Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for allowing me to review this paper. However, I have shared my viewpoints.

 

The abstract part is well organized. However, it would be best if you focused more on the study's contribution. Besides, limitations and areas for future research are also essential in the last part of the abstract.

 

The introduction part is quite good.

 

The literature review and hypotheses development part are excellent.

The methodology part is quite good. However, in the methodology part, you have written CSMAR, CSRC; please, first, you must write the complete form of these abbreviations.

You have written in four months, TZ distributed 476 questionnaires in 720 firms and collected 395 questionnaires. However, which sampling technique you have used to collect the data? It is a must to mention the sampling technique with the necessary reference. For your information, you can read the following article:

Sampling Techniques (Probability) for Quantitative Social Science Researchers: A Conceptual Guidelines with Examples (https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/seeur-2022-0023)

 

The analysis part is quite ok.

 

It would be best if you focused on the "Discussion of the Findings". You need to discuss your own findings compared to the results of other researchers. If you find something completely new, you must explain it adequately.

 

Before going to the conclusion, you must focus on the "Contribution or Implication" of your research.

 

 

Regards.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer：

    Thank you for your valuable comments, we have made a point by piont response as well as a detied revision of our manuscript accordingly. Please find the attached respons lettler together with our revised manuscript for more detials. 

    Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer：

    Thank you for your valuable comments, we have made a point by piont response as well as a detied revision of our manuscript accordingly. Please find the attached respons lettler together with our revised manuscript for more detials. 

    Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made all the necessary changes. The revised version of the manuscript is suitable for publication.