Pricing Decisions and Innovation Strategies Choice in Supply Chain with Competing Manufacturers and Common Supplier

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The editor will provide the comments and suggestions as considered by the reviewer to the authors for the overall assessment of the paper

Author Response

See the enclosed. Thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to begin my feedback with an appreciation of the work the author put in writing this paper.

In my opinion this paper needs to be improved significantly in order to be suitable for publication in a journal like Sustainability. First of all, the authors should consider preparing the manuscript according to the Instructions for authors - I'm particularly referring to the referencing style required and also author contributions. Secondly, there are mentioned 6 figures, but none of them were inserted in the manuscript.

Thirdly, you need to provide a theoretical foundation for your paper, extensive explanation of your models (referring to previous theories, findings). Also, your paper needs a strong section of discussions and conclusion that will align the research questions with your results/findings. In the conclusions you need to present the practical implications clearer and you need to stress the limits of your work.

This version of the paper lacks alignment between title, abstract, introduction, model. In the title you mentioned "choice of innovation strategies", in the research questions you also mentioned innovation strategies but in the proposed models these strategies are not included. Also, in the Introduction section you wrote about automotive industry and battery manufacturers as suppliers for this industry but you failed to connect this information with the following sections of your paper. You need to reconsider the entire framework of your research.

You need to stress better the novelty of your research and also the contributions it brings to the literature and practice.

Last but not list, I think you should use professional proofreading services to improve the phrasing in English.

Author Response

See the enclosed. Thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,
This is a very interesting article. The models are on a high scientific level. The content needs to be tidied up. You have to adjust the citation to the editing requirements. Additionally, in the article there are references to drawings that do not exist. Conclusions are a bit laconic.

Author Response

See the enclosed. Thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

No 'big' comments. This is an interesting study, using a (complex) model taking into account many relevant factors and methods, resulting in three models for innovation and collaboration. The only factor missing is supply chain risk management. However, the factors in the three models help companies find the right supply chain and collaboration strategy. Testing the model will be a question for future research.

What is the relevance of the case studies in chapter 1? They are not used in the actual research?

Author Response

See the enclosed. Thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

In my opinion, this is an interesting idea and have potential to be published. To improve the paper, next, I elaborate some comments and suggestions:
The abstract should contain the following: purpose, methodology, findings, research implications, practical implications, the originality and value of the paper.
Highlight the novelty element and the structure of the paper at the end of Introduction.
Please emphasize a detailed presentation of data used for applying your model.
Revise the Model Comparison section. The Model Comparison section should also include an in-depth analysis of the results obtained compared to other theoretical models.
There is no clear interpretation of your results with regard to theory and prior research.

Author Response

See the enclosed. Thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the effort the authors put in improving this version of the paper, but I still consider that there are still some things that need to be addressed as follows:

• I have to maintain the recommendation to prepare the manuscript according to the Instructions for authors - I'm particularly referring to the referencing style required and also author contributions (see author guidelines);
• you need to provide a theoretical foundation for your paper, extensive explanation of your models (referring to previous theories, findings);
• in the conclusions you need to present the practical implications clearer and connect them with the automotive industry and also point out the limitations of your study;
• you need to stress better the novelty of your research and also the contributions it brings to the literature and practice (the section you added is to general, you need to be more specific)
• there are some mistakes that you need to correct
  • line 11 is not consisted of is consisting in one supplier and two (not both) manufacturers
  • line 46 – inappropriate use of word lead – you should change it with conduct (conduct innovation or simply innovate)
  • line 65 - inappropriate use of expression number of literature -better use number of studies or number of researches
  • line 80 - inappropriate use of in global instead you should use globally
  • line 111 – typing error syetem to be corrected
  • line 143- inappropriate use of respectively – it should be place in the end of the sentence
  • line 299 remove one ,
  • in the new introduced section lines 338 and 345 the punctuation in missing. Also, the first phrase in this paragraph has no logical meaning. It needs reformulation.

Author Response

Please see the enclosed file. Thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.docx