Examining the Impact of Internationalization and Competitive Advantages on Enterprise Performance in Taiwan’s Computer Numerical Control Machine Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have several concerns regarding this paper as follows:

Please add a table to report variable, their measurements and related citations. It is difficult to read through the lines and find relevant proxies.

In multicolinearity results, table 3, please add mean VIF value as well.

I couldn’t find the scale developed in whole paper. Please add the scale for measuring industrial environment. Your variable measurements are confusing. Whether quantitative proxies are used for competitive advantage and industrial environment or scales are developed? Please share more information on this. Dis you applied mixed method approach? Please elaborate?

Discussion section is very weak; I hardly find any references in support justifying your results. If not, one should discuss the results in oppose. Please add researches supporting/opposing your findings and their possible justifications.

Authors reported three distinct theories in introduction section. How can you prove their interaction in one model? I would rather recommend building your story on one theory and its interaction with others can be reported in results and discussion section.

Authors are advised to add a research framework as a diagram/figure to bring more clarity. Further, add some robustness checks. I will recommend applying adding structural equation modeling (SEM) on this data. However, any dynamic model could be more interesting. However, authors may choose some appropriate alternate.

 Please also add another section at the end after conclusion for research implications.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Needs improvement

Author Response

Dear Reviewers

 

Thank you for your letter dated 10 Oct 2022. We were pleased to know that our work was rated as potentially acceptable for publication in a journal, subject to adequate revision. We thank the reviewers for the time and effort they have put into reviewing the previous version of the manuscript. Their suggestions have enabled us to improve our work. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. I have a point-by-point response to the comments raised by the reviewers. We hope that the revised manuscript will be accepted for publication in Sustainability.

 

Sincerely,

Tzu-Wen,Chen

 

 

• Please add a table to report variable, their measurements and related citations. It is difficult to read through the lines and find relevant proxies.

 

Response (1) The relevant variables for this study are stated in lines 351 to 409.

 

• In multicolinearity results, table 3, please add mean VIF value as well.

 

Response (2) The Mean has been added to Table 3.

 

• I couldn’t find the scale developed in whole paper. Please add the scale for measuring industrial environment. Your variable measurements are confusing. Whether quantitative proxies are used for competitive advantage and industrial environment or scales are developed? Please share more information on this. Dis you applied mixed method approach? Please elaborate?

 

Response (3) The development of this research is through rigorous research and statistical methods. Through the literature review process, we found relevant past research literature to support our article.

Regarding the assessment of competitive advantages and industrial scale, since it involves the business secrets of each company, we have individually explored the public business data of each company, and asked the subjects to check the non-public items of individual companies in the questionnaire as the basis for research and evaluation.

• Discussion section is very weak; I hardly find any references in support justifying your results. If not, one should discuss the results in oppose. Please add researches supporting/opposing your findings and their possible justifications.

Response (4)

We have revised the literature review section.

 

(5)   Authors reported three distinct theories in introduction section. How can you prove their interaction in one model? I would rather recommend building your story on one theory and its interaction with others can be reported in results and discussion section.

 

Response (5)

This research is not about developing a "model". We are using statistical methods to explore the individual relationships between an enterprise's degree of internationalization, competitive advantage and business performance.

 

 

 

(6)  Authors are advised to add a research framework as a diagram/figure to bring more clarity. Further, add some robustness checks. I will recommend applying adding structural equation modeling (SEM) on this data. However, any dynamic model could be more interesting. However, authors may choose some appropriate alternate.

Response (6)

Our future research will incorporate the reviewers' suggestions and the statistical method of (SEM) to make the research more interesting.

 

(7) Please also add another section at the end after conclusion for research implications.

 

 

Response (7) We revised the conclusion section based on the reviewers' suggestions.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have gone through the article "Research on the Impact of Internationalization and Competi-2 tive Advantages of Taiwan's CNC Machine Industry on Busi-3 ness Performance, Taking the Industrial Environment as a 4 Moderating Variable". This is an interesting topic that is closely related to the scope of Sustainability. However, the manuscript should be improved in the following areas.

 

1. Introduction

(1)   The author must point out the problems encountered by enterprises in the real world.

(2)   Authors must state existing literature on such real-world problems。

(3)   Please improve the introduction to be clearly stated research questions and targets first.

(4)   The authors must still emphasize the originality and the motivations of the study.

 

 

2.Literature Review

(1)   Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?

(2)   During the last 5 to 10 years, we have published several papers that may help you strengthen your arguments and deepen your analyses.

(3)   This section is necessary for you to clarify the "contribution" of your study.

(4)  To distinguish this paper from the existing literature, it is important to establish comparative table that explicitly shows the main differences between the paper and the relevant existing literature in the literature review section.

 

 

3. Methodology

(1)   Do you have any other methods to verify the validity of the proposed method?

(2)   Please provide the basis for your hypothesis.

 

 

6. Conclusion

(1)   Please make sure your conclusions' section underscores the scientific value-added of your paper, hardly allows the reader to appreciate the value of their results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewers

 

Thank you for your letter dated 10 Oct 2022. We were pleased to know that our work was rated as potentially acceptable for publication in a journal, subject to adequate revision. We thank the reviewers for the time and effort they have put into reviewing the previous version of the manuscript. Their suggestions have enabled us to improve our work. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. I have a point-by-point response to the comments raised by the reviewers. We hope that the revised manuscript will be accepted for publication in Sustainability.

 

Sincerely,

Tzu-Wen,Chen

 

 

1. Introduction

 

(1)   The author must point out the problems encountered by enterprises in the real world.

(2)   Authors must state existing literature on such real-world problems。

(3)   Please improve the introduction to be clearly stated research questions and targets first.

(4)   The authors must still emphasize the originality and the motivations of the study.

 

Response (1)

Thank you for the reviewers' comments. We have significantly revised the introduction of the article based on the reviewers' comments.

 

2.Literature Review

 

(1)   Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?

(2)   During the last 5 to 10 years, we have published several papers that may help you strengthen your arguments and deepen your analyses.

(3)   This section is necessary for you to clarify the "contribution" of your study.

 

(4)  To distinguish this paper from the existing literature, it is important to establish comparative table that explicitly shows the main differences between the paper and the relevant existing literature in the literature review section.

 

Response :Thank you for the reviewers' comments. We have significantly revised the literature review part of the article based on the reviewers' comments. The revised part includes citing the appropriate range of literature sources and adding citations and displays of new sustainability journals. Mine differences between this article and relevant existing literature.

 

3. Methodology

 

(1)   Do you have any other methods to verify the validity of the proposed method?

(2)   Please provide the basis for your hypothesis.

 

Response : This study mainly collects relevant research data through questionnaires and data analysis, and then uses scientific methods such as expert review and statistics to support our arguments.

 

The literature review of the research hypothesis and relevant supporting arguments are in lines 152 and 202.

 

6. Conclusion

(1)   Please make sure your conclusions' section underscores the scientific value-added of your paper, hardly allows the reader to appreciate the value of their results.

 

Response :We revised the conclusion section based on the reviewers' suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors aim to fill the gap regarding the role internationalization plays in improving business performance in Taiwan’s firms. The paper is, generally, well written. Despite it, I have several comments that could improve the quality of the study. Overall, the paper is interesting and contributes to the current state of the knowledge. However, there is a need to incorporate comments below.

The introduction should define the research question, and contributions of the study.

What is meant by the interference variable (line 253)? Is that a moderating variable or something else? Looking at Hypothesis 4, I would conclude that it is a moderating variable, that is, the interaction term between internationalization and business operation ability is included in model 3 in Table 4. Also how is business ability measured?

Hypotheses should be related to the discussion in the literature review. Each hypothesis should be preceded by the discussion that will lead to its formulation. Also that discussion should mention previous empirical studies that examined the same or a similar hypothesis and their findings.

What is meant by interaction in Table 4?

Looking at Table 4, the first column should show independent variables, while each column at the top should state the dependent variable, which is ROA in this study. Also, independent enterprises, enterprise size and enterprise debt ratio are control variables, not the dependent variable.

The discussion section should relate the findings in relation to four hypotheses and compared them to previous studies.

The concluding section should briefly summarize the findings of the study and discuss the implication of the study, whether policy or managerial implications or both.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is good.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers

 

Thank you for your letter dated 10 Oct 2022. We were pleased to know that our work was rated as potentially acceptable for publication in a journal, subject to adequate revision. We thank the reviewers for the time and effort they have put into reviewing the previous version of the manuscript. Their suggestions have enabled us to improve our work. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. I have a point-by-point response to the comments raised by the reviewers. We hope that the revised manuscript will be accepted for publication in Sustainability.

 

Sincerely,

Tzu-Wen,Chen

 

1.The introduction should define the research question, and contributions of the study.

Response: Thank you for the reviewers' comments. We have significantly revised the introduction of the article based on the reviewers' comments.

 

2.What is meant by the interference variable (line 253)? Is that a moderating variable or something else? Looking at Hypothesis 4, I would conclude that it is a moderating variable, that is, the interaction term between internationalization and business operation ability is included in model 3 in Table 4. Also how is business ability measured?

Response: It has a regulating effect between the independent variable and the strain variable. Adjustment changes in the study. Corporate performance refers to each company's online public information and the turnover evaluation items in the questionnaire.

 

3.Hypotheses should be related to the discussion in the literature review. Each hypothesis should be preceded by the discussion that will lead to its formulation. Also that discussion should mention previous empirical studies that examined the same or a similar hypothesis and their findings.

Response: The discussion of research hypotheses is mentioned in the literature review, and our research hypotheses are also compiled from the literature review.

 

 

 

4.What is meant by interaction in Table 4?

Response: Statistical data showing whether there is an impact on the relationship between independent variables and dependent variables or interference variables.

 

5.Looking at Table 4, the first column should show independent variables, while each column at the top should state the dependent variable, which is ROA in this study. Also, independent enterprises, enterprise size and enterprise debt ratio are control variables, not the dependent variable.

Response: It has been revised according to the reviewers' comments.

 

6.The discussion section should relate the findings in relation to four hypotheses and compared them to previous studies.

Response: It has been revised according to the reviewers' comments.

 

7.The concluding section should briefly summarize the findings of the study and discuss the implication of the study, whether policy or managerial implications or both.

Response : It has been revised according to the reviewers' comments.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I reviewed this article in detail. I think there are a lot of improvements required in this manuscript. You can see my comments below:

The title is too long. It must be short and impressive with the core theme of the article.

What is the CNC machine industry? The abstract looks like an introduction. It must be compressed with the key information, objective, methodology, results, conclusion, and theoretical and practical contributions.

The introduction section looks like a commentary. The Introduction section reveals no novelty, gap, or research questions/objectives. The authors must emphasize the research gap, Like what has been done before? What is the current research progress on the topic? Why are you conducting this study? What would be theoretical and managerial contributions? I urge the authors to restructure the introduction by highlighting the novelty, the gap, and the intended research contributions with the recent literature support. The 5 Ws must be followed in the introduction section. The introduction section is short of references.

The literature support is weak. The authors just explained the theories without discussing previous research's impact on various industries. Why used these theories? Any justifications? The literature does not highlight the gap.

The authors must propose a model with the proposed hypotheses. The hypotheses must be developed with the theory support.  

The methodology section lacks references and misses important information, such as the research approach and intended methodology. Why was the proposed methodology used? What was the language of instrument development?

What was the sampling technique? Methods of data collection, which media used, and how to get data from intended respondents. How did you approach the intended respondents?

How are measures adopted/adapted from previous studies? What were the items? Which Likert scales were used?

The Discussion and Conclusion section is weak and requires more improvements as per the following comments:

The results discussions are weak. It is unclear which results contribute to which theoretical stream and how you position your study's results, generally the existing studies.

What are the theoretical and managerial implications of this study?

Overall, a lot of improvements are required in this manuscript. I don’t think the current version is suitable for publication. Good luck

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers

 

Thank you for your letter dated 10 Oct 2022. We were pleased to know that our work was rated as potentially acceptable for publication in a journal, subject to adequate revision. We thank the reviewers for the time and effort they have put into reviewing the previous version of the manuscript. Their suggestions have enabled us to improve our work. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. I have a point-by-point response to the comments raised by the reviewers. We hope that the revised manuscript will be accepted for publication in Sustainability.

 

Sincerely,

Tzu-Wen,Chen ph.D

 

The title is too long. It must be short and impressive with the core theme of the article.

Re:

The title of this article has been chosen in the most concise way.

 

What is the CNC machine industry? The abstract looks like an introduction. It must be compressed with the key information, objective, methodology, results, conclusion, and theoretical and practical contributions.

Re: Computer numerical control is an industry that has been developed for 100 years. It is an important technology in the mechanical industry and affects our daily lives.

This is a rigorous research process. There are statistical scientific methods to support the researcher's arguments.

 

The introduction section looks like a commentary. The Introduction section reveals no novelty, gap, or research questions/objectives. The authors must emphasize the research gap, Like what has been done before? What is the current research progress on the topic? Why are you conducting this study? What would be theoretical and managerial contributions? I urge the authors to restructure the introduction by highlighting the novelty, the gap, and the intended research contributions with the recent literature support. The 5 Ws must be followed in the introduction section. The introduction section is short of references.

Re: Thank you for the reviewers' comments. We will also make modifications based on the reviewers' comments.

The literature support is weak. The authors just explained the theories without discussing previous research's impact on various industries. Why used these theories? Any justifications? The literature does not highlight the gap.

 

Re: Relevant research hypotheses have been adjusted and revised in the literature review chapter.

 

The authors must propose a model with the proposed hypotheses. The hypotheses must be developed with the theory support. 

Re: Thank you for the reviewers' comments. We will also make modifications based on the reviewers' comments.

 

The methodology section lacks references and misses important information, such as the research approach and intended methodology. Why was the proposed methodology used? What was the language of instrument development?

Re: This article is based on rigorous statistical research methods, supported by literature review and scientific statistical processes.

 

What was the sampling technique? Methods of data collection, which media used, and how to get data from intended respondents. How did you approach the intended respondents?

Re: Information about sampling technique is detailed in 3. Methodology.

 

How are measures adopted/adapted from previous studies? What were the items? Which Likert scales were used?

It has been revised according to the reviewers' comments. Information about sampling technique is detailed in 3. Methodology.

We don't have use the Likert scales.

 

The Discussion and Conclusion section is weak and requires more improvements as per the following comments:

Re: It has been revised according to the reviewers' comments.

 

The results discussions are weak. It is unclear which results contribute to which theoretical stream and how you position your study's results, generally the existing studies.

Re: It has been revised according to the reviewers' comments.

 

What are the theoretical and managerial implications of this study?

Re: The theory of this study has been clearly stated in the literature review.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have not adequately responded to our recommended changes. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor changes needed

Author Response

Authors have not adequately responded to our recommended changes.

 

Re:

We have made careful revisions based on the seven suggestions from the reviewers' preliminary review. Thank you for your second review and guidance. Additionally, we have added and corrected the content from the first review.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

none

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

 

Thanks for your review and guidance.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comments are addressed at a satisfactory level. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is good, minor editing is needed. 

Author Response

My comments are addressed at a satisfactory level.

 

Re:

Thanks for your review and guidance.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the authors' efforts, but still, I think a lot of work is required to improve this manuscript. You can see my comments below:

The title is still too long. It must be short and impressive with the core theme of the article.

The CNC machine industry must be clarified in the abstract. The abstract is too long. It must be compressed with the key information, objective, methodology, results, conclusion, and theoretical and practical contributions (with a maximum of 250 words).

The authors added a new paragraph at the start of the introduction section without quoting any references. Is it your own finding? How do you validate these arguments?

The Introduction section does not reveal novelty, gap, and research questions/objectives. The authors must emphasize the research gap, Like what has been done before? What is the current research progress on the topic? Why are you conducting this study? What would be theoretical and managerial contributions? I urge the authors to restructure the introduction by highlighting the novelty, the gap, and the intended research contributions with the recent literature support. The 5 Ws must be followed in the introduction section. The introduction section is short of references.

The literature support is weak. The authors explained the theories without discussing previous research's impact on various industries. Why used these theories? Any justifications? The literature does not highlight the gap.

The authors must propose a model with the proposed hypotheses. The hypotheses must be developed with the theory support. 

The methodology section lacks references and misses important information, such as the research approach and intended methodology. Why was the proposed method used? What was the language of instrument development?

What was the sampling technique? Methods of data collection, which media used, and how to get data from intended respondents. How did you approach the intended respondents?

How are measures adopted/adapted from previous studies? What were the items? Which Likert scales were used?

The results discussions are weak. It is unclear which results contribute to which theoretical stream and how you position your study's results, generally the existing studies. The conclusion section is short of references.

What are the theoretical and managerial implications of this study?

Overall, a lot of improvements are required in this manuscript. I don't think the current version is suitable for publication. Good luck

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

(1) The title is still too long. It must be short and impressive with the core theme of the article.

Re:

We have corrected the title and it is as shown in the title after the correction. As line2,3.

 

(2) The CNC machine industry must be clarified in the abstract. The abstract is too long. It must be compressed with the key information, objective, methodology, results, conclusion, and theoretical and practical contributions (with a maximum of 250 words).

 

Re:

We have revised the introduction based on the reviewers' comments.

 

(3) The authors added a new paragraph at the start of the introduction section without quoting any references. Is it your own finding? How do you validate these arguments?

 

Re:

The introduction is the author's comprehensive discussion of this article, which is conceptual. In the literature review, we focus on the literature in the next paragraph.

 

 

(4) The literature support is weak. The authors explained the theories without discussing previous research's impact on various industries. Why used these theories? Any justifications? The literature does not highlight the gap.

Re:

We employ this theory in our literature review to proactively investigate the influence of internationalization and corporate strategies on business operations. Our research initiative drives our exploration of these issues, rather than relying solely on the literature review to uncover them.

 

 

(5) The authors must propose a model with the proposed hypotheses. The hypotheses must be developed with the theory support.

 

Re: The model with the proposed hypotheses shown as fig1.

 

(6) The methodology section lacks references and misses important information, such as the research approach and intended methodology. Why was the proposed method used? What was the language of instrument development?

Re:

We conducted a literature review based on the research method and selected Taiwan's CNC industry as the research sample. The research tool was a questionnaire survey using a five-point Likert scale. The questionnaire included the operating status and operating conditions of the company. We have These data are compiled using rigorous statistical methods and the research results are presented.

 

(7) What was the sampling technique? Methods of data collection, which media used, and how to get data from intended respondents. How did you approach the intended respondents?

Re:

We used stratified and random sampling to determine the sample. We have confirmed the correctness of the questionnaire and the statistical methods.

 

(8) How are measures adopted/adapted from previous studies? What were the items? Which Likert scales were used?

Re:

The questionnaire used in this study was designed by ourselves, and was confirmed by experts and pre-tested to confirm the reliability and validity of the questionnaire. A five-point Likert scale was used to indicate strongly disagree and disagree. Agree, no opinion, agree and strongly agree.

 

(9) The results discussions are weak. It is unclear which results contribute to which theoretical stream and how you position your study's results, generally the existing studies. The conclusion section is short of references.

Re:

We have made substantial revisions to the conclusion.

 

 

(10) What are the theoretical and managerial implications of this study?

Re:

The study yields both theoretical and managerial implications. The theoretical implications shed light on our understanding of operating performance, while the managerial implications offer practical insights for internationalization and high competitive advantage.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I once again suggest authors to read my first report carefully and respond to each recommendation extensively.

Still no studies supporting/opposing the results discussed in discussion section.

Path diagrams not included yet. VIF values for Contractual Agreement Strategy and Foreign Direct Investment Strategy. How you solved this issue? How can you proceed with multiple regression with such high co-linearity?

Further, it was  requested to add implications after conclusion and to not revise the conclusions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Quality of English seems ok. Minor improvements needed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers

Thank you for your letter dated 30th Oct 2023. We were pleased to know that our work was rated as potentially acceptable for publication in a journal, subject to adequate revision. We thank the reviewers for the time and effort they have put into reviewing the previous version of the manuscript. Their suggestions have enabled us to improve our work. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. I have a point-by-point response to the comments raised by the reviewers. We hope that the revised manuscript will be accepted for publication in Sustainability.

Sincerely,

Tzu-Wen,Chen ph.D

 

I once again suggest authors to read my first report carefully and respond to each recommendation extensively.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestions to the reviewers. This study has been substantially modified based on the feedback from the first and third reviews, which were provided by my brother. Please refer to the red text for the details of the modifications.

 

Still no studies supporting/opposing the results discussed in discussion section.

Response:

We have revised this paragraph based on the reviewers' comments and added a literature review section to support our argument. Please refer to lines 532 to 548.

Path diagrams not included yet. VIF values for Contractual Agreement Strategy and Foreign Direct Investment Strategy. How you solved this issue? How can you proceed with multiple regression with such high co-linearity?

Response:

Based on the reviewers' comments, we have added a new roadmap, as shown in Figure 2. Regarding the multiple regression with such high collinearity in Table 3? After we confirmed that the value was incorrect, we corrected it to the correct value after checking. The revised part is shown in red font in Table 3.

 

 

 

Further, it was requested to add implications after conclusion and to not revise the conclusions.

Response:

According to the reviewer's opinion, the meaning is added after adding the conclusion, and the new part is in lines 603 to 620.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the authors' efforts. However, I still stand with my comments. The authors did not properly address my comments despite repeatedly giving similar ones. Likewise, the authors' response was not justified and up to the mark. I think there is a lot of work required to improve this manuscript. You can see my comments below:

The CNC machine industry must be clarified in the abstract. It must be compressed with the key information, objective, methodology, results, conclusion, and theoretical and practical contributions.

The authors added a new paragraph at the start of the introduction section without quoting any references. Is it your own finding? How do you validate these arguments? (Re: The introduction is the author's comprehensive discussion of this article, which is conceptual. In the literature review, we focus on the literature in the next paragraph.)

I am surprised to see the author's response in the above brackets. What kind of discussion is required at the start of the introduction?

The Introduction section is just like a commentary, nothing else. It does not reveal novelty, gap, and research questions/objectives. The authors must emphasize the research gap, Like what has been done before? What is the current research progress on the topic? Why are you conducting this study? What would be theoretical and managerial contributions? I urge the authors to restructure the introduction by highlighting the novelty, the gap, and the intended research contributions with the recent literature support. The 5 Ws must be followed in the introduction section. The introduction section is short of references. Only three references are used in the introduction. Do these references justify the research gap? I would suggest you read the following article and modify your introduction to develop research objectives by highlighting the research gap and novelty of the study.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-01-2022-3807

The literature support is weak. The authors explained the theories without discussing previous research's impact on various industries. Why used these theories? Any justifications? The literature does not highlight the gap.

There must be a separate theoretical and hypotheses development section. The authors must propose a model, and all the hypotheses must be aligned with the theory support. 

The methodology section lacks references and misses important information, such as the research approach and intended methodology. Why was the proposed methodology used? What was the language of instrument development?

What was the sampling technique? Methods of data collection, which media used, and how to get data from intended respondents. How did you approach the intended respondents?

How are measures adopted/adapted from previous studies? What were the items? Which Likert scales were used?

The results discussions are weak. It is unclear which results contribute to which theoretical stream and how you position your study's results, generally the existing studies. The conclusion section is short of references.

What are the theoretical and managerial implications of this study?

Overall, a lot of improvements are required in this manuscript. The present manuscript version has many flaws. This study lacks references, particularly the introduction, methodology, and discussion section, which are the key parts of any research. In summary, this paper looks like a commentary except for analysis. Therefore, I don't think the current version is suitable for publication. Good luck

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of the English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewers

Thank you for your letter dated 30th Oct 2023. We were pleased to know that our work was rated as potentially acceptable for publication in a journal, subject to adequate revision. We thank the reviewers for the time and effort they have put into reviewing the previous version of the manuscript. Their suggestions have enabled us to improve our work. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. I have a point-by-point response to the comments raised by the reviewers. We hope that the revised manuscript will be accepted for publication in Sustainability.

Sincerely,

Tzu-Wen,Chen ph.D

 

The CNC machine industry must be clarified in the abstract. It must be compressed with the key information, objective, methodology, results, conclusion, and theoretical and practical contributions.

Response:

The relevant description of the CNC industry has been revised in lines 53 to 62 based on the reviewer's comments.

 

The authors added a new paragraph at the start of the introduction section without quoting any references. Is it your own finding? How do you validate these arguments? (Re: The introduction is the author's comprehensive discussion of this article, which is conceptual. In the literature review, we focus on the literature in the next paragraph.)

Response:

We refer to the reviewers' comments and add literature to support our arguments in the Introduction. These arguments are based on past experiences of our team members, not what we have discovered. More importantly, we understand that any argument needs scientific support. Therefore, we include literature to support our arguments.

 

The Introduction section is just like a commentary, nothing else. It does not reveal novelty, gap, and research questions/objectives. The authors must emphasize the research gap, Like what has been done before? What is the current research progress on the topic? Why are you conducting this study? What would be theoretical and managerial contributions? I urge the authors to restructure the introduction by highlighting the novelty, the gap, and the intended research contributions with the recent literature support. The 5 Ws must be followed in the introduction section. The introduction section is short of references. Only three references are used in the introduction. Do these references justify the research gap? I would suggest you read the following article and modify your introduction to develop research objectives by highlighting the research gap and novelty of the study.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-01-2022-3807

Response:

As in the previous reply, we refer to the reviewer's comments and add literature to support our argument in the introduction. Based on the reviewers' suggestions, we have significantly revised the introduction.

 

The literature support is weak. The authors explained the theories without discussing previous research's impact on various industries. Why used these theories? Any justifications? The literature does not highlight the gap.

Response:

We also reviewed the literature to explore the overall research theory, including the issues we want to explore such as internationalization, corporate competitiveness and corporate performance. Because this is the direction of our research theme, we explored these theories and edited them. Research questionnaire.

 

There must be a separate theoretical and hypotheses development section. The authors must propose a model, and all the hypotheses must be aligned with the theory support.

Response:

We propose our theory based on the literature review and build a model diagram. It is shown in Figure 1. The research hypotheses are in lines 329 to 336.

 

The methodology section lacks references and misses important information, such as the research approach and intended methodology. Why was the proposed methodology used? What was the language of instrument development?

Response:

A description of the research methodology is presented in the third paragraph.  Presented at lines 310 to 320.

 

What was the sampling technique? Methods of data collection, which media used, and how to get data from intended respondents. How did you approach the intended respondents?

Response:

The relevant research sampling method is in lines 346 to 352. We use stratified random sampling. We conduct research through the member list of the Taiwan Machine Tool Industry Association.

 

How are measures adopted/adapted from previous studies? What were the items? Which Likert scales were used?

Response:

We use Likert's five-point scale. The questionnaire is divided into closed and open questionnaires. We conduct a questionnaire survey on the management of Taiwan's CNC industry. The research questionnaire includes internationalization, business strategy and corporate performance, etc.

 

The results discussions are weak. It is unclear which results contribute to which theoretical stream and how you position your study's results, generally the existing studies. The conclusion section is short of references.

Response:

Based on the reviewers' comments, we have significantly revised the discussions section. The corrections WERE in lines 532 to 572.

 

What are the theoretical and managerial implications of this study?

Response:

Our main theory is to explore Porter's business management-related theories, supplemented by the research theme of internationalization and corporate performance. The following is an explanation of this research theme.

 

 

"Internationalization" refers to the process and strategy of enterprises expanding into international markets. This process can include expanding to other countries or regions to seek new markets, customers and business opportunities. Internationalization is an important strategy for enterprise development , which helps businesses grow, reduce risks, become more competitive, and expand their businesses.

 

Business performance refers to a company's performance and results in achieving its business goals and operating objectives. This can include the company's financial performance, such as operating profit, sales revenue, shareholder return, etc., as well as non-financial performance, such as customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction, quality control, etc.

 

Business performance appraisal is the process of evaluating a company's operating performance. It helps management understand the company's strengths and areas for improvement and develop better business strategies to achieve long-term success. The term is very common in the world of business and management and is used to evaluate a company's overall performance as well as the performance of various divisions or individual businesses.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx