Transnational Corporation’s Failure in China: Focus on Tesco

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The resubmitted article has been corrected insufficiently. 
As I mentioned before, the article is still not processed according to recommended research manuscript sections (Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion), it lacks sections such as Materials and Methods as well as Discussion. 
The limits and barriers of research could be move in the conclusion with the ensuring the continuity of research by outlining its further direction.
I suggest correcting the paper according to recommendations.

Author Response

In response to the reviewer’s comments, sections of the manuscript were modified (introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion), and the methods were supplemented. Thanks very much for your useful comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The only comment is that the paper has the right structure, the methodology is correct and in accordance with the objective, results and conclusion are OK, but the originality of the paper, in my opinion, is low. The study is insipid and I don't appreciate that it brings any plus to the theory and practice. 

Author Response

We included the originality of the research in the conclusion, as suggested by Reviewer 2. Thanks very much for your useful comments.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, 
the resubmitted manuscript is processed at an acceptable level. However, there is still space for using more sophistical methods and thus procession of the manuscript in higher scientific quality.
Please, take it into account for future studies.
Best regards.

Reviewer 2 Report

The originality was not significant improve, but as I mentioned before the paper and the research is done correct.