed in more depth in the conclusions of the paper (section 5.1).

3.The author's literature summary of related fields is not comprehensive and in-depth, and it does not specify how these literatures are relevant to the author's research. In addition, literature reviews can also be organized and expressed more clearly.

• Discussed individual articles in detail throughout section 3 (primary literature review) to give the impression of more depth.
• Linkages between the theories have been made clearer in each section of the primary literature review (section 3).
• Added a discussion section to clarify the structure of the piece.

4. The sample selection method in this paper is not detailed enough, which may affect the reliability of the research results. Therefore, future studies may consider adopting more empirical research methods and describing sample selection methods in more detail.

• Detailed the article sampling method in as much detail as possible.
• The data extraction and analysis processes were not well documented, so this was noted in the methodology section and in the conclusions section (as a limitation)
• It is recommended that future research engage with more empirical methods, in terms of secondary and primary research.

5. The empirical part of this article does not support the author's point of view well, more case studies are suggested to illustrate the author's point of view, and more references to support the author's point of view.

• Discussed individual articles in detail throughout section 3 (primary literature review) to give the impression of more depth.
• Linkages between the theories have been made clearer in each section of the primary literature review (section 3).

6. The section on existing literature and inter-disciplinary linkages. The literature review is organized as to discuss the current state of knowledge on a topic... The literature review is organized as to discuss the current state of knowledge on a topic... If this is the case, we should write something like "Who has researched what recently, who has researched what, who has expanded on the basis of someone's research, etc." This article puts the above contents under the heading "due to the fundamental lack of work in this area". Instead, talk about "what should we do?" "

• Discussed individual articles in detail throughout section 3 (primary literature review) to give the impression of more depth.
• Linkages between the theories have been made clearer in each section of the primary literature review (section 3).
• The discussion section points out “what should we do?” in terms of critiquing the current state of knowledge and future research directions.

7. In the conclusion part of the paper, the author may summarize the main findings and contributions in more detail and provide more specific suggestions and practical significance. In addition, the conclusion can also express the author's point of view more clearly so that it is easier to understand.

• Re-wrote the conclusion section so that a more accurate overview of the paper is given.
• The discussion section makes the author’s point of view much more explicit.
• Overall, the general points made by the article should be much easier to understand.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to read your paper on Covid 19 and Supply Chain Disruption Management: A Behavioural Economics Perspective and Future Research Direction. The subject of the paper is very interesting and complies with the topic of Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research. It contains new information adequate to justify publication. 

The paper demonstrates an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and no significant work have been ignored. I can find the new contributions to the theory.

The authors present well the motivation why the approach has been chosen. However, it lacks the research questions in the introduction.

The paper's argument are built well on an appropriate base of theory. However, the research framework and methodology are not clear. Not too much detail on database searches, in particular inclusive and exclusive criteria. It is not clear, for example, where in the article the keywords were searched. Why was 'grey literature' not used?

Results are interesting but the Discussion section is missing. The article should discusse the results in depth. Moreover, it is needed more contributions to theory.

Table 1. Proposed Future Research Directions/ Questions should be presented and described in the earlier part of the article.

The authors don’t indicate the limitations of their work.

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

Many thanks for your constructive feedback and giving the authors a second chance to improve their paper. We appreciate the time and detail provided by each reviewer and have incorporated the suggested changes into the manuscript to the best of our ability. The manuscript has certainly benefited from these insightful revision suggestions.

To ensure addressing all the questions raised, the responses have been provided within the comments of the reviewers. Hence, reviewers’ comments have been copied and pasted below and responses have been provided in bold and highlighted in blue.  Similarly, in the main manuscript added/revised areas have been highlighted in blue.

Some new sections/headings/subheadings have been created. Also, many sections have been revised to address the reviewers’ comments, and to improve the flow and the structure of the paper. These sections have been highlighted blue in the manuscript document.

Review 2 Comments

1. Thank you for the opportunity to read your paper on Covid 19 and Supply Chain Disruption Management: A Behavioural Economics Perspective and Future Research Direction. The subject of the paper is very interesting and complies with the topic of Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research. It contains new information adequate to justify publication. 

• No action required.

2. The paper demonstrates an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and no significant work have been ignored. I can find the new contributions to the theory.
   • No action required.
3. The authors present well the motivation why the approach has been chosen. However, it lacks the research questions in the introduction.

• Included two central research questions in the introduction.

4. The paper's arguments are built well on an appropriate base of theory. However, the research framework and methodology are not clear. Not too much detail on database searches, in particular inclusive and exclusive criteria. It is not clear, for example, where in the article the keywords were searched. Why was 'grey literature' not used?

• Detailed the article sampling method in as much detail as possible
• The data extraction and analysis process was not well documented, so this was noted in the methodology section and in the conclusions section (as a limitation)
• Clarified that the keywords provided by the author(s) were utilised as the inclusive criteria, no exclusive criteria despite measuring article quality.
• Explained that grey literature was utilised, and that it was located using Google Scholar.

5. Results are interesting but the Discussion section is missing. The article should discuss the results in depth. Moreover, it is needed more contributions to theory.
   • Added a discussion section to clarify the structure of the piece.
   • The discussion section makes the author’s point of view much more explicit.
   • Overall, the general points made by the article should be much easier to understand.
   • The original contribution of the article was discussed in more depth in the conclusions of the paper (section 5.1).
6. Table 1. Proposed Future Research Directions/ Questions should be presented and described in the earlier part of the article.
   • Presented table 1 in the discussion section rather than in the conclusion
7. The authors don’t indicate the limitations of their work.
   • Included the limitations of the work in the conclusion (section 5.2), with the primary one being the lack of ability to recount the data extraction and analysis process (due to a lack of documentation)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear author(s),

I recently had the opportunity to review your paper entitled “Covid 19 and Supply Chain Disruption Management: A Behavioural Economics Perspective and Future Research Direction”. The topic being discussed in this paper is interesting; however, I believe that some important major revisions are necessary to increase your chance to be published in this journal and to enhance the effectiveness of your study. Please, see my recommendations in the following bullet point:

·         Many of the cited references are not up-to-date. Many studies were published in 2023 about supply chain management, resilience, and disruptions. As a sample reference, you might look to this paper: Faggioni, F., Rossi, M. V., & Sestino, A. (2023). Supply Chain Resilience in the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Qualitative Analysis from Scholarly and Managerial Perspectives. Int. J. Bus. Manag, 18(1), 129-146. You can check this paper and other similar to this one to enrich your study.

·         In some parts of your study, your assumptions are not supported by literature, but seem just a sort of reasoning of the author. For instance, from line 65 to 74, you did not include any references. You start the sentence saying “It is acknowledged that…” It is acknowledged by who?

·         Moreover, and most importantly, I did not find a clear indication of the originality of your study. The “why” of your study and the way in which both academics and practitioners can benefit from your study is not really highlighted. This lack is also present in the last paragraph, that I suggest dividing in “Discussion and implications” and “conclusion, limitation, and future research lines”.

Good luck!

English is good. Just few typos were detected.

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

Many thanks for your constructive feedback and giving the authors a second chance to improve their paper. We appreciate the time and detail provided by each reviewer and have incorporated the suggested changes into the manuscript to the best of our ability. The manuscript has certainly benefited from these insightful revision suggestions.

To ensure addressing all the questions raised, the responses have been provided within the comments of the reviewers. Hence, reviewers’ comments have been copied and pasted below and responses have been provided in bold and highlighted in blue.  Similarly, in the main manuscript added/revised areas have been highlighted in blue.

Some new sections/headings/subheadings have been created. Also, many sections have been revised to address the reviewers’ comments, and to improve the flow and the structure of the paper. These sections have been highlighted blue in the manuscript document.

Review 3 Comments

1. I recently had the opportunity to review your paper entitled “Covid 19 and Supply Chain Disruption Management: A Behavioural Economics Perspective and Future Research Direction”. The topic being discussed in this paper is interesting; however, I believe that some important major revisions are necessary to increase your chance to be published in this journal and to enhance the effectiveness of your study. Please, see my recommendations in the following bullet point:

• No action needed.

2. Many of the cited references are not up to date. Many studies were published in 2023 about supply chain management, resilience, and disruptions. As a sample reference, you might look to this paper: Faggioni, F., Rossi, M. V., & Sestino, A. (2023). Supply Chain Resilience in the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Qualitative Analysis from Scholarly and Managerial Perspectives. Int. J. Bus. Manag, 18(1), 129-146. You can check this paper and other similar to this one to enrich your study.

• Utilised my current literature review to include more up to date references where possible

3. In some parts of your study, your assumptions are not supported by literature, but seem just a sort of reasoning of the author. For instance, from line 65 to 74, you did not include any references. You start the sentence saying “It is acknowledged that…” It is acknowledged by who?

• Changed that specific instance of an assumption and checked for other similar assumptions throughout the literature review; these were then replaced with in-depth explanations of various articles which were properly cited.
• All assumptions otherwise have been moved to the discussion section, where it is evident that this is the authors’ opinion based on the literature, rather than a finding from the literature itself.

4. Moreover, and most importantly, I did not find a clear indication of the originality of your study. The “why” of your study and the way in which both academics and practitioners can benefit from your study is not really highlighted. This lack is also present in the last paragraph, that I suggest dividing in “Discussion and implications” and “conclusion, limitation, and future research lines”.

• In the discussion section (section 4.1) the “why” of the paper has been explored in more depth/ the benefits to theory and practice were made clearer.
• The original contribution of the article was discussed in more depth in the conclusions of the paper (section 5.1).
• Divided the conclusions into the three sections recommended by the reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper has been modified a lot on the basis of the original, which has certain research significance; However, I believe that a number of important and major changes are necessary. Please see my recommendations below:

1. Abstract: the authors explains that the purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between behavioral economic theory and organizational culture and supply chain disruption management, but does not explain how this paper studies this relationship. It is suggested that the authors summarize and condense the research background, research theme, research method, research contribution and significance in the abstract part.

2. Introduction

(1) Background: It is suggested that the authors carefully explain how COVID-19 has affected supply chain disruption, and the important role of organizational culture and behavioral economic theory in supply chain disruption management. It is suggested to cite more previous literature for discussion.

(2) Contribution: The authors puts forward the core issues and the purpose of this paper, but does not elaborate on the research methods used in this paper. It is suggested that the authors add an explanation of the research method in this part.

(3) In the last paragraph of the introduction, the author adds a paragraph to describe the structure of the article, but the idea is still unclear. From these words alone, I can't understand the structure of the article clearly. It is suggested that the authors add an idea structure diagram to explain the whole structure of the paper.

3.Methodology

Figure 1 shows the research process. This flowchart is too simple. It is suggested that the authors enrich the diagram again to make it more complex, such as the presentation of keywords. This makes the reader more clear about the research process of this paper.

4. Existing Literature and Inter-Disciplinary Linkages

As for the seven future research directions, the authors only lists the references in each part of the analysis. There is no detailed classification of the literature, and the analysis of each part is one-sided. For example, 3.1 can explain in detail the impact of covid-19 on the industry, different supply chain links, and society. It is recommended to classify the previous literature reviews.

5. Conclusions

The authors expounds the importance of organizational culture and behavioral economic theory in supply chain disruption management. However, there is no comprehensive summary of the conclusions and contributions of this paper, and it is suggested that the authors summarize all seven areas.

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

1. Abstract: the authors explains that the purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between behavioral economic theory and organizational culture and supply chain disruption management, but does not explain how this paper studies this relationship. It is suggested that the authors summarize and condense the research background, research theme, research method, research contribution and significance in the abstract part. The abstract has been revised to include the suggested sections.
2. Introduction

(1) Background: It is suggested that the authors carefully explain how COVID-19 has affected supply chain disruption, and the important role of organizational culture and behavioral economic theory in supply chain disruption management. It is suggested to cite more previous literature for discussion. All the requested areas have been added in the first paragraph of the introduction and have been highlighted in red.

(2) Contribution: The authors puts forward the core issues and the purpose of this paper, but does not elaborate on the research methods used in this paper. It is suggested that the authors add an explanation of the research method in this part. In the third paragraph, we now delve into the methodological approach and its implications.

(3) In the last paragraph of the introduction, the author adds a paragraph to describe the structure of the article, but the idea is still unclear. From these words alone, I can't understand the structure of the article clearly. It is suggested that the authors add an idea structure diagram to explain the whole structure of the paper. A table explain the structure of the paper has been added now.

3.Methodology

Figure 1 shows the research process. This flowchart is too simple. It is suggested that the authors enrich the diagram again to make it more complex, such as the presentation of keywords. This makes the reader more clear about the research process of this paper. A new research process diagram with the requested details has been provided.

4. Existing Literature and Inter-Disciplinary Linkages

As for the seven future research directions, the authors only lists the references in each part of the analysis. There is no detailed classification of the literature, and the analysis of each part is one-sided. For example, 3.1 can explain in detail the impact of covid-19 on the industry, different supply chain links, and society. It is recommended to classify the previous literature reviews. Section 3.1 has been revised to address the reviewer’s comments. The revised section has been highlighted in red. Actually, the classification of the literature review has already been done based on the flowing key themes:

Effects of COVID-19 on Businesses

Supply Chain Disruption Management

Crisis and Risk Management

Supply Chain Agility and Resilience

Information Sharing and Collaboration

Industry 4.0/ Technological Innovations

Leadership (Internal Supply Chain)

5. Conclusions

The authors expounds the importance of organizational culture and behavioral economic theory in supply chain disruption management. However, there is no comprehensive summary of the conclusions and contributions of this paper, and it is suggested that the authors summarize all seven areas. A new paragraph has been added to section 5.1 to address the reviewer’s comments. Please see the section highlighted in red.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you once again for the opportunity to read your paper on Covid 19 and Supply Chain Disruption Management: A Behavioural Economics Perspective and Future Research Direction. The subject of the paper is very interesting and complies with the topic of Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research. It contains new information adequate to justify publication.  It was siginificantly improved after revision.

The paper demonstrates an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and no significant work have been ignored. I can find the new contributions to the theory.

The authors present well the motivation why the approach has been chosen.

The paper's argument are built well on an appropriate base of theory. The research framework and methodology are clear.

Results and discussion are interesting.

The authors indicate the limitations of their work.

Author Response

Many thanks for your feedback and lovely comments. 

Reviewer 3 Report

I thank authors for the improvements. 

The paper is much more worthy now.

Author Response

Many thanks for your feedback and lovely comments. 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept in present form.

Minor editing of English language required.