Intellectual Capital and Competitive Advantage and the Mediation Effect of Innovation Quality and Speed, and Business Intelligence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is about the SEM to the theme of intellectual capital and its relation to competitive advantage in pharmaceutical and medical supply sector, given the mediation of innovation speed, innovation quality and business intelligence. 

The concepts used should be better defined, especially when used in the model. 

 

The abstract is not very clear and carefully organized. It is hard to understand the purpose of the paper. Some sentences  need rephrasing and clarification. This clarification has to describe better the main argument, techniques and results of the paper. 

The introduction could introduce more of the general issue that the paper wants to contribute to, beyond what has been presented. 

A brief context of the Jordanian firms would help as well as a better justification of the choice of the sector for the study. 

 

 I would expect a better discussion of the literature and the theoretical model and its justification in your study. How do you situate your contribution to prior literature and other concepts such as knowledge management, for example?

 

There is a need to clarify the sentences. Some grammar and style must be improved. the literature review could be better structured.

 

Notions such as intellectual capital, competitive advantage, business intelligence, human capital, relational capital and structural capital should be better defined and characterized. How do you proceed to measure them. This should become clearer for the reader.  

How do you measure business intelligence and intellectual capital? How do you distinguish them?

This section should be improved, to get clearer and to understand how you proceed.

Why business intelligence in your study? See also the definitions indicated above. Is there no overlapping between business intelligence and intellectual capital?

How do you define and measure innovation quality, innovation speed?

 

You should define the abbreviations. It would be useful to relate the abbreviations to variables and factors of your analysis.

 

Did you test or verify for the reliability of the data collected with the questions with a Likert scale?

Did you think about using the Cronbach or Mc Donald coefficient?

 

Fig. 2 Not enough readable. Could you improve its visualization and the explanation, at least of the different blocks.

  Are there any limitations of your study?

 

I would suggest some more recent references in the bibliography. See my comments on definitions for introducing some recent literature.

Finally, the methodology, presentation of the results and methods used should be improved (see also the note on the reliability test). 

The paper should be better written and clearer. 

 

I enclose the file with further comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Find attached all the modifications marked by the line numbers that appear in the orginal file, named Track-changes 12022022.

1. All concepts and variables are defined and some definitions were added as business intelligence. Lines: 29-35 + 50-53
2. The abstract was more clarified and carefully organized..  Lines: 5-13
3. More information was added to the introduction.  Lines: 66-69 +95-98
4. A brief context of the Jordanian firms was added as well as a better justification of the choice of the study.  Lines: 95-98
5. Literature and the theoretical model is rearticulated and better reorganized. Lines: 66-69
6. Some grammar and style have been improved all over the article and  literature review is better restructured
7. Notions such as intellectual capital, competitive advantage, business intelligence, human capital, relational capital and structural capital are defined and well documented. And there is a special section that showed how to measure them.   Lines: 29-35 + 42-43
8. Business intelligence and intellectual capital were recognized by adding definition to intellectual intelligence Lines: 370-394
9. According to literature and the scales used, there seems no overlapping between business intelligence and intellectual capital? Lines: 42-44 +  51-55
10. How to measure innovation quality, innovation speed is shown in a special section  Lines: 373-393 
11. Abbreviations are shown next to concepts.
12. The reliability is verified through alpha Chronbach too for data collected with the questions with a Likert scale  Lines:  471-475
13. Cronbach is used and shown in methodology and results?  Line: 356
14. Visualization of Fig. 2 is improved to be  enough readable. And one construct was explained with its items.  Lines: 440-442
15. Some limitations for the study are added  Line: 469
16. More recent references in the bibliography were added..  Lines: 776+ 773+ 775+ 777 + 779
17. Presentation of the results and methods used was improved including reliability test).  Lines: 342 + 354+ 364
18. More efforts and changes were added all over the article to improve language, formats and articulations of the contents
19. The title was changed showing the fundamental idea developed in this paper and the Introduction is improved.  Lines: 1-2
20. The literature review was improved. The research questions was answered through hypothesis and we made sure that it was discussed in the paper.  Lines: 100-217
21. Table 5 and 6 were made more readable  Lines: 494+ 511
22. SEM approach was justified..  Lines: 364-365
23. A definition for Business Intelligence was added  Lines: 50-55
24. We made sure that clear goals and specification research are mentioned.  Lines: 209-2017

Reviewer 2 Report

File attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Find attached all the modifications marked by the line numbers that appear in the orginal file, named Track-changes 12022022.

1. All concepts and variables are defined and some definitions were added as business intelligence. Lines: 29-35 + 50-53
2. The abstract was more clarified and carefully organized..  Lines: 5-13
3. More information was added to the introduction.  Lines: 66-69 +95-98
4. A brief context of the Jordanian firms was added as well as a better justification of the choice of the study.  Lines: 95-98
5. Literature and the theoretical model is rearticulated and better reorganized. Lines: 66-69
6. Some grammar and style have been improved all over the article and  literature review is better restructured
7. Notions such as intellectual capital, competitive advantage, business intelligence, human capital, relational capital and structural capital are defined and well documented. And there is a special section that showed how to measure them.   Lines: 29-35 + 42-43
8. Business intelligence and intellectual capital were recognized by adding definition to intellectual intelligence Lines: 370-394
9. According to literature and the scales used, there seems no overlapping between business intelligence and intellectual capital? Lines: 42-44 +  51-55
10. How to measure innovation quality, innovation speed is shown in a special section  Lines: 373-393 
11. Abbreviations are shown next to concepts.
12. The reliability is verified through alpha Chronbach too for data collected with the questions with a Likert scale  Lines:  471-475
13. Cronbach is used and shown in methodology and results?  Line: 356
14. Visualization of Fig. 2 is improved to be  enough readable. And one construct was explained with its items.  Lines: 440-442
15. Some limitations for the study are added  Line: 469
16. More recent references in the bibliography were added..  Lines: 776+ 773+ 775+ 777 + 779
17. Presentation of the results and methods used was improved including reliability test).  Lines: 342 + 354+ 364
18. More efforts and changes were added all over the article to improve language, formats and articulations of the contents
19. The title was changed showing the fundamental idea developed in this paper and the Introduction is improved.  Lines: 1-2
20. The literature review was improved. The research questions was answered through hypothesis and we made sure that it was discussed in the paper.  Lines: 100-217
21. Table 5 and 6 were made more readable  Lines: 494+ 511
22. SEM approach was justified..  Lines: 364-365
23. A definition for Business Intelligence was added  Lines: 50-55
24. We made sure that clear goals and specification research are mentioned.  Lines: 209-2017

Reviewer 3 Report

Perhaps, authors spent time on gathering questionnaire answers, unfortunately, the paper is very poor and it should be resubmitted. 

The title is too long, you should focus on the fundamental idea developed in this paper.The Introduction must be radically improved, the paper goals’ specification and structure description are required. Sorry, authors should learn how the research paper must be written.

The literature review must be radically improved. The research questions must be formulated  and answers should be discussed in paper.

Table 5 and 6 unreadable

The paper includes application the SEM approach, however, there is no good justification, why this modeling is needed. There are no comparisons with other similar models. Nowadays the SEM is very popular, because of easy access to software, unfortunately authors did not explain why it is needed. The conclusions are very general, and they are commonly observable.

I would suggest to precisely define Business Intelligence , and select some hypotheses which are the most unique, and then verified them.

Please, clarify idea you want to relate with other variables, rethink which business phenomena are the most important for you and then provide the study. There is no clear specification of goals of your research 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Find attached all the modifications marked by the line numbers that appear in the orginal file, named Track-changes 12022022.

1. All concepts and variables are defined and some definitions were added as business intelligence. Lines: 29-35 + 50-53
2. The abstract was more clarified and carefully organized..  Lines: 5-13
3. More information was added to the introduction.  Lines: 66-69 +95-98
4. A brief context of the Jordanian firms was added as well as a better justification of the choice of the study.  Lines: 95-98
5. Literature and the theoretical model is rearticulated and better reorganized. Lines: 66-69
6. Some grammar and style have been improved all over the article and  literature review is better restructured
7. Notions such as intellectual capital, competitive advantage, business intelligence, human capital, relational capital and structural capital are defined and well documented. And there is a special section that showed how to measure them.   Lines: 29-35 + 42-43
8. Business intelligence and intellectual capital were recognized by adding definition to intellectual intelligence Lines: 370-394
9. According to literature and the scales used, there seems no overlapping between business intelligence and intellectual capital? Lines: 42-44 +  51-55
10. How to measure innovation quality, innovation speed is shown in a special section  Lines: 373-393 
11. Abbreviations are shown next to concepts.
12. The reliability is verified through alpha Chronbach too for data collected with the questions with a Likert scale  Lines:  471-475
13. Cronbach is used and shown in methodology and results?  Line: 356
14. Visualization of Fig. 2 is improved to be  enough readable. And one construct was explained with its items.  Lines: 440-442
15. Some limitations for the study are added  Line: 469
16. More recent references in the bibliography were added..  Lines: 776+ 773+ 775+ 777 + 779
17. Presentation of the results and methods used was improved including reliability test).  Lines: 342 + 354+ 364
18. More efforts and changes were added all over the article to improve language, formats and articulations of the contents
19. The title was changed showing the fundamental idea developed in this paper and the Introduction is improved.  Lines: 1-2
20. The literature review was improved. The research questions was answered through hypothesis and we made sure that it was discussed in the paper.  Lines: 100-217
21. Table 5 and 6 were made more readable  Lines: 494+ 511
22. SEM approach was justified..  Lines: 364-365
23. A definition for Business Intelligence was added  Lines: 50-55
24. We made sure that clear goals and specification research are mentioned.  Lines: 209-2017

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The title is improved.

The abstract is clearer. 

The title is improved.

The abstract is clearer. 

I would suggest a general review of the paper for clarity and style.

The results could still be presented in a clearer way, relating them better to the existing literature

The title is improved.

The abstract is clearer. 

I would suggest a general review of the paper for clarity and style.

The results could still be presented in a clearer way, relating them better to the existing literature

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

As per your suggestions:

• A general review is made and some points were clarified.
• The results are presented in a clearer way and were related more to the existing literature as seen in track changes

. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors substantially revised the manuscript and maybe accepted for publication. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

The comments are included in the attached paper.

This paper is very unclear, please, precisely define all variables,

Figure and tables are not readable.

Please, define mediators

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

As per your suggestions:

• The comments were followed accordingly.
• Definitions of all concepts were reviewed
• Figure and tables are improved to be more readable.
• Mediators were all defined as seen in track changes.
• A general review is made and some points were clarified.
• The results are presented in a clearer way and were related more to the existing literature as seen in track changes

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors intensively have worked on the paper's improvements. They already explained the reviewer's requests. The SEM application is not particularly original , even in this case. However, authors have explained that their paper would have readers. Therefore, hereby I recommend this article to publishing