The Impact of Digital Transformation on Supply Chain Capabilities and Supply Chain Competitive Performance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is mostly well-written with only a few minor errors. None are serious enough to interfere with understanding.
Quality of English is mostly very good.
Author Response
We sincerely thank you for spending time thoroughly reviewing our manuscript.We appreciate your positive evaluation of our work. Regarding your feedback on "whether there is a concise description and contextualization of the content based on previous and current theoretical backgrounds and empirical research (if applicable)," and "whether the argumentation and discussion of the survey results are coherent, balanced, and convincing," improvements can be made in these two aspects. We have tried our best to revise to these two parts. We sincerely hope that this revised manuscript has addressed all your concerns.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper aims at important questions, especially from a practical point of view, but it needs significant changes and additions. The paper has some flaws. Conclusions of previous research are formulated at a very general level. Lack of references to quantitative studies. Specific digital technologies are insufficiently specified. Most of the literature items are those published in journals issued by universities from a single country, not subjected to wider international criticism. References almost exclusively to such items narrow the usefulness of the research to the local context and raise significant substantive questions about the universality of this research. The biggest shortcoming of the paper is the lack of a precise definition of the research gap and the formulation of rather obvious and intuitive hypotheses. Also, the study itself is described in general terms, and the indicators used are too vague. The conclusions, while telling of the research conducted, contribute little to the theory and practice of the area under study.
Detailed substantive comments follow.
11-15) The purpose of the paper is not clear. Vague terms are used, as well as incomprehensible expressions of the relationship between them.
18-23) The results were described in a very general and imprecise way.
24-29) Similar to the comments above, the description of the contribution of the work to the discipline is general and unspecific.
34-42) The paragraph points to the politically conditioned (reference to [1]) and local nature of the research (one country). This is an unacceptable approach to scientific research. This should be corrected by pointing out the theoretical (scientific) and utilitarian (economic) applicability of the results obtained by the authors, in contexts other than the one described.
47) What does the term "digital economy" mean? What digital technologies are referred to?
56) This is only a single and local study. Other and broader studies should be referred to in this regard.
63-66) Where can this journal be found? Who is its publisher?
67-91) The content is very general. The terms used are not defined, and the relationships described are not defined.
98-113) As in the abstract, the description is general and unspecific.
138-155) No references to the literature on the subject.
189) Where was the item [22] published? On which pages can you find a reference to contingency theory?
212) What is meant by the disruptive nature of digitization? What does it result from, and what effects does it cause?
227) How do authors value the quality of journals?
283) Point to specific papers for previous research.
301) What is the purpose of hypothesis H1, given the statement in line 288 and the paper [38]?
353-360) Similarly, the H2a-H2d hypotheses are confirmed by previous studies. These hypotheses are very intuitive and obvious. Before their establishment, the research gap was not precisely identified.
374-381) Similarly, hypotheses H3a-H3d.
387-394) These hypotheses are a kind of tautology binding the concepts indicated in the context of the earlier hypotheses. What is the purpose of their study? What does their verification bring to the research area under study?
410) The research area on H5 seems interesting. However, what is behind the word "moderate"?
416-417) How were the control variables used (they are variables of a different type)?
425) Indicators are very general. They can be understood in very different and broad ways. This limits the ability to formulate clear and specific conclusions from the survey.
476) Does the sample size meet the requirements of statistical hypothesis testing?
501) The conclusions formulated contribute little to the field under study.
545) The theoretical implications are not indicative of the development of theory in the area under study. It is hard to understand what theoretical gaps have been filled by the study (the execution of the study itself is not yet the filling of a theoretical gap).
579) The management implications are not substantiated by the research conducted. They are the authors' expert postulations of what supply chain managers should do.
Linguistic errors should be corrected.
Author Response
We sincerely thank you for spending time thoroughly reviewing our manuscript and providing us with a list of helpful comments to guide our revision. Your valuable comments are extremely helpful for us to improve our work. We have tried our best to revise the manuscript according to your constructive comments and suggestions. We sincerely hope that this revised manuscript has addressed all your concerns.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In my opinion, the paper tackled an interesting topic. However, the research problem was presented in a chaotic way.
The theoretical part of the work lacks the definition of the main concepts used in the study (e.g. digital transformation, supply chain capabilities, supply chain sustainable competitive performance).
The authors did not indicate the method of sample selection. Was the selection intentional? Can the results of the research be applied to the population? If so, which one? The characteristics of the research sample are very limited.
The results of the research have been discussed to a small extent. The authors present the results in the form of tables and figures, without their interpretation. No attempt is made to explain why these results were obtained.
The work presents a number of hypotheses (too many in my opinion). Their testing (chapter 5.3) is presented graphically (tables, figures), with minimal reference to them in the text.
Chapter 6 (Conclusion and discussion) in my opinion should separate discussion from conclusions. Conclusions should be given in bulleted form. It is also worth in this part of the work to refer to the hypotheses put forward in the paper.
Detailed notes:
- the abstract should be changed. The current form is incompatible with journal requirements;
- abbreviations used in the paper should be explained when using them for the first time;
- table 3 - it is not explained that the numbers 1...7 in the title line mean subsequent variables, please complete it;
- references to some tables in the text use Roman numerals (line 465, 469, 471), should be corrected;
- subsections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 consist only of tables and figure; needs improvement;
- in the bibliography for some items (e.g. 6, 9, 20) not all authors are given; the manner in which the publication is presented is inconsistent and does not comply with the requirements of the journal.
In my opinion, the article needs thorough corrections.
Author Response
We sincerely thank you for spending time thoroughly reviewing our manuscript and providing us with a list of helpful comments to guide our revision. Your valuable comments are extremely helpful for us to improve our work. We have tried our best to revise the manuscript according to your constructive comments and suggestions. We sincerely hope that this revised manuscript has addressed all your concerns.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
See attached report file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
We sincerely thank you for spending time thoroughly reviewing our manuscript and providing us with a list of helpful comments to guide our revision. Your valuable comments are extremely helpful for us to improve our work. We have tried our best to revise the manuscript according to your constructive comments and suggestions. We sincerely hope that this revised manuscript has addressed all your concerns.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The changes made to the paper and the clarifications provided by the authors are progressing sensibly. At least the following points remain to be corrected:
1. The paper needs to be supplemented to clarify the research gap for hypotheses H2a-H2d and H3a-H3d. The authors' explanations of previous research are adequate, although very synthetic.
2. It is insufficient to answer the question of what the verification of hypotheses H4a-H4d brings to the research area under study. It is necessary to determine what research gap this will fill.
3. The authors' explanation shows that the sample size does not meet the requirements of statistical hypothesis testing. It fundamentally changes the scientific evaluation of the formulated conclusions. This issue should be clearly described in the paper, especially in the abstract, introduction, and conclusions. Examples of other studies with the same sample size do not change anything. The reviewed paper is supposed to be scientific, not a consultation report.
Language faults should be corrected.
Author Response
Thank you very much for providing professional editing suggestions. They have been extremely helpful in our improvement process. Through the revisions, our article has made significant progress compared to its initial version. The logical flow has been strengthened, and the expressions are now clearer. We sincerely appreciate your expert guidance. In addition to incorporating your suggestions, we have taken this opportunity to comprehensively optimize the presentation of the entire manuscript, aiming to provide a clear expression of the research content. We genuinely hope that this revised manuscript addresses all your concerns.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The Authors made significant revisions to the paper. They addressed all the comments in my earlier review in detail. I accept the changes made and believe that the paper can be published in its current form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for reviewing our revised manuscript. We appreciate your feedback and are pleased to hear that you found our revisions satisfactory. We have carefully addressed all the comments raised in your earlier review and incorporated the necessary changes into the paper.
We are grateful that you believe our paper is now suitable for publication in its current form. We would like to express our gratitude for your time and valuable input throughout the review process. Your guidance has greatly contributed to improving the quality of our research.
Once again, thank you for your support and consideration.
Sincerely,
Dan Yao
Reviewer 4 Report
Authors have thankfully addressed my feedbacks appropriately.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for reviewing our revised manuscript. We appreciate your feedback and are pleased to hear that you found our revisions satisfactory. We have carefully addressed all the comments raised in your earlier review and incorporated the necessary changes into the paper.
We are grateful that you believe our paper is now suitable for publication in its current form. We would like to express our gratitude for your time and valuable input throughout the review process. Your guidance has greatly contributed to improving the quality of our research.
Once again, thank you for your support and consideration.
Sincerely,
Dan Yao
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the changes and additions made. I make no further comments.
Minor corrections should be made regarding articles (determiners).
