Sustainable Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises: A Developed Model of Entrepreneurial Marketing Behaviors for Thailand’s MSMEs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please find attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the following revisions in the attached document:

1. Remove the dates from abstract (resolved - please see abstract page)
2. The methodology should be given in detail (resolved - please see method page)
3. After methodology, the results should be discussed and, in the end, 2-3 implications can enhance the attractiveness of the research (resolved)

• Introduction section revise as to highlight the research significance
• Methodology (resolved)
• LR (resolved, including the emphasize on the gap and additional references)
• Result and analysis (resolved)
• Discussion modified and expanded

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I read the article and have a few suggestions for the authors: 

- the word hypothesis in line 257 is used improperly. If there is a hypothesis then it should be verified by statistical tests whether it is true or not. I suggest that this word should be replaced by objectives or other wording. Furthermore, below the phrasing in H1-H5 looks more like research objectives than hypothesis.

- H1-H5 are defined too generally, I suggest the authors to individualize the objectives on their study. 

- The research methodology is not very well defined. The reader does not understand what steps are to be followed. 

- Is the sample of 600 respondents (511 valid responses) representative? What is the total population from which it was drawn? What mathematical formula did the authors use to select the representative sample? 

- Were the questions in the questionnaire taken from the literature or created by the authors? 

- The linear regression model is not used for hypothesis testing. It is used for data recorded over periods of time and provides equation-based forecasts for future times. It is not clear whether or not this questionnaire has run over time, it is not clear from the article. So hypothesis testing should be done using another type of analysis. 

-Table 1 contains cronbach alpha values greater than 1. The literature says that these values should be less than 1. Are you sure they are correctly reproduced from SPSS? Furthermore, the authors did not specify what those values mean, there is no reference in the text to Table 1.

- I suggest the authors don't stop with the study just checking some hypotheses and apply other data mining techniques on the collected data to find hidden information in the data. In the methodology they mentioned something about factor analysis, I encourage them to apply it and find latent factors in the data which they can then use to perform the much discussed regression. 

- References contains quite old sources. I suggest authors to bring current sources, from the last 2-3 years, so that their study is based on the latest findings in the area.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Please find attached revisions on:

• research method
• Cronbach alpha values revision
• Validation of respondent 
• Revision of the linear regression mode for hypothesis testing
• research survey created by the the authors, and referring available theoretical underpinning
• As well as updating the current related references

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

aPLEASE UPDATE LITERATURE IS QUITE OLD, THJE METHODOLOGY CHOSEN ISNT JUSTIFIED, THE CONCLUSIONS ARE REALLY POOR THEY HAVE TO BE DEVELOPED. THE PAPER TOUCHES UPON ASN INTERESTING TOPIC , BUT IS POORLY PRESENTED

PLS CONSULT A PROOF READER

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Please find the revisions on:

1. Justification of methodology
2. The update on literature review
3. As well as the elaboration on the conclusion

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

1. The main question addressed by the research

The authors of the study strive to develop a model/framework of entrepreneurial marketing behaviors for sustainable MSMEs in Thailand which can be used for future research in this area, particularly after economic turbulence. However, it does not become clear if the authors will investigate entrepreneurial marketing behavior of sustainable MSMEs or sustainable entrepreneurial marketing behavior.

Introduction section should be improved. The title of the Paragraph 1.1. is quite broadly defined and it doesn’t correspond to the text. The meaning of the title and the content of Paragraph 1.2. is not clear – is it about the policy of the MSMEs or about the policy toward MSMEs?

I suggest the numbers which are presented in Thai currency (Baht) to be shown in braskets and to be converted to USD or EUR to be more understandable by the international readers.

2. Topic originality and relevance to the field

The topic is original and relevant to the field, but it is not presented in a coherent and logical way.

The framework presented on Figure 1 doesn’t show any original aspects of the research topic. Literature review section covers different concepts and theories without well-defined justification of their contribution to the topic.

3. Research methodology

The research methodology is presented in a cluttered way. Theoretical framework presented on Figure 2 doesn’t represent the research model. The constructs and concepts are not operationalized properly. Research hypotheses are vaguely defined focusing on understanding of how to implement authors’ propositions. A research hypothesis is a specific, clear, and testable proposition or predictive statement about the possible outcome of a scientific research study.

The duration of field work is 10 months. I can accept such a duration for an experiment but not for a survey. Selected methods for statistical analysis should be justified, especially the choice of linear regression analysis.

4. Consistency of conclusions

Conclusions must be improved to correspond to the research results and to provide clear implications.

5. References

The references are appropriate although some seminal scientific works on sustainable and entrepreneurial marketing are missing.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

English language proof reading should be done.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Please kindly find:

1. The main question addressed by the research (resolved)
2. Topic originality and relevance to the field (explained further in the introduction section)
3. Research methodology (revised)
4. Conclusion expanded 
5. References updated

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear Authors,

Authors should consider extending the content to include:

- a discussion that should be more in-depth in the context of the research presented and, if possible, related to the existing ones. You can also look at it in a global context.

- conclusions that are too general and definitely too short, they should be deepened, also in the context of the research problem of the article.

- In the bibliography, expand what these footnotes are by giving the full name.

1. “world bank 2020”.

2. “world bank 2021”.

In item 3 in the bibliography, he erroneously doi.

doi: 10.0.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Please find the following revision:

1. Discussion (expanded further)
2. Conclusion (expanded further)
3. Bibliography corrected

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

References contains quite old sources. I suggest authors to bring current sources, from the last 2-3 years, so that their study is based on the latest findings in the area.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find the revision for updated literature related to the studies. Manuscript sub-topic 2.5 and the references (86-92) indicate the development of literature suggested. Thank you 

Best,

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Well done!

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

I really appreciate your constructive feedbacks on my manuscript.

Thank you and regards, 

-Ahmad SYAH (Corresponding author)

Reviewer 4 Report

I don't have any further comments.

One final spellcheck  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find the manuscript with final spellcheck in the attachment. 

Best,

Ahmad

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear Authors,

You took my comments into consideration.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

I really appreciate your constructive feedbacks on my manuscript.

Thank you and regards, 

-Ahmad SYAH (Corresponding author)