Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study employs ChatGPT 3.5 and Microsoft Copilot to explore potential strategy practices for nanostores, and reflect on their potential use for strategy ideation and implementation, which has laid the groundwork for comprehending the promise of GenAI tools in nanostores’ strategy ideation.

(1)   First of all, the authors should describe the background of the paper and motivation of this paper in detail. In essence, there are many deep learning-based methods [1] which leverages deep learning to explore potential strategy practices for nanostores, authors should analyze their short shortcomings more clearly, and how do these shortcomings promote the creation of the new method.

(2)   Some figures in this manuscript is a bit blurry, please check it.

(3)   More visual results or qualitative analysis should be included in this version

 

[1] Ortega-Jimenez C H, Amador-Matute A, Zavala-Fuentes D, et al. Nanostores and Supply chains: A current outlook and future perspectives of technological and managerial practices[J].

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please, find attached the point-by-point response to your valuable feedback and comments.

Regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1-     A short problem definition should be given at the beginning of the abstract.

2-     The contribution of this study should be briefly mentioned in the abstract.

3-      The benefit(s) of this research should be shortly provided at the end of the abstract.

4-     The introduction section needs to be improved: A clear definition of the problem, the necessity of conducting this research, the research goals and objectives, the research questions, and the research contributions must be provided in separate paragraphs referring to the state-of the-art studies.

5-     The literature review must be improved/

6-     This section must be categorized into different and relevant sub-sections; The recently published papers in the prestigious journals should be added to this section and discusses and analyzes so that the pros and cons of each study should be provided.

7-     A literature review table should be added to show the research gaps and the contribution(s) of the current study.

8-     The contributions of this study must be explained at the end of the literature review section.

9-     A flowchart should be depicted to illustrate the steps of the methodology.  

10-  10- The reasons for using the proposed method should be completely stated. Why the authors have chosen this method?

11-  The data gathering is not properly explained.

12-   The information about the interviewing process such as duration, structure, number of experts interviewed, the validity and reliability of the interview, …. should be given.

13-  Theoretical and practical implications should be provided before the conclusion section. In addition, the authors should mention whether the results are aligned with the similar studies or not.

14-  Managerial discussions should be given before the conclusion section.

15-  Research limitations should be clearly stated in the conclusion.

 

16-  Suggestions for future studies needs to be improved. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1-     A short problem definition should be given at the beginning of the abstract.

2-     The contribution of this study should be briefly mentioned in the abstract.

3-      The benefit(s) of this research should be shortly provided at the end of the abstract.

4-     The introduction section needs to be improved: A clear definition of the problem, the necessity of conducting this research, the research goals and objectives, the research questions, and the research contributions must be provided in separate paragraphs referring to the state-of the-art studies.

5-     The literature review must be improved/

6-     This section must be categorized into different and relevant sub-sections; The recently published papers in the prestigious journals should be added to this section and discusses and analyzes so that the pros and cons of each study should be provided.

7-     A literature review table should be added to show the research gaps and the contribution(s) of the current study.

8-     The contributions of this study must be explained at the end of the literature review section.

9-     A flowchart should be depicted to illustrate the steps of the methodology.  

10-  10- The reasons for using the proposed method should be completely stated. Why the authors have chosen this method?

11-  The data gathering is not properly explained.

12-   The information about the interviewing process such as duration, structure, number of experts interviewed, the validity and reliability of the interview, …. should be given.

13-  Theoretical and practical implications should be provided before the conclusion section. In addition, the authors should mention whether the results are aligned with the similar studies or not.

14-  Managerial discussions should be given before the conclusion section.

15-  Research limitations should be clearly stated in the conclusion.

 

16-  Suggestions for future studies needs to be improved. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please, find attached the point-by-point response to your valuable feedback and comments.

Regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is devoted to the study of generative artificial intelligence algorithms and their application to identify the efficiency potential of minimarkets.

The article is interesting in its idea, but there are a number of comments on the content:

1. It is not clear from the text of the article what initial data were presented to the algorithms. On what basis were the patterns identified and conclusions made?

2. The work does not indicate what exactly is the difference between the Chat GPT and Microsoft Copilot algorithms used. Do the conclusions given by these two algorithms differ and in what way? Again, it is necessary to keep in mind what empirical information these conclusions are based on.

3. The work does not contain figures and visualizations. Perhaps, if they are added, this can improve the quality of the presentation of analytical material from artificial intelligence systems.

4. Were the conclusions made by the AI ​​algorithms used checked for consistency?

5. The conclusions should include the significance and applied novelty of the study. How can the results be used in practice? Are AI recommendations actionable?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Correct spelling, syntax and punctuation errors

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please, find attached the point-by-point response to your valuable feedback and comments.

Regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the main issues raised by the reviewers. As such, I recommend the manuscript for acceptance.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We kindly appreciate your comments and feedback for improving our manuscript.

Thank you for your time and dedication.

Regards,

The authors

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been significantly improved and supplemented.

It can be published in its current form.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please correct punctuation typos and errors.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you for your valuable comments and feedback. We appreciate your time and dedication to enhancing the quality of our document.

Regarding the correction of typos and errors, we will carry this out during the proofreading of the document as indicated. For now, we have reviewed the document making minor changes.

Sincerely,

The authors