A New Paradigm for Sustainable Supply Chain Management for Business Operation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI believe that the author has satisfactorily addressed all issues with the revised version and therefore the article now adds value to literature and can be published as is.
Author Response
We are grateful for the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript, "A New Paradigm for Sustainable Supply Chain Management for Business Operations," for potential publication in Sustainability. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you and the reviewers have dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript. Your insightful comments and valuable suggestions have significantly improved our paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe title is inappropriate. What was presented doesn't represent a new paradigm in SCM. Furthermore, the title must reference either the method or the conclusion.
The abstract is quite precarious. It must contain the key elements for deciding whether or not to read the article, such as motivation, purpose, methodology, results, and implications.
In the introduction, it is necessary to identify a research gap and a research question. One way to do this is to search the databases with keywords to ensure that the research question is relevant and occupies a research gap. Table 1 is ill-located. It would be better located in a review section, which currently does not exist. Please provide. Furthermore, the table is ill-conceived. There is no need to show the entire title given that the numerical reference was provided.
The methodology section needs to be better. Please complete it and provide a detailed description of the procedure you adopted. What is the research method? I believe it is a survey, but it is up to you to identify and describe the procedure. It would help if you explained in such a way that any other researcher could replicate your study.
In Table 3, I believe you should inform all the scores. As is, it is evident that the indicator loads correctly in the factors, but it does not ensure that the indicators load only in the correct factor (the so-called cross-loadings). Please consider. Inform the software and the version.
Avoid small subsections by merging the small ones.
The hypotheses must be derived theoretically in the review section that currently does not exist. Please provide them.
The last two sections must be merged under the name: Final remarks.
In the Table A1, each question (or indicator) must be supported with at least one empirical reference able to provide sufficient evidence that the indicators is likely to be present in studies on SCM.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish is poor and should be proofread by a professional.
Author Response
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “A New Paradigm for Sustainable Supply Chain Management for Business Operation” for possible publication in the Sustainability. We appreciate the time and effort you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful for the insightful comments and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. The manuscript has been revised accordingly. Those changes and additional details are shown in track changes within the manuscript. Please see below for a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study provides a comprehensive analysis of sustainable supply chain management and its impact on business operations, focusing on the integration of economic, social and environmental aspects to achieve sustainable development.
Table 1 in the literature review would benefit from additional detail regarding the specific considerations and problem-solving approaches used in each study.
Limited geographical coverage, which the authors talked about. But to this it is worth adding possible ways of change.
Although the paper concludes with a summary of findings and limitations, it could benefit from a more detailed discussion of future research directions. Specific recommendations for eliminating identified gaps.
Author Response
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “A New Paradigm for Sustainable Supply Chain Management for Business Operation” for possible publication in the Sustainability. We appreciate the time and effort you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful for the insightful comments and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. The manuscript has been revised accordingly. Those changes and additional details are shown in track changes within the manuscript. Please see below for a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author mentioned Cronbach's alpha test to check the measurement scale reliability, as well as checking the validity of the measurements. However, those details were not provided in the methodology section. Adding more specifics on how the measurement scales were tested and validated would help improve this section.
The results section mentions that a Promax rotation was used for factor analysis. It would be beneficial to provide some rationale or details on why the Promax rotation method was selected over other potential factor analysis options.
Please enrich the literature review section by including the latest ones to enrich the draft in the revision, as follows:
An economical single-vendor single-buyer framework for carbon emission policies. Journal of Business Economics, pp.1-19 (2024).
Promoting green supply chain under carbon tax, carbon cap and carbon trading policies. Business Strategy and the Environment (2024).
The author noted that the model fit was tested. However, no actual indices were provided to demonstrate the model fit quality. Providing supplementary details such as the model fit indices and thresholds, such as a CFU values, would add additional rigor to this section.
The author mentioned using Harman's single factor test on the responses for common-method variance. However, no mention of why the scale was chose and if any items were removed due to loadings < 0.5.
The author provided details on the acronym explaining why the DEMATEL method was selected. However, for higher transparency on the acronym detailing the rational for the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) method would strengthen the robustness of the approach.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “A New Paradigm for Sustainable Supply Chain Management for Business Operation” for possible publication in the Sustainability. We appreciate the time and effort you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful for the insightful comments and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. The manuscript has been revised accordingly. Those changes and additional details are shown in track changes within the manuscript. Please see below for a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOk, but I suggest merging sections 5 and 6
Author Response
Dear Editor in Chief and Reviewer,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “A New Paradigm for Sustainable Supply Chain Management for Business Operation” for possible publication in the Sustainability. We appreciate the time and effort you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful for the insightful comments and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. The manuscript has been revised accordingly. Those changes and additional details are shown in track changes within the manuscript. Please see below for a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments.
Sincerely,
Authors
First of all, thank you so much for your delicated time in reviewing my article. Here is the revision version.
|
Reviewer feedback |
Author response/revision |
|
I suggest merging sections 5 and 6 |
The sections 5 and 6 have been revised in accordance with the comments provided in lines 318-358. |
|
The title is inappropriate. What was presented doesn't represent a new paradigm in SCM. Furthermore, the title must reference either the method or the conclusion. |
The study aims to present important findings and conclusions regarding [mention the method or key conclusion]. This approach ensures that the title accurately represents the essence of the research. I have already submitted ethical approval under the title " A New Paradigm for Sustainable Supply Chain Management for Business Operation" so I kindly request not to change the title |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper does not meet the requirements obligatory for a scientific paper. The questions presented in the introduction do not find proper research to be answered. The paper needs basic improvements starting from the comprehensive literature review, finding the real scientific gaps, choice of correct methodology for the research, realization of the research, presentation of the findings and explanation of their importance for selected scientific areas. To conclude the paper needs much more engagement from the Authors to become the work which should be published.
Author Response
Dear Editor in Chief and Reviewer,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “A New Paradigm for Sustainable Supply Chain Management for Business Operation” for possible publication in the Sustainability. We appreciate the time and effort you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful for the insightful comments and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. The manuscript has been revised accordingly. Those changes and additional details are shown in track changes within the manuscript. Please see below for a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments.
Sincerely,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am pleased to carry out the following review of the paper: A New Paradigm for Sustainable Supply Chain Management for Business Operation.
The abstract is concise, flows well and effectively outlines the key themes and arguments, providing a succinct yet comprehensive overview of the subject matter. However, the structure needs to be refining the structure for improved coherence and bolster its academic rigor. The objective/aim needs to be clearly stated.
The Introduction is missing a heading. It effectively introduces the topic of sustainable logistics and identifies gaps in existing research. The structure is generally clear, and the introduction effectively sets the stage for the subsequent discussion on Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM). However, it is somewhat dense with information, which could potentially overwhelm the reader. Consider streamlining the content to focus on the most essential points and ensure clarity of expression. Also there is a need for smoother transitions between different sections to enhance coherence and readability. Some sentences are lengthy and complex, which may hinder comprehension. Simplifying the language and breaking down complex ideas into more digestible chunks would improve clarity. Moreover, while the introduction mentions gaps in previous research, it could benefit from a more in-depth discussion of existing literature to provide context for the study's contribution.
The methodology the methodology appears to be thorough and well structured and effectively outlines the statistical procedures used to analyse the data and test hypotheses related to Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM). It enables replication. However it would be helpful to include brief explanations or definitions of terms such as Structural Equation Modelling (SEM), Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), and their relevance to the study. This would aid readers who may not be familiar with these methods. Also, it mentions a total sample size of at least 400 people but does not provide a rationale for this specific sample size. Including a brief justification for the chosen sample size, such as statistical power considerations or previous research findings, would enhance the robustness of the methodology. In this section the authors describe the validation of the research instrument using Composite Reliability (C.R.), Average Variance Extracted (AVE), and Cronbach's Alpha (C.A.). While this demonstrates rigor, it would be beneficial to explain how these measures contribute to ensuring the reliability and validity of the research instrument. Lastly, including a brief discussion of these limitations would demonstrate the researcher's awareness of potential constraints and contribute to the overall transparency of the study.
The conclusion and discussion sections effectively summarize the study's findings and implications; emphasizing the importance of sustainable supply chain management for long-term prosperity. While the discussion section highlights the novelty of the research by integrating institutional and policy dimensions into the sustainable supply chain management model, it could benefit from more explicit connections to existing literature. Discussing how the findings align with or extend previous research would enhance the contextual understanding of the study. Also, the discussion could further elaborate on how specific stakeholders, such as government agencies or non-profit organizations, could leverage the findings to inform policy decisions or support sustainable initiatives.
The limitations section acknowledges some of the constraints of the study. It would be beneficial to discuss potential implications of these limitations on the validity and applicability of the findings in more detail.
Maybe it would be ideal to expand on the rationale behind these recommendations and how they could address the identified limitations would strengthen this section.
Having said all this I believe that the paper is publishable once the above siggestions are tackled sucessfully. I believe this can add value to literature.
Author Response
Dear Editor in Chief and Reviewer,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “A New Paradigm for Sustainable Supply Chain Management for Business Operation” for possible publication in the Sustainability. We appreciate the time and effort you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful for the insightful comments and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. The manuscript has been revised accordingly. Those changes and additional details are shown in track changes within the manuscript. Please see below for a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments.
Sincerely,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the IMRAD concept, the conclusion usually comes after the discussion. In the presented manuscript this order is violated. In line 60, the purpose of the study is to reduce business risks in SCM. then it is necessary to present a classification of these risks, the reasons for their occurrence and consequences. Then, in the discussion and conclusion, the authors should conclude how this study will help reduce them.
Author Response
Dear Editor in Chief and Reviewer,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “A New Paradigm for Sustainable Supply Chain Management for Business Operation” for possible publication in the Sustainability. We appreciate the time and effort you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful for the insightful comments and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. The manuscript has been revised accordingly. Those changes and additional details are shown in track changes within the manuscript. Please see below for a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments.
Sincerely,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors revisited the idea of risk reduction in their study. Thus, my main remark was eliminated. In this regard, I have no objections and this study is recommended for publication
