Review Reports - Impact of Internal Integration, Supply Chain Partnership, Supply Chain Agility, and Supply Chain Resilience on Sustainable Advantage

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments

This work tries to explain the contribution of supply chain agility and resilience on sustainable advantage and how internal integration and partnerships in SC impact on the previous variables. As a first look, it sounds interesting even if too many independent variables may contribute with some noise or entropy.

So, firstly, the authors need to justify why are studying these relationships. In section 2, the hypotheses are explained as well as the expected relationships studied using PLS regression. The COVID-19 context is relevant to highlight the today’s turbulence in SC worldwide and particularly in globalized SC. This is not a new phenomenon, actually, with the crisis of the tsunami in Japan, some years ago, the same risks were highlighted and global SChains didn’t learn the lesson are stay exposed to such situations.

But, how and why the COVID-19 (see… almost two years ago…) is or can be different for SC relationships? That must be highlighted in the article to give a better context. So, it is required 1) a better focus on what matters in terms of COVID-19 for SC relationships, 2) clarify sustainable advantage and the other variables, particularly, SC agility and resilience in this context, 3) which are the relationships to be explored and why that is important and can result in a contribution (the authors suggest that this study offers a novel approach because includes 4 variables which can be related to SC competitive advantage when previous studies mainly studied the relationship of just two of these factors and the dependent variable which is sustainable advantage but the use of too much explanative variables can be more a weakness than a strength of this work), 4) a good and focused explanation of the concepts used and of the previous literature on these relationships (it is made in the article but in my opinion with too much description in the introduction being repetitive with the text in section 2; and in a confuse manner, not always clear and with forwards and backwards – the INTRODUCTION must be focused on the context, motivation, explaining the RQ, the novelty and relevance of this study, comparing and contextualizing it with the extant literature, explaining briefly the methodology followed to collect and analyze the data… and the text must follow this order, more or less, 5) section 3 on the methodology must explain better how the data was collected, how the questionnaire was designed which should be presented in appendix, …, 6) the analysis follows the protocol and the results of using the PLS regression are shown, 7) the connection between the results, the contributions of this study and the literature must be improved in the discussion – which deserves its own section, I think the results showed are just a confirmation of the validity of the data because they do not offer any particular new or unexpected relationship, thus, a complementarily more sophisticated analysis should be made to give a real contribution (see comments at the end of this text), 8) the conclusions section must be rewritten and improved (see comments at the end of this text).

Relating internal and external factors with performance (sustainable advantage) we could be view this studied from the theoretical lens of Contingency Theory… but that probably does not fit fully the methodological approach that was followed and the kind of questions used, but contingency theory will give a stronger framework for the analysis.

Internal integration is essentially information sharing and the use of information technology…; could it be renamed to “information technologies” or similar?

So, this is a relevant academic work but needs major modifications to be clear, more focused and to highlight the contributions of the study, some details of the work done must be also clarified (particularly, related to the methodology).

The text needs also to be better organized following a better logic for the ideas presented.

Finally, it is necessary a good proofreading to correct small errors and also to rewrite several paragraphs.

But, the article has the ingredients of a research paper and the authors are invited to correct and improve it in order to submit a better version of the manuscript. English must be revised if possible by a native speaking person because this version resulted complicated to read in several moments.

Please, see more detailed comments below.

Abstract

The abstract is somewhat big, should be reduced and improved. For example, the problem is not well defined in the beginning. At the end of the abstract it is also expected a clearer idea about the main results and how relevant are they to both the academy and the industry which should be connected to the extant literature on the topic – they corroborate it, extend, show something new? Some additional methodological aspects could be also briefly introduced in the abstract.

Also, some sentences should be improved. All text needs additional proofreading, indeed small errors ask for some corrections and rephrasing. For example:

- “The research population is (COMPOSED BY) manufacturing company (COMPANIES) in Indonesia.”

- “FOR Data collection IT WAS used a questionnaire AND a five-point Likert scale TO GET THE OPINION OF THE RESPONDENTS.”

- “The questionnaire link WAS distributed via email and WhatsApp social media to the predetermined manufacturing company DURING XXXX and YYYY.” – please, include the period used for collecting the data.

- “to A predetermined SET OF manufacturing COMPANIES”

- This sentence must be completed, corrected and the response rate % is not correctly calculated: “Respondents have filled out 672 questionnaires, and 456 respondents (CORRESPONDING TO 67.86%) have filled out correctly and considered valid for further analysis.” – The response rate relate the number of responses (total or only valid) and the contacted potential respondents – because the approach followed (diffusion by social media) you do not know which was the population addressed or the sample, but do you might estimate it?

- “PARTIAL LEAST SQUARE (PLS) WAS used using smartPLS software version 3.3.

This sentence should be substituted “Data analysis used partial least square PLS) using smartPLS software version 3.3.”by “Partial least squares (PLS) regression was used for the analysis of the data using the smartPLS software version 3.3.”

- “The result indicated that eight of nine hypotheses are supported by data.” Should be “The results supported eight of the proposed nine hypotheses.”

- “sustainable advantages” should be “sustainable advantage”

- “by providing timely product delivery during a pandemic and maintaining a reliable sales volume in a pandemic condition.” Should be “by providing both timely product delivery and reliable sales volume in a pandemic condition.”

Change the last two sentences in the abstract: “This result provides an insight for manager on how to enhance the sustainable advantage by implementing the supply chain agility, supply chain resilience, and supply chain partnership. This result also could contribute to the current research in the context of supply chain management.” Why you say this, as it is written doesn’t say anything truly… be more concrete in the results and contributions: why and how… and these results corroborate the literature, extend it, offer a different perspective? These aspects are what really will be important to highlight at the end of the abstract.

Introduction

The contextualization about the COVID-19 made in lines 37-49 and on macroeconomic impacts in lines 50-55 could be reduced to two or three sentences.

- LINE 56 “…supply chain (SC) order, including the globalization…” should be “…supply chain (SC) order, BECAUSE the globalization…”

- LINES 57-93: these sentences ask for proofreading.

The first lines in the introduction present some problems faced in the supply chain in general and in some particular industries because COVID-19. Again, maybe it could be reduced and presented in a clearer way because is a bit confusing mixing several different aspects. All this contextualization at the begin of the introduction must be simplified, clarified and revised by a third person, an English native speaker will be good… to turn the text better to be followed with a better common thread.

From Line 94 to 154, the core concepts of the research are defined: internal integration, SC agility, SC resilience, SC partnerships, … but in a very mixed way going forward and backward. This part should be reduced also because these concepts are developed in section 2.

LINES 157-170 the authors discuss a bit the problem, the research problem(s) but not in a clear way.

The introduction must be rewritten following a much organize set of ideas. Commonly, it is expected: 1) a general contextualization, 2) de motivation, research problem, research questions, 3) connect it to the extant literature (3 can came before 2 if works better), 4) the research methodology and methodological aspects, eventually, 5) the expected relevance and contributions (in a general way) or why that will be important to both the literature and the industry, and also, eventually, 6) how it is presented in the paper and/or the structure of the paper.

Particularly, in the introduction, the choice for the CONSTRUCTS must be justified.

Maybe a theoretical framework is missing: Contingency theory? But, ok, that will ask for a too big change in this article maybe can be an idea for a another paper/research...

Literature review section 2

Initial sections present each of the main constructs. They could be clarified because present not always in a good sequence definitions and examples and there is missing a better connection to extant literature where these variables were also used.

Section 2.5: please rewrite the first sentence: “The sustainable advantage is a sustainable advantage…”. A good reference to Porter is missing and also a more detailed discussion on this concept is needed.

Section 2.6 contextualizes the relationships between the variables and the hypotheses to be studied.

Line 310: “a research hypothesis can be established” should be “three research hypotheses” – the same happens in the other sections, correct it please.

This section is the core of the LR and gives definitions and examples. That is ok but the information is given in a telegraphic manner through direct sentences, one example after the other, etc. Thus, the text of the different subsections of section 2.6 should be rewritten in order to be more interrelated and connect following a good narrative.

Section 3

3.2. Validity and reliability

First sentence must be improved.

An appendix should be provided with the statements used. Are they based on previous literature or similar studies?

The underlying factors were validated (Tables 1 to 3)

Section 4

4.1. Results

Please, improve the text after Table 4.

“production (33%) and marketing (30%) section”, “middle management (42%), and top management level (25%)”: did the authors analysed the existence of differences between the answers of production vs marketing managers? Between middle and top managers? Maybe an ANOVA test could confirm differences or the inexistence of such differences. And about the different industries? Production versus services, for example?

Large size (> 100 employeesg) correct it.

Large size >100? Till 250 is often considered medium-sized and in some labor-intensive economies which can be the case only > 500 are considered large. And the turnover? Thus, I suppose that being more restrict in the classification of large firms, this study is more on SME companies and particularly SUPPLIERS in the SC what is not a problem but that is not clearly presented in the beginning and is very important to frame the analysis of the results! If the data is from SME, mainly, it should be clearly stated.

Table 5 maybe could come before Fig 2 and in this figure loading factors are not necessary because they are explained in Table 1. Table 5 must be better explained and the explanation given after Table 5 is very repetitive and mainly says what is in the table thus, must be simplified and focused on relevant information and explanations.

Section 4.2 discussion

The authors give and interpretation of the results and connect them with the literature what is ok. But the results were expected, so, just corroborated by the study. There are mediating factors that can catalyze the expected positive relationships between the variables? In a first moment I see the results presented in Fig 2 just as a validation of the data… because all is expected and more or less obvious thus not representing a true evidence.

So, it will be important to 1) analyze more sophisticated relationships and/or 2) see the role of mediating factors in these relationships. For example, can we see how the pandemic affect these relationships? This will turn the paper really a contribution and relevant.

Thus, actual discussion is essentially a direct read of the results and additional work and analysis should be done to give to the paper a relevant and novel discussion section supporting the contribution of the paper.

section 5 conclusions

This section is not a true conclusion section but just a very simple summary of the direct results of the study. It should be focused on the contributions as well as highlighting limitations and opportunities for further research.

Final remarks.

In my opinion, initial sections (abstract, introd, LR and methodology) need to be clarified, better organized and improved as explained in previous comments. Section 4 needs some improvements as explained and a new discussion section based on additional work using the data should be provided. Conclusions needs a new section also.

The references are very recent, adequate and from top journals. Thus, returning to those papers it will be possible to improve a lot the paper.

I hope the authors find these comments useful, they ask for a considerable additional work but the authors showed to have good research skills, research focus and are diligent to do it improving considerable the paper and investing in their capabilities in researching in such relevant and interesting topic. Good work.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please be advised of our response to your comments on our paper as below. Please also find attached the revised paper for your consideration

Thank you much

Best regards

Hotlan S

REVIEWER 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments

Response :

In the Introduction section, the research focus has been explored. The focus is concerned with the current covid-19 pandemic, which has disrupted the global supply chain network including the supply of raw material and finished good to the customer. The disruption also take place on the customer demand side. The people are spending most of their time staying at home and consequently many business sector experienced collapse and bankruptcy. This section explore how the manufacturing company should response to the situation. The authors have considered several concepts that highly related to the current disruption. We consider five constructs that relevant to resolve the current situation which are: internal integration, supply chain partnership, supply chain resilience, supply chain agility, and sustainable advantage. In the end paragraph, it is highlighted the discussion in the introduction in Line 159-176 as follows:

As has been discussed above, this study has selected five constructs, namely, internal integration, supply chain partnership, supply chain agility, supply chain resilience, and Sustainable advantage. The reason for selecting those constructs is their relevancy with the current pandemic situation, disrupting supply and demand, and higher risk due to increasing uncertainty. Then, supported by previous studies, this research builds a model relating those constructs with the title: impact of internal integration, supply chain partnership, supply chain agility, and supply chain resilience on sustainable advantage. Many studies have discussed the conceptual relationship between two or three conceptual relationships based on previous research results. However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no study dealing with these five constructs in one single model involving all constructs to examine whether internal integration, supply chain partnership, supply chain agility, and supply chain resilience improve the sustainable advantage of manufacturing company. Therefore, this research model raised three mainstream research questions. Firstly, does internal integration affects SC partnership, SC agility, and SC resilience. Secondly, does SC partnership, SC agility, and SC resilience improve sustainable advantage. Thirdly, does SC partnership, SC agility, and SC resilience mediate the influence of internal integration on sustainable advantage.

2) clarify sustainable advantage and the other variables, particularly, SC agility and resilience in this context,

Response:

All five constructs adopted in this study are defined and adopted based on previous study and is discussed in the literature review section

Internal integration: Line 180-196

Supply chain partnership: Line 198-217

Supply chain agility: Line 219-238

Supply chain resilience: Line 140-264

Sustainable advantage: Line 265-279

The difference between supply chain agility and resilience lies on the indicators of each variable. The looks resemble but they have different indicators.

Supply chain agility is defined as the extent to which the supply chain could response to any change in supply or demand and measured by five indicators :

The production process runs normally during a pandemic to fulfill orders (SCA.1), production capacity is adjusted to pandemic conditions (SCA.2), production planning changes quickly to adjust to conditions during a pandemic (SCA.3), production processes change rapidly according to needs during a pandemic (SCA.4), and the work system is adjusted rapidly according to government regulations (SCA.5).

Meanwhile supply chain resilience is the extent to which the supply chain could response to the disruption of the supply chain network such as supply disruption or distribution disruption and measured by four indicators

The research indicator used to measure SC resilience is that the company maintains a buffer stock during a pandemic (SCR.1), production capacity remains a priority during a pandemic (SCR.2), the company can still serve customer demands during a pandemic (SCR.3), and the company continues to adapt quickly during a pandemic (SCR.4)

3) which are the relationships to be explored and why that is important and can result in a contribution (the authors suggest that this study offers a novel approach because includes 4 variables which can be related to SC competitive advantage when previous studies mainly studied the relationship of just two of these factors and the dependent variable which is sustainable advantage but the use of too much explanative variables can be more a weakness than a strength of this work),

Response :

In the introduction section, it is clearly stated what relationship to be examined. This study build a model involving five variables? The impact of internal integration, supply chain partnership, supply chain agility, and supply chain resilience on sustainable advantage. This model is built based on the previous studies and the relationship of those constructs are also based on the previous study. The novelty of the study is the model which is not existed before. However, the model is built of previous research. The model and the relationship between constructs is also indicated in Figure 1 of the text.

4) a good and focused explanation of the concepts used and of the previous literature on these relationships (it is made in the article but in my opinion with too much description in the introduction being repetitive with the text in section 2; and in a confuse manner, not always clear and with forwards and backwards – the INTRODUCTION must be focused on the context, motivation, explaining the RQ, the novelty and relevance of this study, comparing and contextualizing it with the extant literature, explaining briefly the methodology followed to collect and analyze the data… and the text must follow this order, more or less,

Response:

The background used in developing the introduction section consists of two reasons namely the Industrial or practical phenomenon and theoretical or previous research finding. In introduction section we observed an industrial phenomenon due to the Covid-19 pandemic causing an extreme disruption and uncertainty. Then the authors tried to seek what the industry should do to recover from suffering due to the disruption. Many previous studies show that supply chain disruption can be resolved by adopting several approaches such as supply chain agility, partnership, supply chain resilience, and internal integration. To argue that those constructs are relevance with the current pandemic, the authors need to introduce the theoretical background to make sure that the then model built is supported by scientific background.

As you suggested, we have added an explanation on the methodology in collecting and analyze data Line:171-180

Therefore, this research model raised three mainstream research questions. Firstly, does internal integration affects SC partnership, SC agility, and SC resilience. Secondly, does SC partnership, SC agility, and SC resilience improve sustainable advantage? Thirdly, does SC partnership, SC agility, and SC resilience mediate the influence of internal integration on sustainable advantage? This study uses a quantitative research approach to examine and answer the research questions developed. Data collection uses questionnaires, and data analysis uses the partial least square (PLS) technique. The study is expected to provide a managerial implication to recover from the disruption era caused by the covid-19 pandemic. This study is also expected to contribute on the current study in the supply chain management theories.

5) section 3 on the methodology must explain better how the data was collected, how the questionnaire was designed which should be presented in appendix, …,

Response:

We agree that section 3 need much improvement and we have edited thoroughly to make sure the explanation is in better order.

6) the analysis follows the protocol and the results of using the PLS regression are shown,

Response :

The analysis have been improved particularly on what the findings and hoe is it related to the current research either support or not support the previous study.

7) the connection between the results, the contributions of this study and the literature must be improved in the discussion – which deserves its own section, I think the results showed are just a confirmation of the validity of the data because they do not offer any particular new or unexpected relationship, thus, a complementarily more sophisticated analysis should be made to give a real contribution (see comments at the end of this text),

Response :

We agree on your opinion and we have refined the discussion section by elaborating the findings and trying to relate it with the previous study and from the practical point of view.

8) the conclusions section must be rewritten and improved (see comments at the end of this text).

Response:

The conclusion have been rewritten and improved.

Conclusions

The initial purpose of this study is to examine the impact of internal integration, supply chain partnership, supply chain agility, and supply chain resilience on sustainable advantage. The results indicated that data support all nine hypotheses developed. Internal integration influences SC partnerships (H1), internal integration affects SC agility (H2), internal integration affects SC resilience (H3), SC partnership influence SC agility (H4), SC partnership improves SC resilience (H5). Furthermore, SC agility improves SC resilience (H6), SC partnerships affect sustainable advantage (H7), SC agility influences sustainable advantage (H8), and SC resilience affects sustainable advantage (H9). The interesting findings of this study is the existence of the mediating role of the three intervening variables, supply chain partnership, supply chain resilience, and supply chain agility. This result implies that internal integration provides multiple effect in improving the sustainable advantage. This findings has highlighted the importance of internal integration to improve the sustainable advantage of a company. Information technology enables internal and external integration to quickly coordinate between functions to respond to any customer demands changes. SC partnerships allow suppliers to understand changes in orders during a pandemic, adjust the production process to change quickly, and increase their buffer stock and adjust to customer needs as a form of company resilience. The company maintains the production process by maintaining production capacity during a pandemic. SC partnership, SC agility, and SC resilience have an impact on sustainable advantage. Suppliers’ ability to deliver material on time so that companies can adjust the resulting production capacity accordingly and maintain buffer stock during a pandemic period related to timely product delivery and maintaining reliable sales volume in pandemic conditions as a form of the company’s sustainable advantage.

This research gives companies practical contributions to establish an excellent internal integration, enhance supply chain partnerships, supply chain resilience, and supply chain agility to pursue the improved sustainable advantage. This study could also contribute to enriching the current research in the supply chain management theory. This work has some limitations, particularly in respect of the population and the variable involved. Further studies on the current topic are suggested to involve the variable such as supply chain risk management and customer relationship management to cover broader parties and functions involved in the supply chain network

Response:

Thank you very much for your suggestion, however, we have to do a major change to this paper if we use the contingency Theory. Anyway, We might consider this suggestion for our future work.

Internal integration is essentially information sharing and the use of information technology…; could it be renamed to “information technologies” or similar?.

Response :

Internal integration and information technology, in our opinion, are not identic. They look resemble but not definitely similar. Information technology is talking about the tool or system, while internal integration also includes the people behavior involved in the system.

The text needs also to be better organized following a better logic for the ideas presented.

Finally, it is necessary a good proofreading to correct small errors and also to rewrite several paragraphs.

Please, see more detailed comments below.

Abstract

Response : we have improved the abstract as follows:

Abstract: The global order has suddenly changed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Many countries, including Indonesia, have applied lockdown policies to stop the spread of Covid-19 infection. Lockdown policies have disrupted the supply of raw material and demand for the finished good. The manufacturing industry is one of the most suffering sectors in this situation, and they have to struggle to reconfigure their internal and external supply chain network and partnership. This study examined the impact of internal integration, supply chain partnership, supply chain agility, and supply chain resilience on sustainable advantage. The population of this study is composed of manufacturing companies in Indonesia. For data collection, a questionnaire was used with a five-point Likert scale to get the respondents’ opinions. The questionnaire using google form link was distributed via email and WhatsApp social media to the predetermined set of manufacturing companies. Respondents have filled out 672 questionnaires, and 456 respondents (corresponding to 67.86%) have filled out correctly and were considered valid for further analysis. Partial least squares (PLS) regression was used to analyze the data using the smartPLS software version 3.3. The results supported all nine hypotheses proposed. Internal integration through interdepartmental data sharing affects supply chain (SC) partnerships, SC agility, and SC resilience. Moreover, SC partnerships through on-time delivery of materials and copying with changing demand improve SC agility, SC resilience, and sustainable advantages. The SC agility in keeping the production process running normally and regulating the production capacity affects SC resilience and sustainable advantage. SC resilience improves sustainable advantage by providing timely product delivery and reliable sales volume in a pandemic condition. This result provides insight for the manager on enhancing the sustainable advantage by implementing the supply chain agility, supply chain resilience, and supply chain partnership. This study could enrich and extend the acceptance of previous studies in Indonesia’s context of the manufacturing industry.

Also, some sentences should be improved. All text needs additional proofreading, indeed small errors ask for some corrections and rephrasing. For example:

- “The research population is (COMPOSED BY) manufacturing company (COMPANIES) in Indonesia.”

Edited

- “FOR Data collection IT WAS used a questionnaire AND a five-point Likert scale TO GET THE OPINION OF THE RESPONDENTS.”

Edited

Included: During March 2020 and November 2020. Line 440-442.

The revised questionnaire was created using Google form, and the link was distributed to Indonesia's industry practitioners during March 2020 and November 2020.

- “to A predetermined SET OF manufacturing COMPANIES”

Edited

- “PARTIAL LEAST SQUARE (PLS) WAS used using smartPLS software version 3.3.

Edited

- “The result indicated that eight of nine hypotheses are supported by data.” Should be “The results supported eight of the proposed nine hypotheses.”

Edited

- “sustainable advantages” should be “sustainable advantage”

Edited

This result also could contribute to the current research in the context of supply chain management.” Why you say this, as it is written doesn’t say anything truly… be more concrete in the results and contributions: why and how… and these results corroborate the literature, extend it, offer a different perspective? These aspects are what really will be important to highlight at the end of the abstract.

Response :

We said that this result could contribute to the current research in supply chain management theory. As the result of this study indicated that the model created is working well with the expectation. All variables’ relationships fit with the population on the survey. The study could enrich and extend the acceptance of the previous research in the new population, the manufacturing companies in Indonesia.

As you suggested and if you agree, we modified the statement as follows:

This study could enrich and extend the acceptance of previous studies in Indonesia’s context of the manufacturing industry.

Introduction

The contextualization about the COVID-19 made in lines 37-49 and on macroeconomic impacts in lines 50-55 could be reduced to two or three sentences.

The covid-19 pandemic has caused sudden disruption and affects all areas of life, including health services, economic, agriculture, education, sport, and manufacturing industry. On March 15, 2021, the covid-19 has infected 119,603,761 people and total death of 2,649,722 people, as stated by the World Health Organization [1]. In 2021, there was a significant increase compared to the previous year in 2020. On March 11, 2020, the world community had confirmed 118,000 people were infected and 4,291 deaths in 114 countries as declared by the World Health Organization [2]. There is a significant increase of up to more than 1000% within one year.

The governments of each country are trying to maintain public health from the Covid-19 pandemic by implementing lockdowns [3]. The Philippine government implemented a lockdown, resulting in a decline of 16.5% of GDP in the second quarter of 2020. An estimated economic loss of USD 42 billion is contributed from the trade sector at 29.19%, the manufacturing sector at 13.11%, and the private service 13.11% [4].

- LINE 56 “…supply chain (SC) order, including the globalization…” should be “…supply chain (SC) order, BECAUSE the globalization…”

- LINES 57-93: these sentences ask for proofreading.

LINES 157-170 the authors discuss a bit the problem, the research problem(s) but not in a clear way.

Response:

We have gone thoroughly all the text in the introduction and we have made major improvement following your suggestion.

The introduction must be rewritten following a much organize set of ideas. Commonly, it is expected:

1) a general contextualization,

Response : The general contextualization is described in the first paragraph, which is the pandemic situation resulting in the disruption in supply and demand and also the emergence of high uncertainty

2) de motivation, research problem, research questions,

Then, the next paragraph is discussing on how the manufacturing company recovers from this difficult situation.

3) connect it to the extant literature

To answer the above questions on how to recover, the authors tried to research previous studies which could provide references. The references researched are related to the context of supply chain management theory

(3 can came before 2 if works better),

4) the research methodology and methodological aspects, eventually,

Response:

The research methodology is not initially discussed in the introduction section since the section 3 will discuss the methodology. However, as the reviewer suggested, we provide a brief statement of what methodology was used for the study.

5) the expected relevance and contributions (in a general way) or why that will be important to both the literature and the industry, and also, eventually,

Response:

The contribution of this study to both literature and industry is dscribed in discussion section Line 172-174

The study is expected to provide a managerial implication to recover from the disruption era caused by the covid-19 pandemic. This study is also expected to contribute to the current study in the supply chain management theories.

6) how it is presented in the paper and/or the structure of the paper.

Response:

It has been added a paragraph in Line 175-180, regarding the structure of the paper.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 deals with the literature review, which explores previous studies to support and develop the research hypothesis. Section 3, research methodology, describes the methodology used to collect and analyze data obtained from respondents. Furthermore, section 4 deals with data analysis and discussion to examine the hypothesis and discuss the analysis result. Finally, section 5, Conclusion, summarizes the result and its relevance with the research question.

Particularly, in the introduction, the choice for the CONSTRUCTS must be justified.

Response :

The choice of the construct is based on the current disruption era and it has been described in Line 153-169.

As has been discussed above, this study has selected five constructs, namely, internal integration, supply chain partnership, supply chain agility, supply chain resilience, and Sustainable advantage. The reason for selecting those constructs is their relevancy with the current pandemic situation, disrupting supply and demand, and higher risk due to increasing uncertainty. Then, supported by previous studies, this research builds a model relating those constructs with the title: impact of internal integration, supply chain partnership, supply chain agility, and supply chain resilience on sustainable advantage. Many studies have discussed the conceptual relationship between two or three conceptual relationships based on previous research results. However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no study dealing with these five constructs in one single model involving all constructs to examine whether internal integration, supply chain partnership, supply chain agility, and supply chain resilience improve the sustainable advantage of manufacturing company. Therefore, this research model raised three mainstream research questions. Firstly, does internal integration affects SC partnership, SC agility, and SC resilience. Secondly, does SC partnership, SC agility, and SC resilience improve sustainable advantage? Thirdly, does SC partnership, SC agility, and SC resilience mediate the influence of internal integration on sustainable advantage

Maybe a theoretical framework is missing: Contingency theory? But, ok, that will ask for a too big change in this article maybe can be an idea for a another paper/research...

Response :

It requires a major change to refer the Contingency theory, and we decide not to do it for this paper. We might consider for our future work.

Literature review section 2

Section 2.5: please rewrite the first sentence: “The sustainable advantage is a sustainable advantage…”. A good reference to Porter is missing, and also a more detailed discussion on this concept is needed.

Edited

We are not referencing to Porter but [44] Gualandris, J.; Kalchschmidt, M.

Section 2.6 contextualizes the relationships between the variables and the hypotheses to be studied.

Line 310: “a research hypothesis can be established” should be “three research hypotheses” – the same happens in the other sections, correct it please.

Response :

It has been corrected as follows:

Based on the relationship between concepts, three research hypothesis can be established:

H1: Internal integration has an impact on SC partnerships in manufacturing companies.

H2: Internal integration impact on SC agility in manufacturing companies.

H3: Internal integration impact on SC resilience in manufacturing companies

Based on the explanation of the relationship between the concepts above, two research hypothesis can be formulated as follows:

H4: SC partnership affects SC agility in manufacturing companies.

H5: SC partnership influences SC resilience in manufacturing companies.

Based on the results of the explanation on the relationship between concepts, three research hypothesis can be determined as follows:

H7: SC partnerships influence sustainable advantage in manufacturing companies.

H8: SC agility has an impact on sustainable advantage in manufacturing companies.

H9: SC resilience affects sustainable advantage in manufacturing companies.

Section 3

3.2. Validity and reliability

First sentence must be improved.

An appendix should be provided with the statements used. Are they based on previous literature or similar studies?

Response :

It has been improved as follows:

Data analysis in this study uses the partial least square (PLS) technique. PLS is broadly used in the quantitative research approach. This technique is a variance-based approach instead of covariance-based used in the SPSS technique. PLS performs the analysis in two steps, firstly assessing the measurement model and examining the inner model.

The underlying factors were validated (Tables 1 to 3)

Section 4

4.1. Results

Please, improve the text after Table 4.

Response: it has been improved as follows:

Based on the gender, it was found that the respondent consists of 66% male and 34% female, which means that men instead of women dominate the employee working in the manufacturing companies. The respondents are in charge of various departments, including production (33%), marketing (30%), finance/accounting (19%), purchasing (6%), warehousing, PPC, supply chain management, and IT (12%). This department’s composition indicated that the respondents had represented all the internal functions of an organization. The position of the respondents shows a balance between the lower level (32%), middle management (42%), and top management level (25%), thus indicating their respective roles in the supply chain based on individual roles and functions. Based on the length of work, most of the respondents have working experience of more than two years (85%), which shows that employees have understood the company’s working system well and are eligible to answer questionnaires following the company’s condition. The companies are composed of medium and large companies, namely having more than 20 people (77%).

Large size (> 100 employees) correct it.

Response :

The classification of the company against the size is based on the Indonesia Industrial Department Ministry classification. This study used this classification.

Response :

It has been edited, and the explanation has also been improved Line 517-529

Table 5 and Figure 2 demonstrated the analysis result in examining the hypothesis developed. A hypothesis is accepted when the t-statistic value of the path coefficient exceeds 2.36 for a significant level of 1%. Or 1.96 for the significant level of 5%, and 1.65 for the significance level at 10%. This study considers that the path coefficient with a significant 10% or t value level greater than 1.64 is acceptable. Table 5 shows that the minimum value of the t-statistic is 1.919, which means that this study supports all nine hypotheses proposed. The result supported eight hypotheses with a significant level of 1%, while one hypothesis (H8) with a significant level of 10%. However, Table 5 and Figure 2 demonstrated the only direct relationship of each two consecutive constructs. Simultaneously, the research model presents three intervening variables that mediate internal integration influence on sustainable advantage. Based on these findings, this result reveals that internal integration only affects the sustainable advantage through the mediating role of the three intervening variables, namely SC agility, SC partnership, and SC resilience.

Section 4.2 discussion

Response :

We have added the presence of mediating role of the variable in Line: 653-660

Other essential findings of this study are the revelation of the mediating role of the intervening variables, namely supply chain partnership, supply chain resilience, and supply chain agility. As shown in the research model, the second research question examines whether the SC partnership, SC resilience, and SC agility mediate the relationship of internal integration on the sustainable advantage. As expected, the result indicated that those three intervening variables do mediate the relationship. This finding implies that internal integration has multiple effect on sustainable advantage when a company implement supply chain partnership, supply chain resilience, and supply chain agility.

section 5 conclusions

Response :

The conclusion has been improved Line:670 -701

Conclusion

This research gives companies practical contributions to establish an excellent internal integration, enhance supply chain partnership, supply chain resilience, and supply chain agility to pursuit the improved sustainable advantage. This study could also contribute to enrich the current research in the supply chain management theory. This work has some limitations, particularly in respect of the population and the variable involved. Further studies on the current topic are suggested to involve the variable such as supply chain risk management and customer relationship management to cover broader parties and functions involved in the supply chain network

Final remarks.

The references are very recent, adequate and from top journals. Thus, returning to those papers it will be possible to improve a lot the paper.

Submission Date

March 30 2021

Date of this review

11 Apr 2021 12:32:00

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Report

Title: Impact of Internal Integration, Supply Chain Partnership, Supply Chain Agility and Supply Chain Resilience on Sustainable Advantage

Manuscript No. 1183225

The paper investigates the impact of internal integration, supply chain partnership, supply chain agility and supply chain resilience on sustainable advantage. The research targets are manufacturing companies in Indonesia and the authors adopt a questionnaire method collecting data via email and social media. They find most of their hypotheses are supported from the answers of respondents during the COVID-19 pandemic.

My general and specific comments are as follows:

General comments: I think the research issue is critical in the field of supply chain management during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the questionnaire contents are not clear in the study and how to measure the supply chain characteristics such as agility, resilience, and partnership (e.g., years of relationship) is not explicit. In addition, it is unclear what kind of companies the respondents are from, for example, international or local companies, suppliers or customers, and etc. Do these companies have customers or suppliers from other countries and what are the pandemic conditions in the countries? Because the event is a global crisis, it is important to have more information about the companies not just the size. Without the information, the event is indifferent from other local events.

Specifically:

This paper adopts a questionnaire approach to study the effect of the supply chain characteristics on sustainable advantage. However, the authors do not provide how questions in the questionnaire are designed and even there is no table to list the items of these questions. There is no illustration of the indicators such as In. In1-5, SCP.1-5, and SCA.1-5. Without the content of the questions in the questionnaire, we have no idea whether the questions lead respondents to give the answers the research proposes. Generally, the questions must mix positive and negative questions so that the result may be more valid.
Since the COVID-19 pandemic affects distinctly in different areas or regions, the locations of the supply chain companies can be an important factor to their sustainable advantage. Therefore, I suggest the authors provide more information about the companies in Table 4 for justification.
The data is collected via two different sources: email versus social media. What are the percentage of these two sources? What are the response rates in these two sources?

Minor comments:

The information in the table is not clear. For example, what is the meaning of bold text in Table 1?
There is an empty space in line 520.
Table 4 has an unexplained “g” (company size -> large size (>100 employees^g)). In addition, the percent of company size is not aligned.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please be advised of our response to your review comments. Please also find attached the revised paper for your consideration.

Best regards

hotlan s

REVIWER 2

Report

Title: Impact of Internal Integration, Supply Chain Partnership, Supply Chain Agility and Supply Chain Resilience on Sustainable Advantage

Manuscript No. 1183225

My general and specific comments are as follows:

Response :

Thank you for the question.

The questionnaire contents are based on the indicators developed in the literature review section. We have modified the literature review by assigning each indicators a symbol in order it is connected with the related Table.

Internal Integration Line : 197-202

The measurement items used to measure internal integration are data integration between departments running well (In.In1), between departments coordinating quickly in changes (In.In2), changes in data are confirmed quickly to other functions (In.In3), integration of data on time during a pandemic (In.In4), and all departments can access company data on time (In.In5).

Supply Chain partnership Line : 219-224

The measures used for SC partnerships in the pandemic era are extra coordination with partners during a pandemic (SCP.1), delivery of materials from suppliers on time (SCP.2), Suppliers understand order changes during a pandemic (SCP.3), Suppliers collaborate to help companies during a pandemic (SCP.4), and coordinate activities with suppliers during the pandemic (SCP.5).

Supply Chain Agility Line : 240-246

The SC agility is assessed using five indicators. Namely, the production process runs normally during a pandemic to fulfill orders (SCA.1), production capacity is adjusted to pandemic conditions (SCA.2), production planning changes quickly to adjust to conditions during a pandemic (SCA.3), production processes change rapidly according to needs during a pandemic (SCA.4), and the work system is adjusted rapidly according to government regulations (SCA.5).

Supply Chain Resilience Line 268-272

Sustainable advantage Line : 283-287

The indicators set for sustainable advantage in the covid era are sales volume reliable compared to competitors in pandemic conditions (SA.1), product quality can be maintained during a pandemic (SA.2), timely product delivery during a pandemic (SA.3), production costs are affordable compared to competitor products during a pandemic period (SA.4), and company profits can be relied on during the pandemic (SA.5).

In addition, it is unclear what kind of companies the respondents are from, for example, international or local companies, suppliers or customers, and etc.

Response :

The population of this study is manufacturing companies domiciled in Indonesia. The survey was conducted in March 2020 and November 2020. The respondents are the people working in the department of manufacturing companies (neither supplier nor customer).

Do these companies have customers or suppliers from other countries and what are the pandemic conditions in the countries? Because the event is a global crisis, it is important to have more information about the companies not just the size. Without the information, the event is indifferent from other local events.

Response:

We acknowledge that the survey did not ask specifically whether or not the customer or the supplier is from other countries. Nevertheless, since the questionnaires are distributed to 456 manufacturing companies/respondents in various sectors and sizes, there should be several companies with customers and suppliers from other countries. It means that companies/ respondents of this study experience the impact of this pandemic in their international and local supply chain disruption.

Specifically:

This paper adopts a questionnaire approach to study the effect of the supply chain characteristics on sustainable advantage. However, the authors do not provide how questions in the questionnaire are designed and even there is no table to list the items of these questions.

Response : Thank you very much

The questionnaire used in this study is designed using a five-point Liker scale with 1: strongly disagree up 5: strongly agree. We have improved the methodology section by describing how the questionnaire designed and what questions. The questions is defined in the Literature review section, which has also been copied above.

Line : 430 – 443

The population of this study is the manufacturing companies in Indonesia, and the respondents are the employees representing the companies. Data collection used a questionnaire designed with a five-point Likert scale with 1: strongly disagree, 2: disagree, 3: neutral, 4: agree, and 5: strongly agree [45]. As described in the literature review, measurement indicators were adopted from previous research and adapted to conditions during the Covid era. The internal integration consists of 5 indicators, SC partnership consists of five indicators, SC agility has five indicators, SC resilience consists of four indicators, and the sustainable advantage has five indicators. The measurement indicators are initially tested for validity and reliability before distributed to the respondents. This initial test is conducted by the production and operational management students who understood the manufacturing and industry practitioners. The initial test result indicated a requirement for improvements related to the wording difficult to understand. The revised questionnaire was created using Google form, and the link was distributed to Indonesia’s industry practitioners during March 2020 and November 2020.

There is no illustration of the indicators such as In. In1-5, SCP.1-5, and SCA.1-5. Without the content of the questions in the questionnaire, we have no idea whether the questions lead respondents to give the answers the research proposes.

Response:

As has been explained above, We have modified the literature review and defined each indicator with its symbol.

Generally, the questions must mix positive and negative questions so that the result may be more valid.

Response:

Thank you for your advice. However, in this study, we designed the questionnaire only using positive questions. It is interesting to consider your suggestion in our future work.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic affects distinctly in different areas or regions, the locations of the supply chain companies can be an important factor to their sustainable advantage. Therefore, I suggest the authors provide more information about the companies in Table 4 for justification.

Response:

Actually, the respondents were asked about their city of domicile, and the result indicated that most of the respondents ( 80%) are from manufacturing companies located in Java island. The rest are located in Sumatera, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Papua, and Nusa Tenggara Island.

We have provided this infoemation before Table 4 as follows. Line 498-500

Most of the respondents (80%) are located in Java island, while the rest are located in Sumatera, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Nusa Tenggara, and Papua.

The data is collected via two different sources: email versus social media. What are the percentage of these two sources? What are the response rates in these two sources?

Response :

We have no data in respect of the percentage of the two sources. The questionnaire distribution is conducted using email and whatsapp platforms. Besides sending the link directly to the respondents, we also request their help to forward the link to their group. What we have is the percentage of valid questionnaires from the total questionnaire (672) received in the Google form account, which is 67.86%.

Minor comments:

The information in the table is not clear. For example, what is the meaning of bold text in Table 1?

Edited with no more bold text

There is an empty space in line 520.

Edited

Table 4 has an unexplained “g” (company size -> large size (>100 employees^g)). In addition, the percent of company size is not aligned.

Response: Thank you very much

It has been edited

Submission Date

March 30 2021

Date of this review

08 Apr 2021 05:02:12

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

Interesting, timely, and relevant theme, certainly a promising publication!

1) Intro is a bit 'choppy'. Can you transribe it into more succinct form and a bit more appropriate structure?

2) Literature review is sufficient and concise, relationships between the concepts are of great added value, to say.

3) Can you elaborate on why one hypothesis was validated on the basis of p=0,1? And, finally, discuss the future-research opportunity in relation to even more comprehensive model? Looking at it, there might be 'missing' connections or constructs in order to comprehensively analyze the matter.

Good luck with bringing this paper closer to the finish line,

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please be advised of our response to your review comments. Please also find attached the revised paper for your consideration.

Best regards

Hotlan S

o/b authors

REVIEWER 3

Interesting, timely, and relevant theme, certainly a promising publication!

1) Intro is a bit ‘choppy’. Can you transribe it into more succinct form and a bit more appropriate structure?

Response :

The introduction has been evaluated and restructured more appropriate as follows;

It is initiated with the phenomenon of the Covid -19 pandemic, which disrupted many sectors, including the manufacturing sector.
The manufacturing companies need to reconfigure their supply chain network capability in response to the disruption in supply and demand and high uncertainties.
The relevance concepts in response to the disruption and uncertainties in supply and demand have been selected: internal integration, supply chain partnership, supply chain resilience, and supply chain agility to improve sustainable advantage. The relationship of selected concepts is also discussed before designing the model.
Based on the selected concepts and their relationship, then the research questions are formulated.

2) Literature review is sufficient and concise; relationships between the concepts are of great added value, to say.

Response: Thank you very much

3) Can you elaborate on why one hypothesis was validated on the basis of p=0,1? And, finally, discuss the future-research opportunity in relation to even more comprehensive model? Looking at it, there might be ‘missing’ connections or constructs in order to comprehensively analyze the matter.

Response :

In best practices of scientific research, there are three recommended acceptable significant levels: a significant level of 10%, 5%, and 1%. It means that a significant level of 10% is still acceptable in scientific research. In this study, we considered that a significant level of 10% is acceptable, which means that the t-statistic value of 1.65 or greater is acceptable, and the hypothesis is accepted.
This study has a limitation which is described in section 5 Conclusion. Also, there is a discussion for future research as follows Line 698-702

This study could also contribute to enriching the current research in the supply chain management theory. This work has some limitations, particularly in respect of the population and the variable involved. Further studies on the current topic are suggested to involve the variable such as supply chain risk management and customer relationship management to cover broader parties and functions involved in the supply chain network

Good luck with bringing this paper closer to the finish line,

Submission Date

March 30 2021

Date of this review

06 Apr 2021 13:07:46

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors made some improvements and clarifications.

It is still necessary to do a true proofreading of the text before the final submission…

See below several proposed corrections:

The last two sentences in the abstract could be change to: “These results provide insights for managers on enhancing the sustainable advantage by improving the supply chain agility, supply chain resilience, and supply chain partnership. This study could contribute and extend the acceptance of previous studies in the context of the manufacturing industry.”

Line 154: change it to “As it was discussed above, in this study they were selected five constructs from the literature, namely…”

Line 155: “and sustainable advantage.”

Line 157: “…characterized by disrupting supply and demand, and higher risk due to increasing uncertainty.”

Line 159-160: eliminate this text: “with the title: impact of internal integration, supply chain partnership, supply chain agility, and supply chain resilience on sustainable advantage.”

Line 161-162 change it to “between two or three of these constructs.” And eliminate the remaining of the sentence

Line 163: simplify and improve this sentence. “However, to the best of the authors’ _162 knowledge, no study dealing with these five constructs in one single model involving all 163 constructs to examine whether internal integration, supply chain partnership, supply 164 chain agility, and supply chain resilience improve the sustainable advantage of manufacturing company.”

Lines 173-174: change the sentences to these ones: “The study is expected to provide managerial insights to help companies to recover from the disruption era caused by the covid-19 pandemic. This study is also expected to enrich the current research in supply chain management.”

Line 177: “the research hypotheses.”

Line 178: “analyze THE data obtained from respondents.”

Change the last two sentences in the introduction. “Furthermore, section 4 deals with data analysis and discussion to examine the hypotheses. Finally, section 5, Conclusion, summarizes the main results and their relevance for the research questions.”

Section 3.1: CORRECT the text as presented below:

The population of this study is the COMPOSED BY manufacturing companies in Indonesia, and the respondents are the MANAGERS (?) OF the companies. Data collection used a questionnaire BASED ON a five-point Likert scale with 1: strongly disagree, 2: disagree, 3: neutral, 4: agree, and 5: strongly agree [45]. As described in the literature review, measurement indicators were adopted from previous research and adapted to THE conditions OF the Covid era. Internal integration consists of 5 indicators, SC partnership consists of five indicators, SC agility has five indicators, SC resilience consists of four indicators, and the sustainable advantage has five indicators. The measurement indicators WERE initially tested for validity and reliability before distributed to the respondents. This initial test WAS conducted by production and operational management students who understood the manufacturing and industry practitioners. The initial VERSION OF test WAS IMPROVED CONSIDERING THE FEEDBACK OF THE VALIDATION STAGE. The revised questionnaire was created using Google forms, and the link was distributed to Indonesia’s industry practitioners BETWEEN March 2020 and November 2020.

Section 3.2

Change the first sentence: “The data was analysed using the partial least square (PLS).”

Lines 501-502: change it to this: “This department’s composition indicates that respondents COVER all the internal functions of an organization.”

Line 508: “to answer THE questionnaire.” And eliminate the remaining of the sentence.

Line 508-5009, change the last sentence of the paragraph to this one: “The companies are of medium and large size, and 77% have more than 20 workers.”

Line 514: delete this sentence: “Table 5 and Figure 2 demonstrated the analysis result in examining the hypothesis 514 developed.”

Line 656: add a “s”: “has multiple effects”

Lines 658-665, correct the sentences:

This research gives practical contributions to UNDESTAND HOW COMPANIES CAN establish an internal integration, enhance supply chain partnership, supply chain resilience, and supply chain agility to pursuit the improved sustainable advantage. This study also CONTRIBUTES to enrich the current research in supply chain management.

This work has some limitations, particularly in respect of the population and the variableS involved. Further studies on the current topic are suggested to involve VARIABLES such as supply chain risk management and customer relationship management to cover MORE STAKEHOLDERS and functions involved in the supply chain network.

IMPORTANT!

Besides these small amendments, presented above, there is still work to do in the Discussion and Conclusions sections…

Discussion: the text added (Lines 650-665) is relevant but must be extended particularly linking it with the previous literature and findings – so, they are expected references and some discussion. The results presented before also should be related to the previous literature.

Conclusions: must be rewritten! A much better summary and clarification of the main results, conclusions, contributions, limitations and opportunities for further work must be presented… it is very repetitive and the last sentences (LINES 691-698) are equal to the last sentences of the previous section!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are very grateful for your contribution to improving our paper. You have given a detailed suggestion to our paper and we have learned a lot from you in writing an academic paper. We have tried our best to implement all your suggestion and hopefully, it has complied with your requirement. Please find attached our point-by-point response to your suggestion. The part of the paper improved following your comments is marked with green color.

Once again thank you very much.

Best regards

Hotlan Siagian

o/b the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

My major concerns remain on the questionnaire issue. The questions if as the authors’ reply to my comment are in the literature review, there are some concerns below. First, how do the respondents answer the questions saying quickly, well, on time and etc. if no measure or definition provided? Second, how the respondents can answer supply chain related questions if they belong to the departments such as IT, finance & accounting which are irrelevant to related business? Third, the questions are too short to provide sufficient information probably for some respondents. Lastly, if the questionnaire is distributed by email and social media, how to identify one respondent only do one questionnaire?

One minor suggestion is to swap column 3 and 4 to make the columns to be aligned with the descriptions in column 1.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your contribution to improve the quality of our paper. We highly appreciate your suggestion and we have learned a lot from you in writing a research paper.

We have tried our best to respond to your question and hopefully, it has complied with your comment. Please find attached point by point response to your suggestion.

Best regards

Hotlan S

o/b authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

My suggestion to swap the columns is in Table 1 instead of Table 4.

Author Response

Dear Sir,

We apologize that we misunderstood your suggestion.

We have swabbed the column 3 and 4 in Table 1 to align with column 1 as follows below. Line 467-468 (it is marked green)

Thank you very much, and We highly appreciate your patience in improving our paper. Please find the revised paper attached.

Best regards

Hotlan Siagian

o/b of authors

Table 1. Indicators factor loading and cross-loading assessment.

Indicator	Internal Integration	SC. Partnership	SC. Agility	SC. Resilience	Sustainable Advantage
In. In1	0.867	0.567	0.537	0.534	0.575
In. In2	0.834	0.644	0.486	0.520	0.556
In. In3	0.845	0.579	0.522	0.576	0.525
In. In4	0.795	0.551	0.503	0.538	0.483
In. In5	0.554	0.393	0.333	0.405	0.323
SCP.1	0.559	0.602	0.359	0.477	0.523
SCP.2	0.455	0.733	0.457	0.453	0.418
SCP.3	0.537	0.797	0.478	0.447	0.455
SCP.4	0.452	0.704	0.399	0.402	0.338
SCP.5	0.547	0.812	0.466	0.501	0.495
SCA.1	0.365	0.350	0.774	0.449	0.262
SCA.2	0.362	0.348	0.768	0.447	0.264
SCA.3	0.400	0.437	0.723	0.383	0.398
SCA.4	0.459	0.441	0.743	0.392	0.401
SCA.5	0.569	0.517	0.632	0.472	0.511
SCR.1	0.343	0.363	0.263	0.599	0.28
SCR.2	0.421	0.398	0.363	0.697	0.337
SCR.3	0.551	0.539	0.509	0.771	0.651
SCR.4	0.544	0.486	0.524	0.817	0.567
SA.1	0.309	0.247	0.257	0.267	0.585
SA.2	0.537	0.502	0.48	0.566	0.803
SA.3	0.536	0.498	0.489	0.567	0.689
SA.4	0.426	0.458	0.252	0.471	0.713
SA.5	0.304	0.345	0.258	0.353	0.663

Author Response File: Author Response.doc