The Sustainability of Small Industries Thriving across Generation in Rural Areas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors and editors,

I am pleased that I had the opportunity to be a reviewer of a paper whose subject matter I have not had the opportunity to meet often.

The paper is well laid out, and the interview is very useful.

In the paper, it is necessary to add a review of the literature with similar research in your country and abroad.

It would be good to compare the viability of these small industries in your country with similar ones in another country.

Most of these small industries produce food. Would producing something else ensure long-term survival?

Best regards

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We are grateful that you took some of your busy time to review our paper and provide us with invaluable feedback. Our responses to your comments are as follows:

 

1. The paper should include a literature review with similar research in Indonesia and abroad. It would be good to compare the feasibility of this small industry in your country with similar industries in other countries

Response: Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. Some literature with similar research has been added to the Literature Review, The comparison of the feasibility of small industries in Indonesia with other countries is in lines 112-124.

2. Most of these small industries produce food. Will producing something else ensure long-term sustainability?

Response: Thank you for your question. Other studies have found that several factors influence small-scale industries' longevity, including the type of products produced. Products such as crackers and tofu, which Indonesians always consume, tend to survive and have better longevity capabilities.

 

 

For more detailed revisions, we attached the revised version of the article with track changes. Thank you.

 

Regards,

Authors.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

It should be realized that the Journal (as referred in Aims & Scope) does not accept case studies.

Therefore, authors should strive to make the findings relevant to an international audience (rather than local policy makers).

The manuscript has the potential to make a contribution to the journal, but still needs work, particularly on the strong theories of sustainability in small industries. Sustainability differs from performance and stability

The abstract should follow the traditional format: description of the problem and its relevance, research objective, methods, main results and implications for theory and practice.

 

 

Keywords should be optimized for database searches and should not repeat words already used in the title of the article.

 

Introduction:

It seems that most of the references used are new and good.

They should describe some of the problems of the evidence of unsustainability of rural industries. I would suggest that the authors try to integrate some of the industrial sustainability theories into the introduction. Industrial sustainability has remained a weak definition, which is an imitation of the original definition of sustainable development. The current literature review can be used, but try to focus only on a sustainability indicators that are most prominent, not performance indicators.

RRA is a methodology, not a literature review.

The introduction should end with a statement of the research gap, not the purpose of the study.

Try to think about what is the most relevant information about the case study that readers should know now and what can add this value for international readers. Try to think about what the most relevant information about the case study is that the readers should now and what can add that benefit for the international readers

Materials and methods

Does the research follow a mixed methodology or two independent phases? What are the contributions of the research?

How many people were in the focus group?

How to combine indicators in the quantitative section is not specified.

Some sentences have errors and word flow and grammar are incorrect, please check.

What was your strategy regarding different scales of indicators in the quantitative phase?

What was your strategy for different weighting of indicators?

 

Findings:

 

You have used a variable instead of an index, a variable is not valid in measuring sustainability but it should be converted into an index.

The clarity of the figures is unfavorable.

The conclusion is not coherent and weak.

Academic suggestions based on the results should be given

 

In general, the manuscript could also benefit from proofreading and improvement of grammar and language.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We are grateful that you took some of your busy time to review our paper and provide us with invaluable feedback. Our responses to your comments are as follows:

 

1. Abstracts should follow the traditional format: description of the problem and its relevance, research objectives, methods, primary results, and implications for theory and practice.

 

Response:

Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. We have revised the abstract based on your feedback.

 

2. They should describe some of the issues of evidence of the unsustainability of rural industries. I suggest the authors integrate some industrial sustainability theories into the introduction.

 

Response:

Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. We have added industrial sustainability theory in the introduction on lines 53-62.

 

3. RRA is a methodology, not a literature review.

Response:

Thank you for the feedback from the reviewer; we have revised it according to the reviewer's suggestion.

 

4. The introduction should end with a statement of the research gap, not the research objectives.

Response:

Thank you for the feedback from the reviewer; we have revised it per the reviewer's suggestion.

 

5. Does the study follow a mixed methodology or two independent phases?

Response:

The study collected both qualitative and quantitative data, where qualitative data was used to strengthen the quantitative findings.

 

6. How many people were in the FGD group?

Response:

114 participants were involved in the FGDs; information has been added to the manuscript.

 

7. How to combine indicators in the quantitative section is not specified.

Response:

We have added indicators for the quantitative section as suggested by the reviewer

 

8. What is your strategy regarding the different scales of indicators in the quantitative phase?

Response:

We have added the scales and weights in the method as suggested by the reviewer, namely using the Mode, because the research data used is nominal and ordinal data.

 

9. You have used variables instead of indices; variables are not valid in measuring sustainability but should be converted into indices.

Response:

Thank you for the suggestion from the reviewer; we have revised some of the variables that were not appropriate and replaced them with an index. The index was compiled based on the applicable sustainability index in Indonesia compiled by BAPENAS, which still refers to the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI).

 

10. Academic advice based on the results should be given

Response:

Thank you for the feedback from the reviewer. We have added academic advice based on the reviewer's feedback.

 

For more detailed revisions, we attached the revised version of the article with track changes. Thank you.

 

Regards,

Authors.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic is very interesting and extremely important for countries that want to keep a younger population in rural areas

In Introduction, a map of the researched area should be included.

In the tables, the value in local currency is indicated everywhere. Considering the wide readership, these values will not mean much to many if they are not explained in relation to some recognizable currencies, such as the Euro or the US dollar.

In the tables where there is a possibility (Table No. 1), values in other currencies can be stated. In other tables, in the text below, and in the discussion, international currencies can also be mentioned.

Since the results are for 2018 and 2019, perhaps the changes due to Covid 19 would be mentioned in part of the discussion. In addition, the impact of Covid 19 should be reviewed in future work.

Expand the conclusion and improved it.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We are grateful that you took some of your busy time to review our paper and provide us with invaluable feedback. Our responses to your comments are as follows:

 

1. In the table, values in local currency are shown everywhere. Considering the large number of readers, these values will not mean much to many people if they are not explained in some recognizable currency, such as the Euro or the US dollar.

Response:

Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. We have added currency conversion information (1 US Dollar = 14,050 rupiah) in the current research year (2020-2021).

 

2. Since the results are for 2018 and 2019, perhaps the changes due to Covid 19 will be mentioned in the discussion section. Also, the impact of Covid 19 should be reviewed in future work.

Response:

Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. As per your suggestion, we have added empirical data related to the possible impact of Covid 19 in our discussion in lines 432-439

 

3. Expand the conclusion and improve it.

Response:

We have revised and expanded the conclusion as per the reviewer's suggestion.

 

 

For more detailed revisions, we attached the revised version of the article with track changes. Thank you.

 

Regards,

Authors.

Reviewer 4 Report

1.      The research has interesting and valid findings, and is well written and succinctly presented.

2.      The empirical part is well developed.

3.      The article opens up many issues and should focus on its primary research question.

4.      The authors should mention and explain the policy implications of their work.

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We are grateful that you took some of your busy time to review our paper and provide us with invaluable feedback. Our responses to your comments are as follows:

 

1. In the table, values in local currency are shown everywhere. Considering the large The authors should mention and explain the policy implications of their work.

Response: Thank you for the reviewer's feedback. We have added the policy implications per your suggestion in the conclusion section (line 469-473, 846-847, 893-900)

 

For more detailed revisions, we attached the revised version of the article with track changes. Thank you.

 

Regards,

Authors.

Reviewer 5 Report

This research provides numerous interesting insights. However, some necessary adjustments are required. In the following, you will find two helpful suggestions:

Point 1: The research, carried out from August 2020 to February 2021, utilized data that is now almost 3 years old. Therefore, its accuracy in reflecting the current sustainability status of small industries may be questionable.

Point 2: The research findings presented are not specific enough as the author has relied solely on generalizations. This approach is inadequate and does not provide a definitive basis for the reported findings. E.g.

Findings 1:

Findings 2:

 

Findings 3:

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We are grateful that you took some of your busy time to review our paper and provide us with invaluable feedback. Our responses to your comments are as follows:

 

1. The study, conducted from August 2020 to February 2021, utilized data that is now almost 3 years old. Therefore, its accuracy in reflecting the current sustainability status of small industries can be questioned.

 

Response:

Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. This study utilized the last three years of data owned by the company. The unavailability of company data makes data collection limited. However, based on the results of previous research that we conducted at the same place, related to the history of the development of small industries that survived three generations, it was found that when the second and third generations held the company, the company experienced involution (which was shown by the declining performance). It is strongly recommended for future research to use empirical data for a longer period than this study.

 

2. The research findings presented are not specific enough, as the authors only rely on generalizations.

 

Response:

Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. This research is a case study, as stated in the limitations of this research, that the findings cannot be generalized but only apply to the research site. For the development of future research, a quantitative approach through surveys will be needed to sharpen the discussion related to sustainability in small industries.

 

 

For more detailed revisions, we attached the revised version of the article with track changes. Thank you.

 

Regards,

Authors.