Modeling Impacts of COVID-19 in Supply Chain Activities: A Grey-DEMATEL Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper entitled "Modelling impacts of COVID-19 in supply chain activities: A grey-DEMATEL approach" aims to identify and exhibit the interrelationship among COVID-19 impacts in supply chain activities. To do so, the authors have used both the existing literature and the manager's input.
Before the paper can be published the authors must:
1. explain in the paper's methodology the types of managers they asked, the firms they work for (which kind of industries), why they have selected these firms and which criteria they have used to consider valid responses
2. describe the characteristics of both the managers they asked and the firms they work for
3. describe the specific characteristics of the place the research took place
Author Response
Response is attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to review the article named “Modelling impacts of COVID-19 in supply chain activities: A grey-DEMATEL approach”. This article tries to identify and exhibit the interrelationship among COVID-19 impacts in supply chain activities. Therefore, this research has a relatively novel and interesting objective.
In general terms, it is a very good article.
The introduction gathers all the necessary aspects, clearly pointing out the research questions to be addressed and thus pointing out the gap to be covered.
As it could not be otherwise since it is a very new topic, the review of the literature, in addition to being extensive, is quite current.
The rest of the sessions and the structure used in the whole paper are proper, and the discussion part is well-organized, bringing important implications exploited by this research.
Based on the above, I can only congratulate the authors and recommend publishing the article.
Author Response
Response is attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This study offers valuable insights on the adverse COVID-19 impact in a supply chain management. It is a timely study. There are some suggestions for improvement or clarification.
The literature review section needs to be further expanded. The current review of literature is not sufficient to support the study.
Were non- response bias and common method bias examined? They are very critical.
Both Mass layoffs and Workforce shortage were rated high. Did they contradict each other? This might show the potential problem associated with common method bias.
Many factor loadings are fairly low and they are below 0.7 or even 0.6. Should they be dropped and EFA should be rerun until the criteria are met?
The survey procedure needs more explanation.
Appendix B and Appendix C are confusing and need better explanations.
There are some grammar errors which need to be corrected through revision.
e.g.,
The success of any industry largely based on the seamless communications
Commonly, the 136 supply chain activities include procuring raw materials to deliver the finished products to the customers.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank you very much for the opportunity to read the paper. I thin the paper is fitting with the aim of the journal, but there are some thinks to improve.
Abstract: It is to long and to detailed. Pleas reorganize the abstract with the main issues: Objective of the study, aim, methodology, results, novelty and limits.
Introduction is well.
Literature review: I think you can eliminate the subsections.
Research methodology maybe you can extend the first paragraph it is too short. Figure 1 be insert before the data collection, to have a good overview of the methodology.
Table style maybe you can condense it to single row to have a better overview.
Is that a notation Ä ? ore its x?
After every figure and table, a short description is welcomed.
Results must be better linked to the literature, and I miss the personal opinions.
Conclusions: theoretical, practical and managerial implications and also a part of limits and future research.
Appendix all to single row.
References according to the journal pleas review the style.
Good luck!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Τhe authors have followed the reviewer's suggestions and addressed the amendments required. The paper can now be published.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for making the revisions to address the comments provided. The manuscript is now in a good shape to be considered for publication.
Reviewer 4 Report
good luck!
