The Preference of Inter-Organizational Trust on Corporate Benefit-Seeking Behaviors: A Mechanisms-Based and Policy-Capturing Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Please re-arrange and re-structure the manuscript considering writing flaws. Please arrange all sections, headings, result presentations etc. according to the journal’s guide, as well as, provide tables and regarding content prepared in an understandable way and in the same format.
2. The respondent audience is very limited to enlighten such a DM dependent problem which was handled by the authors. The audience has to be enlarged and all calculations should be re-performed accordingly.
3. On what basis the sample width was determined should be clarified and presented in details to the readers. Please perform a literature research on this topic and if necessary on sample size determination techniques, and also, verify the suitability of the sample size determined and used for the study by basing it on reliable studies in the literature.
4. The demographics of the respondent audience has to be presented in the manuscript to reflect the homogeneity of the analyzed group. Please prepare and append a table to do so.
5. On what basis the statistical analyze techniques were selected to be applied in the study? Please perform adequate literature research and support this choice on literature research results and studies proven to be valid.
The English and writing of the paper should be enhanced. Authors are recommended to review and re-structure their manuscript adhering to the journal's guide for authors.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your extremely professional and meticulous suggestions.We have responded and improved according to your suggestions and comments, please see the "Response to Reviewer 1 Comment" section in the attachment for details.
Sincerely,
Best Regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The current research article examined an analytical framework that recognized the relationships between partners differ on two fundamental dimensions, namely, calculative trust and relational trust. Considering the importance of this topic, the literature review of the manuscript could be extended further, and this manuscript could become well-structured further to be more engaging for the reader. Noteworthy attention should also be given to the results, discussion, and conclusion sections. The further comments are as follows:
1. The title can be modified as: “The preference of inter-organizational trust on corporate benefit-seeking behavior: A mechanisms-based and policy-capturing analysis”.
2. Briefly explain the subsections of 3.
3. Please attach the measurement items in the appendix.
4. Results section is very lengthy. It would be more appropriate if it could be divided into different subsections.
5. Please add Table 4 to the text.
6. The discussion section tends to sound rather like a theoretical and practical contribution section. In the discussion section, you need to discuss why you have achieved these findings and support your findings by referring to previous studies.
7. In the conclusion, please restate the research question or problem and briefly summarize the main findings. Discuss the significance of the results and their implications for the field. Highlight the original contributions of the study and how it advances knowledge in the field. Identify any limitations of the study and suggest directions for future research. It is important to keep the conclusion concise and focused, avoiding repetition of information already presented in the article. The conclusion should provide a clear and satisfying closure to the article, leaving the reader with a sense of the importance and relevance of the research. Please avoid using many question marks in the conclusion.
8. The current submission requires proofreading, as some incomplete, repetitive, and unclear sentences hinder demonstrating the importance of the work. I highlighted some concerns about the English language in the file attached.
9. For other corrections, please refer to the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The current submission requires proofreading, as some incomplete, repetitive, and unclear sentences hinder demonstrating the importance of the work. I highlighted some concerns about the English language in the file attached.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your extremely professional and meticulous suggestions.We have responded and improved according to your suggestions and comments, please see the "Response to Reviewer 2 Comment" section in the attachment for details.
Sincerely,
Best Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article presents significant research on effects of different types of inter-organization trust on cooperation and firms' benefit-seeking behaviour. The research tests several hypotheses, which are elaborated using theoretical background. The research design is logical. The research findings demonstrate novelty in terms of different kinds of trust and their effects on behavioural strategies of firms. The authors demonstrate deep knowledge and interest in the theme. The research results provide basis for further studies and elaboration of guidance for managerial policies devoted to firms' cooperation choices.
In the reviewer’s mind, it is possible to recommend some improvements:
1) In the Abstract and Introduction, the authors highlight that the choice of organizational benefit behaviour affects sustainability of cooperation. Although, later in the article, the authors do not discuss and present the issues on sustainability in the sections Literature and Results. For example, see p. 1 – in Abstract: “…the choice of organizational benefit behavior profoundly affects the sustainability of cooperation”; in Introduction: “The relationship between the two kinds of benefits behavior will profoundly affect the sustainability of inter-organizational cooperation”. In the authors’ mind, which kind of trust is more/less beneficial for sustainable cooperation? This answer is not provided in clear manner.
2) Page 11 – the authors write: “At the individual level, we controlled for work experience (measured in years), gender and managerial position (categorized as low, middle, and top management). Additionally, at the firm level, we controlled for the firm's nature, industry affiliation, and size.” The mentioned characteristics of respondents are not discussed in Results and Conclusions. It is recommended to explain research findings in the context of work experience, gender, managerial position, firms’ nature, industry affiliation.
3) The content of questionnaire is not available in Appendix. The time, when questionnaire was organised is not indicated. The mentioned issues reduce readability of results.
4) It is recommended to proofread the text. One can see typos. Line numbers are not provided, and it is difficult to indicate precisely all typo in the text. Some examples, p. 2, line 26 – dot is necessary before word ‘Additionally’; p. 11, line 2 in section Results – symbol % is not indicated after 47; p.14, line 7 from the bottom – word Due has to be written with small letter; p.15, line 28 – dot after word ‘behaviors’ is not necessary; p.16, line 6 – word ‘what’ has to be written with capital letter; etc.
5) The authors mix terms – for example, they use calculative trust and computational trust.
In the section Comments and Suggestions for Authors the reviewer indicated on several typos with examples on the certain pages. The text need proofread.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your extremely professional and meticulous suggestions.We have responded and improved according to your suggestions and comments, please see the "Response to Reviewer 3 Comment" section in the attachment for details.
Sincerely,
Best Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
- The scientific work is well documented and carefully written.
The problem that needs to be solved, in my opinion, refers to finding a way to explain better, in more detail, table 1 and table 2 and figure 2.
The research can make major contributions in the addressed field, but I believe that what was written above should be carried out and detailed.
- a second suggestion is to expand the conclusions and highlight more concretely "what are the future research directions"
- Please check the forms in English, mainly those of a purely technical nature
Author Response
Thank you very much for your extremely professional and meticulous suggestions.We have responded and improved according to your suggestions and comments, please see the "Response to Reviewer 4 Comment" section in the attachment for details.
Sincerely,
Best Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors performed all of the the suggestions to improve the quality and scientific base of their study and it is well-appreciated. The English of the paper could be enhanced, but not mandatory to be done.
The English of the paper could be enhanced, but not mandatory to be done.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your extremely professional and meticulous suggestions.We have responded and improved according to your suggestions and comments, please see the "Response to Reviewer 1 Comment" section in the attachment for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for the modifications.
Please consider the following comments:
1. The title can be modified as: “The preference of inter-organizational trust on corporate benefit-seeking behavior: A mechanisms-based and policy-capturing analysis”. Take into account ":" after the behavior, please.
2. The explanation for the subsections of 3 has become lengthy. Please make it shorter (less than 5 lines). Please just mention section 3 consists of what subsections.
3. Point 4 which is about attaching the measurement items has not been addressed correctly. Measurement items are questions for measuring constructs they intend for. Please also add the references that you have taken the measurement items for each construct. What I can see is the definition of the constructs that I have not asked for. Please double-check.
4. It is better to separate the discussion and conclusion sections as the current form sounds somewhat unclear and lengthy.
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your extremely professional and meticulous suggestions.We have responded and improved according to your suggestions and comments, please see the "Response to Reviewer 2 Comment" section in the attachment for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
