Economic Business Sustainability and Strengthening Human Resource Capacity Based on Increasing the Productivity of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in Makassar City, Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title, Abstract, and References

The abstract appears to be well presented, and the title informative and relevant. The references presented to make the paper fit within the discussion in the Journal, thank you.

Introduction

The introduction seems engaging. However, I would suggest the authors stress more regarding the literature gap and emphasize the contribution made by the study. Indeed, a greater articulation of the contribution might complete this section more thoroughly. Additionally, I suggest the authors include a short paragraph explaining how the paper is organized.

Literature Review

The literature review appears thorough and helpful in understanding the context; thank you.

In particular, Figure 1 accurately lays out the conceptual framework you identified.

Materials and Method

The method is sufficiently explained, and the tables are effective in reporting what the authors propose.

Results

The results are clearly and effectively exposed, as well as the tables and figures. The comments do not appear redundant, and they add content to the paragraph.

Discussion and Conclusions

Although the discussion appears satisfactory, the conclusion seems to be that the theoretical and practical implications are not sufficiently emphasized; furthermore, I would invite the authors to point out some limitations for the present study and to indicate future development scenarios.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

First of all we thank you for the suggestions and criticism given. According to the suggestions and input we received, we have revised several things related to the substance of our article, with the following explanation:

1. Revisions and additions to the substance in the introduction according to the suggestions and input from reviewers that we do (pages 2-3).
2. The limitations of this study are that we have followed up on the conclusions, including the recommendations for further studies that we recommend (page 31). 

Thank you again for the suggestions and input given to us.

Regards,

Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I appreciate the work done, you have written a vast work but there would be some aspects that need to be mentioned and corrected in order to improve the paper.

The Abstract begins with a great conceptual confusion between development and growth. The two concepts do not refer to the same thing and there is a primary causal relationship between them.

The conceptual framework is too long and unbalanced between the components.

The framing in the specialized literature is completely missing.

The research hypotheses are not clearly formulated.

The reason for choosing the methodology must be clearly highlighted. In the paragraph where you mention that you use primary and secondary data, you must explain each of them. It is also vague the period of time to which your research relates.

Please argue, more deeply, the relevance of the methodology. The methodology is long, with many detailed explanations where it would be less necessary and the complete lack of information of the utmost importance. For example, neither the questionnaire nor the interview are detailed. We should know the share of respondents by gender, professional status, age, categories of questions and their types, etc. Basically we ask ourselves is there a questionnaire or not? Is it a balanced questionnaire? Is it relevant? You used observation as a method. Did you summarize the results somewhere? The methodology, even if it is long, is not relevant due to the lack of essential information.

The results should be based exclusively on the results of your research. In Table 2, by qualifiers such as "Low", "Moderate" or "Upper" what parameters will you refer to? Regression could be explained in more detail.

I do not consider the results relevant and based on a visible data processing.

In Conclusions, you have to mention the novelty of the paper and its importance compared to the existing literature.

Therefore, the weak points of the paper are the Methodology and the Results, not at all convincing. The paper is cleanly written but it is more of a discursive approach than a research based on the methods you mentioned.

Success!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

First of all we thank you for the suggestions and criticism given. According to the suggestions and input we received, we have revised several things related to the substance of our article, with the following explanation:

1. We have followed up the revision of abstract (page 1).
2. Sharpening of substance and material balance in the conceptual framework has been followed up and improved (page 6).
3. The research hypothesis has been reviewed according to reviewers' suggestions and input (page 9).
4. We have completed the basic consideration for selecting the research methodology (page 10).
5. We have completed the explanation regarding primary and secondary data (page 12).
6. The time period for our study is described in the study area section (page 11).
7. We have improved the revised methodology (pages 9-14).
8. We have completed the refining of data colection methods through in-depth interviews and questionnaires (pages 13-14).
9. Basics and parameters that we use in the Table result are parts of the qualitative approach we have completed (page 18).
10. We have reviewed and improved the explanation regarding the regression analysis method (page 19).
11. The novelty of the research we have added at the end of the conclusion and follow up study result for the next study (page 31).

Thank you again for the suggestions and input given to us.

Regard,

Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The statistical part of the manuscript is unacceptable. Formulas (1), (2), (3) (5) (6) are incorrect and with errors. The text is a complete mess and chaos. The text lacks a precise description of the variables Xi. What values do these variables take and how are they defined in the model? Are they ordinal or nominal ones? Have they been turned into dichotomous variables? These are qualitative variables and should therefore be specifically included in the model.

Not all sentences in the text are translated into English.

There is a lack of consistency in the labels. Once the variables are labelled X_i , and the other time Xi. Strange designations appear in Table 4 and in the text: db, t-count, t-table, JK, RJK, F-count, F-table, Sbi.

The text should not contain inequality signs e.g. >, <. But full words. An example is the sentence: "If the alpha value is > 0.7,......".

There are many unintelligible expressions in the text e.g. "β_i reflects the effect of the independent variable Xi on the dependent variable Yi reflects the influence of the independent variable Xi and the dependent variable Y."

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

First of all we thank you for the suggestions and criticism given. According to the suggestions and input we received, we have revised several things related to the substance of our article, with the following explanation:

1. We have reviewed and improved the revised formulation and explanation (pages 16,17, and 19).
2. We have revised the qualitative variables in particular (pages 15 and 18)
3. We have revised the revised statistical result in Table 4 into Table 5 (page 27).
4. We have reviewed and improved the explanation of the text for measuring the validity and reliability of the data (page 17).
5. We have reviewed and improved the revised regression method text (page 19).

Thank you again for the suggestions and input given to us.

Regards,

Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The subject under study is very interesting and the approach followed is systematic and deep to achieve the objectives.
There are many strengths of the research and the content of the document:
1.- Clear and precise objective. Adequate contextualization of the subject under study.
2. Very deep and adequate literature review.
3.- Very well developed research methodology. This allows to achieve the objective set.
4.- Adequate discussion and relevant conclusions.
My recommendations and suggestions are:
1.- In the abstract, briefly mention the methodology (statistical techniques used).
2.- Introduction: What studies already exist that investigate the subject? What gap is identified based on the studies? Novelty of the study. Include a final paragraph of the sections into which the document is divided.
3.- Correct numbering of the sections from "Research design".
Figures 2 and 8 do not look right. To correct.
4.- Include at the end of the conclusions the limitations of the study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

First of all we thank you for the suggestions and criticism given. According to the suggestions and input we received, we have revised several things related to the substance of our article, with the following explanation:

1. We have revised the abstract according to reviewers' suggestions and input (page 1).
2. We have improved the revision in the instroduction according to suggestions and input (pages 2-3).
3. We have adjusted and improved the revisions in the sub-discussion of the methodology.
4. In the conclusion section we have added the research limitations and recommendations for the necessary follow-up research (page 31).

Thanks you again for the suggestions and input given to us.

Regards,

Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Even if you have added text to the work, it needs to be improved.

In the Abstract you have not mentioned the researched period and the focus group.

It is tot necessary to number the objectives of the paper. You have two objectives and one hypotheses. 

The research results that support the study are better fit in Conclusions. 

Some figures are not necessary.

The Methodology, the Results and the Conclusions are still irrelevant. Much does not mean a good quality. Sometimes less is more. Narrative talent is a great one and I appreciate it, but in this case it does not add value to the work.

I maintain my initial recommendations regarding the Methodology, Results and Conclusions. If you do not make the necessary improvements to the paper, then the decision to publish the article rests to fellow reviewers and editors.

Success!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

First all we thank you for the suggestions and criticism given. According to the suggestions and input we received, we have revised several things related to the substance of our article, with the following explanation:

1. We have revised the anstract revision according to suggestions and input from reviewer page 1
2. We have revised the methodology according to the suggestion and input from in substance, is described on pages 13-19.
3. Add substance to the conclusions regarding the shortcomings and weaknesses of the study and the recommendations for further studies are described on pages 31-32. 

Thank you again for the suggestions and input given to us.

Regards,

Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

My comments is attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

First of all we thank you for the suggestions and criticism given. According to the suggestions and input we recieved, we have revised several things related to the substance of our article, with the following explanation:

We have improved the revision of the methodology, especially the analytical method, both in substance and in the required explanation according to the recommendations of the reviewer. We describe this revision on pages 16-19.

Thank you again for the suggestions and input given to us.

Regards,

Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I can see that you have made efforts to improve the work.

I suggest you to pay attention to the following aspect: a research has one main objective and several hypotheses that must be validated through research (your results and others - literature). Also, a research can have one main objective and several secondary ones. In what situation do you position yourself? The place of the hypotheses is not in the Abstract. Here, you have to mention only the research objective.

Also, I would suggest improving the Conclusions not in the sense of adding text but in the emphasis on results and relevance.

Succes!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

First of all we thank you for the suggestions and criticism given. According to the suggestion and input we received, we have revised several things related to the substance of our article, with the following explanation:

1. We have the abstract according to suggestions from reviewer (page 1)
2. We have revised the conclusions in acordance with reviewers' suggestions and input (pages 30-31).

Thank you again for the suggestion and input given to us.

Regards,

Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In a previous review I suggested that the authors make corrections. I attached a pdf file to the review in which I suggested the correct form of the formulas. The authors did it their way and they did it wrong. They did not follow my comments. Now the statistical part looks even worse than before. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

First of all, we thank you for the suggestions and criticism given. According to the suggestions and input we received, we have revised several things related to the substance of our article, with the following explanation:

We have revised the formulation use in this article according to reviewers' suggestions and iput (pages 16-19).

Thank you again for the suggestions and input given to us.

Regards,

Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf