Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

Your article is very interesting, and I am grateful for the opportunity to read it. I think that subject of the research is interesting, and the results of the research could give a lot of new information and possibilities of further analysis.

Reading the text, I found several elements that I think would improve your article.

The abstract contains background information that does not help the reader to know what is in the paper, what is the purpose of the paper, what methods were used, and what are the general conclusions. Because any abstract should clearly define the purpose of the research and further analysis, the research method, the subject of research, and the results.

A good abstract structure is needed by the reader, but it is also important for you as authors - readers often use the abstract review method to search for content that interests them. Your abstract is not well structured, and this may be a barrier to popularizing your article. I miss the research method and answer to the question about the context of the research.

Next elements of the structure of the article have to be adjusted to the standard design:

Introduction - The introduction should provide not only the international situation, philosophy and social context. The introduction is an analysis of the area that you present in your further research. Here, you try to introduce the reader to the issue you are researching as well as describe the background of your analysis. You should introduce the issue, describe why and how you conducted your research.

In addition, in this section you must present also an indication of a precise research/review objective, the research questions and methods used. Adding a brief indication of the logic of presenting the research material (i.e. the brief description of the content of each section of the paper) in the last paragraph of the introduction is highly recommended.

There is no literature review in your article. In this case the analysis of the issue and the literature review (even if we count this in methodology) are insufficient - a high level of generality does not allow for the presentation of the topic, the reference of the general issue to a specific analysis and presented example. Additionally, the formal part of the article is missing.

There is no description of the research scope, goal/goals, hypotheses and research questions. It is a necessary element of each article, thus creating a clear framework for the analysis.

In general, the introduction does not introduce. I have a problem with understanding both in terms of language and content. the construction of the introduction should guide the reader and explain who, how, where how and why the authors analyze this issue. You avoided it.

the part titled "Case Diagnostic Criteria and Background for Case Studies". "Case Diagnostic Criteria and Background for Case Studies" has no literature references. There is no information about what it is, whether it is research findings, available data, your opinions, or conjecture.

In general, 6 pages of data presentation without a single source is unacceptable - pages 8/47-14/47

 

In general you cannot give tables without description of sources.

Methodology and Literature review are combined into one chapter – Usually the literature review presents important highlights on the current state of the art. The content should be the starting point for further analysis. Your analysis is to develop what is at this point.

 

The methodology part is chaotic. You need to present a picture of your idea and try to explain it to your readers. As it stands, I don't know what you are doing, for what purpose you are doing it. When writing an article, you need to guide the reader through it. You have to set a goal, use the right structure, and fill in each of its elements. In this case, I get the impression that there are sections in the article that "maybe" relate to each other. There is a lack of logical sequence and purpose.

Discussion - To increase the significance of the results, the discussion part should embrace the differences and similarities among your findings and those of other scholars..

The analysis of other studies and analyzes is clearly missing. Just as there is no reference to others points of view, different situation and examples. There is no application of a scientific analysis to reality and no real discussion. All this consequently reduces the article to the research part and causes the reader to judge the quality of the research but not its purpose or conclusions.

Conclusion - The conclusion section should be a brief summary of article’s aim, methods and findings. But it's not here. This chapter should be extended. For me, the summary is too limited, there is no reference to your assumptions, your hypothesis or research questions. At this point, you should show references to your research and all formal aspects of your article. At the begging and at the end you should include a description of the research questions and research hypotheses. Develop and explain goals. It is necessary to change the convention from the presentation of research to the presentation of results and conclusions. In general, I believe that hypotheses and research questions should be presented. The goals should be presented and explained. At the end, the conclusions should refer to each of the goals.

Summarizing.

 

There are some problems.

1. Problem with understanding the reason of your analysis. I think this lack of main idea/ main goal made this article difficult to understand. So, my proposition is to show it explicite in Introduction. You should start from the explication of your idea / your vision. You know it, you understand it, but I don’t. So you should extend the introduction and literature review and complete this chapter with the formal aspects like hypothesis, research questions etc.
2. The question is why (for what) you are doing this research, or just to do it, or you are doing this research to show something more, to show readers what the results are and what they mean In current way you made research and you tried added some conclusion but in a modest way. For readers the research are important but not like the conclusion and wide open discussion. You should extend conclusion part and create a discussion chapter to show your point of view and confront it with another.
3. There is no well-prepared/built structure. It is mandatory to guide readers through the article. This article doesn’t offer the straight and clear narrative line which you can follow.

 

Despite my comments, I really like your article and appreciate your work. It is interesting topic and the conclusions open the way for further research.

Good luck!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We authors are sincerely thanking for your effort and time given in consideration to review our article. All the suggestions are valid and scholarly. Kindly find the Review incorporated file. 

Thank You and Kind Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you very much for giving me this review.

The article is suitable for the journal but needs to follow a clearer structure.

I advice authors to read this page and follow the instruction related to the article structure.

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions

Then:

You have to discuss the research gap in the introduction.

The figures are difficult to follow. Please revise them.

You have to add the methodology part that the article lacks. It is crucial in this paper.

You have to extend the theoretical background and link it in the discussion.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We authors are thanking you for your valid comments and suggestions in making this article much appreciable. We respect your effort in reviewing our article. kindly find the incorporated file.

Thank You

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

I find your work very well organized and of high quality. However, I can highlight some improvements before it is published.

Format the paper according to the journal guide https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions

At the end of the abstract, you can indicate the main results of this work.

You need to number the different sections. Sections 1 and 2 can be strengthened through the literature: the relationship between technology and sustainability (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119887), sustainability and methodologies (https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137104 and https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-12-2019-0284),  and the potential of a resilient organization (https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042052 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2021.102271)

The methodology based on the TISM approach is very valid; I suggest justifying it through literature.

Both the methodology and the results are well described; however, there is difficulty in not having the sections numbered.

The quality of figure 6.1 is not adequate, ditto 6.8. Figures should be numbered in ascending order such as 1, 2,3, and so on.

I find the work very good in content, but I assign a revision because the work needs to be formatted appropriately.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank You for you valid comments and suggestions.

kindly find the incorporated file.

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Editors,

Thanks for inviting me to review the article. The ideas of the article looks fine to me, and the article is well-suited to the main theme of the journals. Overall, I enjoyed reading the manuscript. That being said, I have some comments.

1. The article is not prepared as per the journal guidelines. I suggest to check the guidelines.
2. Please ensure the readability of the figures.
3. The first sentence of the abstract: It should be a region's economic growth or the economic growth of a region.
4. The last line of the abstract: Include managerial significance. For example, this study helps industrial managers overcome operational complexity towards sustainability journey.
5. How were the countries selected? Random sampling or purposive sampling? Mention in the article.
6. The literature seems weak. I suggest to include more recent articles in the domain of sustainability/circular economy. Also, some more articles can be cited from this journal.
7. Table 12: Check the organization/structure of the components.
8. Table 13, Check the components of the left column. For example,  Operations?
9. Line 447-449: Use Microsoft Equation editor to type the equation. The intended meaning clear?
10. Check the axes titles of all figures. For example, Figure 5. Figure 6 (X axis title?). Figure 9 (X and Y axis?)
11. Check the numbering of tables in Appendix as per journal guidelines.
12. We can remove "asking questions" to readers in the conclusion section.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Your comments and suggestions with respect to submitted manuscript are incorporated. Thank you for your time and sharp observations.

Thank You

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear Authors

I find your work very well organized and of high quality. However, I can highlight some improvements before publishing.

Format the paper according to the journal guide https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions

At the end of the abstract, you can indicate the main results of this work.

You need to number the different sections. Section 1 on introduction can be strengthened through the literature: the relationship between technology and sustainability (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119887) and the potential of a resilient organization (https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042052)

The methodology based on the TISM approach is very valid; I suggest justifying it through literature.

Both the methodology and the results are really well described; however, there is difficulty in not having the sections numbered.

The quality of figure 6.1 is not adequate, also figure 6.8. Figures should be numbered in ascending order, 1, 2 ,3

I find the work very good in content, but I assign revision because the work needs to be formatted appropriately.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Kindly find the suggestions and comments Incorporated file.

We authors are sincerely thanking you for your valid inputs.

Thank You

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors
Thank you very much for your corrections. I hope that now your article is easier to understand and read. In my opinion, the reader is looking for clear information about what he finds in the article and only then he starts to read, so in order to promote the results of your research it is worth to make sure that each article starts with information about what you do, how you do it and what are the effects. This way you will be able to popularize your research and analysis.
I would like to emphasize that your commitment to writing and improving your article is impressive. 
I wish you much success!

Good luck!

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank You for your appreciation, we expect your co-operation and support in future too. 

Take care 

Kind Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors improved article readability and structure.

I recommend to:

• Reduce the number of references and reinforce the reference exploring the relationship between manufacturing technologies and sustainability:
• Margherita, E.G. and Braccini, A.M. (2020), “Industry 4.0 technologies in flexible manufacturing for sustainable organizational value: reflections from a multiple case study of italian manufacturers”, Information Systems Frontiers, Information Systems Frontiers.
• Choose one of the two labels for Section 2: Literature review or theoretical framework. And delete in 2.4 theoretical framework
• Try to reduce article pages (if it is possible) and improve the narrative flow.
• Proofreading is needed

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank You for your comments, we incorporated the cited journal article in our work. Since all the other four reviewers suggested to strengthen the article with literature review and references, we included. reviewer one strongly insisted on theoretical background we added. therefore, we sincerely followed the reviewers comments and suggestions in changing the structure of the article. For proof reading we used grammarly premium package through institute access and improved narrative flow. 

We believe that you will appreciate our research work. we thank you for your co-operation and output to increase the structure of our article.

Thank You

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Thanks for the revised article. I am happy to go.

Author Response

Thank You Reviewer 

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for valuable comments and appreciation.

Kind regards 
Author