Impact of Digitalization on SME Performance of the EU27: Panel Data Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
I consider the authors to have taken into account all my recommendations in the 1st round of reviews, therefore the paper can be accepted in the present form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
On behalf of the entire team of authors, I would like to thank you for your time and valuable advice. For your information, I am attaching a cover letter with the comments and recommendations of all reviewers and the academic editor, along with all changes and justifications for the edits that have been made.
Sincerely,
Ms. Lachvajderova
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
The article has been completely rebuilt from the original version. The authors have adapted to the comments of the reviewers. I find that the project's goal and hypotheses have been formulated better. The article deals with a current and scientifically important topic. I have no objections to the methodology and structure of the article. Correct literature was used. The drawings were prepared correctly, and the research limitations and further research challenges were indicated.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
On behalf of the entire team of authors, I would like to thank you for your time and valuable advice. For your information, I am attaching a cover letter with the comments and recommendations of all reviewers and the academic editor, along with all changes and justifications for the edits that have been made in the last revision.
Sincerely,
Ms. Lachvajderova
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
Dear Authors
The paper addresses a very important topic indeed. I have following suggestions to improve the paper;
1. The gape is not clear neither scientifically supported.
2. The data of 2022 and 2023 can be added if it is available
3. How 135 observations are justified.
4. The results of DII and Integration of digital technologies are quite wage. Please justify it as it has higher division.
5. The results are not validated. just p value is not enough to bring up the final findings.
6. there are few type errors please correct them
7. The abstract must be revised and add the methodology part
8. Conclusion can also be re aligned a bit as there is repeatation.
It is acceptable with some changes
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
On behalf of the entire team of authors, I would like to thank you for your time and valuable advice. I am attaching a pdf file containing comments and recommendations from you, other reviewers, and the academic editor. In the attachment, you will find all modifications, corrections and justifications for the changes that have been made.
Sincerely,
Ms. Lachvajderova
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
Dear Authors
Thanks for the corrected version. The sample size is still not justified logically. How i accept this number based on which logic.
Similarly, your findings are weak because the test you mention for assessment and validation are at border level. Can you justify Table 3. Where there is major deviation shown in findings.
English is acceptable
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
thank you once again for your comments and advice. According to them, we enclose a cover letter with all comments and responses. We believe we understood everything the way you explained and corrections will find you well.
Kind regards,
collective of authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall a very interesting study, I would suggest improving they layout of figures 1-6 as not all labels for EU member states can be seen in the figure. Table 2 is not in English.
In the whole article I would suggest to reduce the number of fractional digits to 2 or 3.
Otherwise the article is well written and the results are in line with previous findings in this field. Perhaps a citation of this article fits in the discussion: Boikova, T.; Zeverte-Rivza, S.; Rivza, P.; Rivza, B. The Determinants and Effects of Competitiveness: The Role of Digitalization in the European Economies. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11689. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111689
Table 2 is not in English.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
first of all, thank you for your valuable comments and advice on the further process of editing our study. I am attaching the revised manuscript based on comments and recommendations from you and other reviewers.
Kind regards,
Collective of authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic of the article is interesting and topical. The authors correctly defined the research problem and hypotheses and verified them. The article uses logical scientific reasoning.
The research is exhaustive, the research material is properly selected.
The authors presented a scientifically exhaustive discussion.
The article can be supplemented with a broader view of the limitations of the conducted research and the formulated conclusions (expand the justification). Indicate in the conclusion further research challenges (expand) in the context of possible crises / realized risks.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
first of all, thank you for your valuable comments and advice on the further process of editing our study. I am attaching the revised manuscript based on comments and recommendations from you and other reviewers.
Kind regards,
Collective of authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The aim of our study was to investigate whether digitalization has an impact on the 475 performance of businesses. The results of such 471 a study could reveal more detailed results and impacts of digitalization on business.
Therefore, a more detailed panel data analysis of 470 SMEs depending on their size could be the subject of future research. The article is a good start.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
first of all, thank you for your valuable comments and advice on the further process of editing our study. I am attaching the revised manuscript based on comments and recommendations from you and other reviewers.
Kind regards,
Collective of authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors
The paper is good and i suggest the following to amend in the paper.
1. Revise the abstract. Cover all key points in it by highlighting the key findings.
2. Add the research flow chart and address it as per the research sequence.
3. The results validation is weak. I suggest running a few more tests on it.
4. Also add the future research direction section.
5. Add the list of the acronyms used in the paper.
There are few in the paper which can be improved.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 4,
first of all, thank you for your valuable comments and advice on the further process of editing our study. I am attaching the revised manuscript based on your comments (points) and recommendations from you and the other 4 reviewers.
We have only one question, specifically regarding your point 5 - Add the list of the acronyms used in the paper.
Given that we do not use a large and diverse sample of acronyms in the text, we believe that our markup is sufficient; in addition, throughout the text, we have indicated the relevant acronyms according to the journal's guidelines, and the most frequently used acronyms are SMEs, EU and DT which are also highly known in the scientific field.
The acronyms used in the research methodology and results sections are acronyms generated by the program used or are otherwise explained in other ways. Based on an overview of conducted similar studies, which do not include any lists of acronyms, we are sure that this list would perhaps make the introduction to the study more clear to the reader, but this overview is shown by studying the manuscript step by step.
Thank you again for your comments and we believe that the re-revision helped our article get closer to the final version of the manuscript.
Kind regards,
Collective of authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
I have a few recommendations:
1. The title should include the level at which the analysis was made, EU-27 and be more explicit, and thus, more powerful.
2. The authors should separate the introduction from the literature review and try to understand their specifics. The introduction is a brief presentation of the paper and the literature review is one that enters into more detail. So, the Literature review would be Section 2 not a subsection of the Introduction which is way too long for what it should be.
3. Table 2 is not entirely in English. Please make the needed corrections.
4. When you mention the software used, add a reference for that—the website or names of the founders. They should have all details on their webpage.
5. You have in many places, including the abstract but also at the end of Results the expression we, first person plural. I recommend rephrasing with more objective expressions such as the present study/paper/research etc.
6. In Line 397 you used the word chapter... it is a paper or article not a chapter.
7. Check the font in the tables, for example, table 10. It is different than that in the text
8. Check the references in the text, for example, lines 459 and 464. You put the brackets at the end of the phrase. If you want to mention authors in the phrase you say something like authors x and y and then you can put the brackets. But writing: Unlike [62, 63], our research... is not correct because the brackets seem like a reference for unlike. So if you keep the structure of the phrase you should write unlike x [62] and y [63], ....
9. In the conclusion, you repeat too much the word We. Try to use other impersonal and objective expressions such as the present study/research and so on. Also, in conclusions, highlight better the practical and theoretical implications of your research to better emphasize the novelty and originality of your paper.
The quality is good. It should be double-checked though for small typo errors.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
first of all, thank you for your valuable comments and advice on the further process of editing our study. I am attaching the revised manuscript based on comments and recommendations from you and other reviewers.
Kind regards,
Collective of authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 5 Report
Dear Authors,
The article is improved. The advice for you in future articles and replies to reviewers is to upload the point-by-point changes you done for each of the comments not to upload the manuscript again because we can see it already. So, something like this. Reviewer 1. Point 1..... Author response Point 1...
Otherwise, it will delay the entire process. Fortunately, I did not have so many comments and I was able to check the paper but think of the fact that each reviewer (sometimes 3 or 4 reviewers) has their own requirements and you put a single manuscript without explaining what you did, briefly, for each of the requirements.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we apologize for the insufficient marking of the manuscript revision based on comments from the reviewers. We are additionally attaching the document with the relevant changes based on all five reviewers. We believe that the re-revision helped our article get closer to the final version of the manuscript.
Best regards,
Collective of the authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
