Review Reports - Total Quality Management and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises’ (SMEs) Performance: Mediating Role of Innovation Speed

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject of the article is interesting, and it is linked to the objectives of the journal, however, there are some issues that have to be reconsidered.

For better visibility on databases, the authors are asked not to repeat among keywords the words/concepts included in the title of the article.

Any abbreviation must be used only after was presented into the text.

The Introduction part tries to describe the domain, while the literature review (results of similar studies etc.) is quite superficially discussed, and research questions are not clearly presented. Both parts should be reconsidered.

A deeper explanation of why the sample is representative for the entire population could be helpful.

Lines 281-290 are just repeating the information presented in table 1, so it is useless. The results must be discussed (compared with similar studies, other reliable information etc.). That recommendation is, also, applicable for the entire results and discussion part.

The results are interesting, but they are insufficiently discussed.

Also, the conclusions are not enough to sustain the results. The use of the research is, so, insufficiently explained at the conclusion part. It is advisable to create a distinct part for formulating general conclusions and recommendations for scholars, government, business etc.

The format of the journal must be respected (format, sources quoted etc.)

Author Response

The subject of the article is interesting, and it is linked to the objectives of the journal, however, there are some issues that have to be reconsidered.

For better visibility on databases, the authors are asked not to repeat among keywords the words/concepts included in the title of the article.

Response

we appreciate the comment from the reviewer on how interesting and relevant the topic and literature has contributed to body of knowledge, and its linkage to the journal. However, the observation on keywords suggested had been worked upon.

Reviewers Comment

Any abbreviation must be used only after was presented into the text.

Response

All initial abbreviations had been taken care of, for easy understanding to all readers.

Reviewers Comment

Response

We appreciate the comment from je anonymous review. Meanwhile, this section had been worked up, as research questions is already included in the manuscript, and the literature review had been adequately reviewed and all seminal papers had been included.

Reviewers Comment

A deeper explanation of why the sample is representative for the entire population could be helpful.

Response

We appreciate the anonymous review on the comment on justification for sample used. Meanwhile, it was stated in the manuscript the entire population of SMEs in Nigeria (41.5 million), and after which the survey money sample size calculator was used in getting the appropriate sample (see figure 2). Since the required sample size is 384 and the actual sample size used (484) exceeded the required sample size. It denotes that sample size is suitable and appropriate for the current investigation (Elbanna & Abdel-Maksoud, 2019; Pollanen et al., 2017).

Reviewers Comment

Response

We want to appreciate the anonymous reviewer on observation made regarding the demographic profile. It is a norm that researchers tend to describe the respondents to show that the appropriate targeted people were used for the study. However, as recommended by the anonymous reviewer, we have expunged the part of repetition. Recommendations had been introduced to the conclusion part and findings had been discussed and compared in line with previous studies.

Reviewers Comment

The results are interesting, but they are insufficiently discussed.

Response

We want to appreciate the anonymous reviewer on the comment regarding the result of the study, while the discussion part had been adequately reworked upon and scientifically developed appropriately.

Reviewers Comment

Response

We appreciate the comment from the anonymous review on the conclusion section. However, this section had been re-written, where appropriate recommendations for scholars and business owners had been incorporated into the study and conclusion had been separately created.

Reviewers Comment

The format of the journal must be respected (format, sources quoted etc.)

Response

The manuscript had been reworked and formatted appropriately. Hence, the format of the journal had been painstakingly adhered to.

In conclusion, every observation identified had been meticulously and patiently attended to. We appreciate the anonymous reviewer 1 for all suggestions and constructive criticism and a good path in making the best out of us.

Thank you for your efforts and kind consideration.

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I suggest paying attention to the use of acronyms, as it is confusing and scattered throughout the text. SME, for example, although well known, only appears later. The definitions come and go, which greatly impairs the reading of the text. I recommend following a pattern, because the way it is is the impression of disorder. Use the definitions under the tables.

Figures and tables must be indicated by numbers in the text, as they are inserted without this anchor.

Table 3 is in results but it is also confused with method, because only in it I could understand the acronyms used.

The hypothesis testing in the results section, in its first paragraph, is a return to the method.

Line 286: correct the average age of the respondents.

Figures 1 and 3(sic) are unclear. I didn't see figure 2.

The references used, especially for IS, are very old, which seems to be a contradiction when it comes to innovation!! If they are essential, classic, there must be a solid justification.

Author Response

Response

We do appreciate the fairness and justice done by the anonymous reviewer upon this manuscript. Meanwhile, observations raised on acronyms had been properly taken care off, as it is clearly spelt out and rewritten

Reviewers Comment

Figures and tables must be indicated by numbers in the text, as they are inserted without this anchor.

Response

We do appreciate the effort of the anonymous reviewer on omission of figures and tables in the text, As this had been properly inserted and written inside text. (Table 1-6; Figure 1-4)

Reviewers Comment

Table 3 is in results but it is also confused with method, because only in it I could understand the acronyms used.

Response

We really appreciate the anonymous reviewer for work done on this section. Table 3 covers the “Measurement Model”, where all the required indicators (internal, convergent, and discriminant validity) had been tested and that is why it is termed hypothesis testing. Meanwhile, we have renamed the part as Measurement Model, which best suit the section, where both reliability and validity tests were being conducted. In addition, the result section has already commenced after methodology. We have given each section different number for clarity purpose, and ease of presentation.

Reviewers Comment

The hypothesis testing in the results section, in its first paragraph, is a return to the method.

Response,

We appreciate the anonymous reviewer on this comment, as sustainability journal format had been carefully followed and the hypothesis testing earlier mentioned were being termed ad the test for reliability and validity. Therefore, this part as been lifted to the methodology section as suggested

Reviewers Comment

Line 286: correct the average age of the respondents.

Response

We appreciate the comment of the reviewer of this part. Meanwhile, the demographic profile interpretation has been expunged as suggested by reviewer 1 and 2, saying it is repletion since, tabular presentation is already in the manuscript.

Find the comment from reviewer 1 accordingly for your perusal

“Lines 281-290 are just repeating the information presented in table 1, so it is useless”.

Reviewers Comment

Figures 1 and 3(sic) are unclear. I didn't see figure 2.

Response

All figures (1-4) had been clearly re-presented in a legible format as suggested.

Reviewers Comment

The references used, especially for IS, are very old, which seems to be a contradiction when it comes to innovation!! If they are essential, classic, there must be a solid justification.

Response

We want to appreciate the effort of the anonymous reviewer on the references comment. We have been able to update them accordingly and that of innovation speed becomes unchanged as the only validated scale is what is being used and previous study that cited it is being included to make the work novel. Meanwhile, this study is basically considering innovation speed as a composite construct and, that is why we could not go by the recent citation who treated innovation speed as a dimension. Hence, innovation speed as a dimensional context shall be further studies.

In conclusion, every observation identified had been meticulously and patiently attended to. We appreciate the anonymous reviewer 3 for all suggestions and constructive criticism and a good path in making the best out of us.

Thank you for your efforts and kind consideration.

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

The reviewed manuscript is well prepared. The authors clearly presents the own study focuses on investigating the role of innovation speed in mediating the relationship between Total Quality Management (TQM) and SME performance.

Data obtained from Nigerian small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises were correctly evaluated and with the heuristic model for the relationship were tested. Results from the conducted research show well that TQM is positively related to operational performance, and confirmed that the innovation speed has a substantial influence on the relation between TQM and SME performance.

The presented study additionally well expands understanding of innovation, with connecting the innovation speed with total quality management, with top management quality practices, employee quality management, customer orientation, process management, employee knowledge, and training. The proposed, in the reviewed manuscript, model contributes to literature lacking on mediating factors needed to boost the operational manufacturing performance.

This manuscript contains a properly prepared literature review.

I found some minor editorial errors, for example in the title there is a typing error in - instead of “MEDIAITNG” it should be “MEDIATING” (Line 1). All abbreviations should be in capital letters - the abbreviation "OP" on line 392 is written in lowercase.

Despite the editorial comments mentioned above, the reviewed manuscript shows well the author's own research related to the problem of improving operational performance in the business. In my opinion, the manuscript’s strengths are:

- the content - the development of the own model demonstrating the impact of innovation speed in the link between TQM and operational success;

- the reviewed manuscript deals with current manufacturing problems (not only in Nigerian manufacturing companies). All manufacturing companies around the world are trying to create a system for evaluating and improving their functioning;

- the reviewed manuscript may arouse readers' interest;

- the reviewed manuscript correspond to the subject matter of the journal (Sustainability).

Thematically, the manuscript is interesting. I recommend this manuscript for publication after editorial correction.

Author Response

This manuscript contains a properly prepared literature review.

Response

We do appreciate the fairness and justice done by the anonymous reviewer on how the manuscript had been properly prepared and scientifically written.

Reviewers Comment

Response

We appreciate the anonymous reviewer on observations raised. Hence, the word “mediating” had been correctly stated, and all abbreviations had been written in upper case as suggested.

Reviewers Comment

- the content - the development of the own model demonstrating the impact of innovation speed in the link between TQM and operational success;

- the reviewed manuscript may arouse readers' interest;

- the reviewed manuscript correspond to the subject matter of the journal (Sustainability).

Thematically, the manuscript is interesting. I recommend this manuscript for publication after editorial correction.

Response

We appreciate the anonymous reviewer 2 for all suggestions and constructive criticism and a good path in making the best out of us. We do appreciate the fairness and justice done by the anonymous reviewer. Thank you for your efforts and kind consideration.

Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors very detailed deal with any of my concerns. The article could be accepted for publishing.

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

We wish to submit the final version of “Total quality management and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) performance: Mediating role of innovation speed” for consideration by the reputed Journal of Sustainability and in the special issue "Systems Approach and Management for Urban Sustainability".

We tried to improve the English level as much as possible and there was a comment to delete one of the figures. Thanks a lot for your valuable time and consideration.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, in my opinion the insertion of figure 2 is unnecessary.

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

We tried to improve the English level as much as possible and there was a comment to delete one of the figures. Thanks a lot for your valuable time and consideration.