Quality Management Practices of Food Manufacturers: A Comparative Study between Small, Medium and Large Companies in Malaysia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your paper to this journal. It is a pleasure to read your work. However, the comments below are helpful for your paper:

• Please re-write the abstract. Follow the format of this journal.
• The first sentence in the abstract is too long and has grammatical errors.
• The line “For instance, in the United States of America, the shipment value of the manufacturing sector accounted for 538 billion dollars in 2006, with more than 10% of the total shipment value recorded by the food manufacturing industry”… - Please cite it properly.
• The line “The same phenomenon was observed in Malaysia, which had had positive growth in the processed food market”- Why comparing between the US/Canada (advanced country) and Malaysia (developing country)?  Please justify this.
• With regards to point no 2 above, please add to other countries within the Asia Pacific to support your claim. What is the significance of choosing Malaysia in this study? Why not Singapore or Indonesia, for example?
• Table 1. Please insert a list of “Source(s):” under Table 1 NOT at the end of the title. Please follow the correct format.
• The line “Companies of different sizes are believed to implement QMP with distinction.” – How did you know? Any evidence? Please cite properly from existing studies.
• The line “Small and medium-sized companies have more limitations as compared to the larger-sized companies concerning the implementation of an effective and efficient QMP” – How can you confirm this claim? Please provide the example and appropriate studies to support your claim.
• The line “This is due to the fact that QMP is not only important to assure product quality of an organization but also to enhance the performance of the organization” – Which FACT did you refer to? I could not find any citations referring to this claim.
• The line “The main objective of this study is to investigate the quality management practices (QMP) with the company operational performance and market performance and to determine the extent and level of QMP implementation among the small, medium, and large food manufacturing companies in Malaysia.” – Please move this sentence to a new paragraph. Then, please re-write this sentence properly. It’s difficult to understand the main aim as it combined everything.
• In the last part of the Introduction section, please add another new paragraph to briefly explain the structure of this paper. For example: First, what are you going to do. Second, any crucial task? Third, what about discussion and findings, and Finally, the conclusion for this study. The structure of this paper is missing.
• The Literature Review section has no discussion and too simplistic summary. It provided only with all studies that support the variables to be measured. The simplistic summary in this section highlighted some future recommendations from previous studies. Literature Review is a section to DISCUSS what the previous studies had debated. Therefore, it must include both PROS and CONS of the topic as well as the variables in this paper.
• Please add your theoretical discussion. What are the theories involved in this study? This is the missing part and very important for a scientific paper.
• The Literature Review section unfinished properly. You had highlighted all the future recommendations from previous studies and demonstrated the importance of variables to be examined. So, what is your OWN discussion from all studies you have analyzed? I could not find a paragraph or even a sentence mentioning what you are going to do to engage with the existing debate. Please justify clearly and write your discussion in this section.
• The Method/Material section needs an introduction. There’s no introduction and it jumped in the selected method. You MUST justify and discuss the methods and materials used in the previous studies that you had referred to in Literature Review. Then, it will clearly illustrate the appropriate method for this paper. Without this discussion, it only shows a bias study. Please discuss the previous methods and materials properly, and EXPLAIN why you select a certain method and materials for this study?
• The line “The data were analyzed statistically with an objective conclusion drawn” – Which objective do you refer to? I could not find any objective written earlier. In this section, please highlight your research objective to remind readers.
• The line “The majority of the previous studies on QMP utilized the quantitative approach.” If the majority of previous studies followed a quantitative approach, then what about the rest? Qualitative or Mixed Method? It's so curious and I could not find any information about it in your paper. You must explain why the majority of previous studies used quantitative and some followed the qualitative or mixed-method approaches? Your justification is important to illustrate the importance of choosing the preferred study approach. Otherwise, it promotes bias research in the areas of study.
• The line “A total of 306 food manufacturing companies in Malaysia were identified and selected from the business directories published by the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers (FMM) in the year 2014 and the SME Malaysia 2013 as respondents in this survey.” – Where is the evidence or reference? Please cite appropriately the source.
• The line “In the event that the same companies were recorded in both directories, the companies are automatically considered as a SME and only one response is considered.” – This is a questionable assumption and has flaws. Please write the selection criteria for this part. We can’t rely on “automatically considered as an SME”. It is the only generalization. How did you conduct a thorough sample selection that identifies the appropriate sample for this study?
• The line “Based on this selection guideline, 83 companies were identified from the FMM directory and 223 companies from the SME Corporation Malaysia.” – Which selection guideline did you refer to? Did “automatically considered as a SME” is part of your selection guideline? If it’s part of it, I would advise you to re-examine and re-identify the appropriate SME. 
• The line “The respondents of this study are the Managing Director, General Manager, Quality Manager, Operation Manager, QA/QC Manager, and QA/QC Executive” – What is your validity examination for respondents selection? Please justify and provide evidence where necessary (e.g. confirmation with HR? Years of employability? Follow up with the contacts? Etc.) otherwise, anyone can call themselves quality manager/executive/operation/etc.
• Please insert the appropriate citations for ALL TABLES in this paper. “Source (s):”
• The conclusion was written in one chunk and did not engage with existing debate in the area. Please write a proper discussion that relates to what you’ve discussed in your Literature Review section. How your findings fit or contribute to the discussion. I could not find their relationship at all. Also, please follow the correct academic writing format, such as briefly discuss your findings, contributions (to knowledge, to the literature review, to theory), managerial implication, limitations of the study, future recommendations.
• Overall, there is a lot of work to do with this paper. The authors need to be careful and meticulous when conducting scientific papers like this, especially for the quantitative approach.
• I also found that the English language used in this paper needs to be submitted to a professional proof-reader. Please choose either to use British or American English. Mixing both is not advisable.

 I hope all the comments will help with your revision. Good luck, and thank you.

Author Response

Thank you very much for providing such an intensive and effective review. We carefully followed your review and did the required corrections. Our responses based on your comments are as attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In my opinion, paper is suitable for publication in Sustainability.

Author Response

Thank you very much for supporting our work, and we really your efforts in this.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Well done for the corrections! This version is much more structured and smooth delivery. It is easy to follow the flow, and I can clearly see the contribution of this study. I have no objection or comments, and happy to recommend this version of the manuscript to board of Editors for the publication.

Good luck and thank you.