A Framework for a Generic Retail Charter: A Guide towards Sustainability and Stakeholder Support

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall Review: The research chosen as the review research with a very simple application of technique, though it makes the research different. Overall the research is well explained and shows a dedicated work deserves appreciation. However, there may be some improvements in this work for the betterment of the study. The English language needs a minor improvement in making sentences, and paragraphs of similar size in the complete research paper, which may enhance the quality of the work. Most of the sections and subsections need additions. Some statistical data can make the study more acceptable. It is a good effort by researchers. However, suggested comments can help the researcher to improve the quality of the research paper for the mass reader.

(1)    Title

·       Authors have framed a very basic title, though it is clear and accepted.

·       Adding variables or scope in the title can be a better idea.

 

(2)    Abstract and Keywords

·       Abstract is well articulated which is representing a good snapshot of the research.

·       Sentences need some improvement in vocabulary and grammar for the English language.

·       Keywords are well chosen and suiting with the research, but reducing them would be a better idea.

 

(3)    Introduction

·       A good presentation of the work with the requirements.

·       It is having citations in almost every sentence reduces the interest. It may have more elaboration with each citation.

·       Sentences that are written need to have a proper flow and connectivity and need improvement.

·       Research gap and research question are well articulated.

·       It should add 2 or 1 at least more paragraph.

·       The same size of paragraphs can enhance the presentation.

·       English grammar and punctuation need improvement.

 

(4)    Literature Framework

·       This segment is well explained with the clarity of explanations for sections and subsections.

·       Figure 1 needs to have a reference.

·       Paragraphs should have more explanations, it is too short.

·       Subsections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 need more elaboration.

·       Section 2.5 should have more explanations.

·       The same size of paragraphs can enhance the presentation.

·       English grammar and punctuation need improvement.

 

(5)    Materials and Methods

·       This segment is well explained with clarity.

·       The research needs to add on the methodological approach.

·       Table 1 needs a reference.

·       The same size of paragraphs can enhance the presentation.

·       English grammar and punctuation need improvement. 

(6)    Results

·       There should be a paragraph before Section 4.1.

·       The first paragraph may have a detailed explanation with many sentences.

·       Figure 4 should provide a reference.

·       Table 2 needs a reference.

·       It is well explained with sub-sections displaying much clarity of result.

· Subsections are too well organized.

·       More statistical data can make the study more robust.

·       It may be accepted for a review paper.

·       The same size of paragraphs can enhance the presentation.

·       English grammar and punctuation need improvement. 

(7)    Discussion

·       There should be a paragraph before Section 5.1.

·       Table 3 needs a reference.

·       Table 4 needs a reference.

·       Table 5 needs a reference.

·       Table 6 needs a reference.

·       Table 7 needs a reference.

·       Subsection 5.3.1, 5.3.2, and 5.3.3 needs some addition.

·       The same size of paragraphs can enhance the presentation.

·       English grammar and punctuation need improvement.

 

(8)    Conclusions

·       It is a good presentation, but the presentation with bullet headings can make the conclusion more clear and attractive. 

·       The limitation should not be part of this section, either should have a separate sub-section or at least a separate paragraph.

·       Result values can make it more effective to understand readers.

·       There is a scope for improvement in English grammar and punctuation.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you so much for the very constructive feedback, which was very helpful to improve the quality of the research paper. Please see our in the attached file that includes our responses marked in red and in the manuscript via track changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read  your paper. The topic is interesting and original. However, I believe that a substantial amount of work has yet to be done before it can be considered publishable. Please see my comments in the attached file. 

Regards,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you so much for the very constructive feedback, which was helpful to improve the quality of the research paper. Please see our responses in the attached file marked in red and in the manuscript via track changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The aim of the present document is to establish a framework retail Stakeholder Charter that aims to address the expectations of relevant retail enterprise stakeholders in order to achieve success and sustainability of their businesses. The topic is interesting and original.

The authors used Hevner's Design Science research model to develop this framework Relevant literature on the governance of retail enterprises, stakeholder theory and existing charters and were used in the design of the general framework of a retail enterprise charter.

The paper does not make a good case for the need for a charter or what its use will be.

Could the authors state what the charter is intended for?

The authors should clarify in their paper the sustainability they refer to in the paper. Does the charter intend to cover all the pillars of sustainability?

Could the authors give a specific example of respondents in the survey?

There are a number of flaws in the document that make the document opaque and illogical.

 

Article has serious flaws, additional experiments needed, research not conducted correctly.

Author Response

Thank you so much for the very constructive feedback, which was helpful to improve the quality of the research paper. Please see our responses in the attached file marked in red and in the manuscript via track changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?
main question is to develop a new model of management in retail business 2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field, and if so, why?
yes, paper is very detailed and well structured regarding this topic 3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
authors need to add more examples and statistical data about topic 4. What specific improvements could the authors consider regarding the methodology?
use concrete example of respodents on survey, benchmarking with other companies and countries, write limitations of research 5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?
yes, but put more ideas for future research 6. Are the references appropriate?
yes, big number used 7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.
well done

 

Author Response

Thank you so much for the very constructive feedback, which was helpful to improve the quality of the research paper. Please see our responses in the attached file marked in red and in the manuscript via track changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors

This version of the manuscript is significantly improved: it allowed clarifying some doubts and overcoming some of the previously identified problems. Congratulations  for your work. However, I have some additional suggestions:

A more careful reading of the manuscript to eliminate some writing errors (e.g., line 656);

In Figure 1, change the colors of the elements on the left (e.g., Agency theories, sustainability and the others) since they are different aspects

In Figure 5, replace the background color (yellow), since it seems to me visually a little aggressive.

In the remaining figures put some color (subtle) to make the document more harmonious

Author Response

This version of the manuscript is significantly improved: it allowed clarifying some doubts and overcoming some of the previously identified problems. Congratulations for your work.

Thank you so much for the positive feedback!

However, I have some additional suggestions:

A more careful reading of the manuscript to eliminate some writing errors (e.g., line 656).

Thank you, we have corrected this writing error, and also several others that were detected after reviewing the manuscript again.

In Figure 1, change the colors of the elements on the left (e.g., Agency theories, sustainability and the others) since they are different aspects.

The colors were adjusted as requested.

In Figure 5, replace the background color (yellow), since it seems to me visually a little aggressive.

The colors were changed as per your suggestion.

In the remaining figures put some color (subtle) to make the document more harmonious.

We added some color to the other figures.

Reviewer 3 Report

All comments were explained and incorporated.

Author Response

All comments were explained and incorporated.

Thank you so much for the positive feedback!