Adopting Circular Economy Principles: How Do Conflict Management Strategies Help Adopt Smart Technology in Jordanian SMEs?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents promising research with the potential to contribute significantly to the literature on blockchain adoption in SMEs. However, to be considered for publication, several areas require substantial improvement.

Redundancy and Conciseness: There is considerable redundancy throughout the content of the paper. The manuscript is overly lengthy with repeated and sometimes irrelevant information that does not advance the research's relevance. Simplifying the content to eliminate unnecessary repetition will give more coherence to the text and make the paper more concise and focused.

Specificity and Clarity in Methodology: The term "robust methodological approach" is used but not adequately defined. Clarifying what makes the methodology robust - by detailing the SEM techniques and justifying their appropriateness for this study, will strengthen this section and provide the reader with a clearer understanding of the research design and its rigor.

Structuring the Abstract: The abstract should begin with a clear statement of the research purpose and outline the central themes and findings succinctly. This will help in providing a logical roadmap of the article, aiding readers in rapidly grasping the essential contributions of the research.

Conclusion and Contributions: The conclusion should succinctly summarize the main findings and explicitly state the contributions of the study to existing knowledge. Highlighting the relevancy of this study for our understanding of blockchain adoption in SMEs and its implications for conflict management and technology integration will emphasize the study's significance and novelty.

References and Citation Consistency: The references cited for conflict management strategies appear outdated, which may affect the perceived relevance and currency of the analysis. Updating these references and ensuring that the references section follow a consistent format will enhance the manuscript's credibility and value.

 

By adjusting these elements, the manuscript will not only meet the publication standards, but also significantly contribute to the fields of technology adoption and strategic management in emerging economies.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A proofreading of the paper should be done as there are many grammar/spelling errors in the content, like for example using singular instead of plural (e.g.: ..Therefore, the following hypothesis was developed..- for more than one hypothesis, Meaurement Instruments  etc.)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you so much for the opportunity to read this interesting project.

Good Luck!

Best Regards,

The Reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is well-written. However, professional proofreading is strongly recommended. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In lines 98-106, the authors' names are missing for these in-context references. Same thing for the rest of the paper, please check.

2. It seems like the authors mainly focus on blockchain adoption rather than other smart technology. Therefore, would it be better to change the title using "Adopt blockchain in Jordanian SMEs?", which might help narrow down the research scope?

3. The Introduction part might need essential improvements. I guess the focus is blockchain adoption in SMEs? I have this suggested logic for authors to consider: Why is adopting blockchain in SMEs important? What are the current gaps in adopting blockchain in SMEs, and why can conflict management address these gaps? Be elaborative in the questions that authors try to address. For example, "The importance of conflict management in organizational change is widely acknowledged in the literature", authors can spell out the importance to persuade the readers that this topic is important. The current way of writing makes it elusive to find the connection between conflict management and blockchain adoption.

4. Can authors spell out the research objectives? By reading lines 109-128, it seems conflict management can also address the problems in supply chain and circular economy principles.

5. General questions for Literature Review: what would be the gaps identified from the literature review and how the proposed framework in this study can address these gaps? A lot of concepts are introduced without specifying gaps in the literature. The authors might consider enhancing this part.

6. Is section "3. Theoretical Lens and Hypothesis Development" a part of the methodology or literature review? The current writing is more like a literature review?

7. Can you provide a few sample questions for your survey in the manuscript? 

8. In Table 2, when the authors say the mean of collaboration, what does that mean? What values did you use to average? What does collaboration mean here? Based on the survey questions? It is hard to understand.

9. Table 3: what is CMS? What is VIF? How do factor loadings, reliability, validity measures, and multicollinearity mean in terms of survey results? How do authors get these results?

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Must improve in English. Especially references, authors' names are missing in the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the author/s

Thank you very much for the opportunity to review this interesting project on circular economy in Jordanian SMEs. This version is much improved than the previous one. However, the following could be advantageous.

•

It will be clearer to the readers if the author/s could highlight hypotheses separately as it has been done for H6.

•

The limitation of this study and recommendation for the future researcher could add value for this project.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Professional proofreading is strongly recommended.

Author Response

Kindly, find the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all my comments. Thanks for your efforts in clarifying the issues.

Author Response

Thank you for your encouraging feedback. We appreciate your acknowledgment of our efforts to clarify the issues raised. Your insightful comments were instrumental in enhancing the quality of our manuscript, and we are grateful for your guidance throughout this process.