Impact of Internet of Things Adoption on Organizational Performance: A Mediating Analysis of Supply Chain Integration, Performance, and Competitive Advantage
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAbstract
1.The practical and theoretical background related to IoT, especially in Saudi Arabia, has not been elaborated.
2.Please clarify the theoretical basis.
Introduction
3. The authors did not present the current status of IoT in Saudi Arabia and the reasons for choosing this country for the study.
4. The scientific problems and innovations of this study are not clearly written.
Theoretical background and literature review
5. Theoretical foundations and literature review should be presented as a second part, alongside the introduction. The same problem exists with the formulation of hypotheses later in the text, and the authors are requested to reset the title.
6. The resources referred to in resource-based theory generally include both intangible and tangible resources, so why do the authors focus only on dynamic capabilities?
7. In addition, some studies related to the PLS-SEM method were missed.
e.g.,
Mechanism of attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control influence the green development behavior of construction enterprises. Humanities & Social Sciences Communications, 10, 266. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01724-9
Improving PLS-SEM use for business marketing research. Industrial Marketing Management, 111, 127-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2023.03.010
etc.
Materials and Methods
7. The questionnaire involved only 45 participants, which is a small amount of data. The data were not representative enough to adequately reflect the diversity and differences in the study population.
Discussion
8. Assuming that H7 is not confirmed, what are the reasons for this? Please add explanations.
Conclusions
9. Please ask the authors to list the conclusions in points.
10. The practical implications are not written in a specific enough way, please try to fit the current situation of IoT enterprises in Saudi Arabia and make management suggestions.
To sum up, the authors are requested to revise the manuscript in the light of the above comments. I sincerely look forward to receiving the revised version.
Author Response
Attached
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a case study for the impact of IoT adaptation in supply chain management. Though the manuscript has some merits. However, the present form of the manuscript is not suitable for publication in a reputed journal like the sustainability due to the following concerns.
1. The novelty, research gaps, and contributions are not clear through the abstract and introduction. It is better if the authors rewrite the whole abstract and introduction with proper novelty, objective, motivations, research gaps, and contributions. Specifically, the necessity of this study is not clear. The authors analyze the impact of IoT in the Supply chain industry but says that they will not consider blockchain and other IoT-related things. Thus, which type of IoT they considered? It isn't apparent.
2. In the introduction section the authors talk about Industry 4.0, but in conclusion, they said they will not consider Industry 4.0. It confuses the reader.
3. What is the necessity of this study? What research gaps do the authors try to fill by this study?
4. The authors claim that they collect the data from different social media. Is the data provided in social media reliable? How did the authors test the reliability of the data set?
5. The authors provided different data analyses through several tables without proper illustrations. What should one conclude from those data?
6. The discussion section looks like a literature review. Try to illustrate the findings of this study compared to existing literature and discuss properly what are the major impacts of your study.
7. The conclusion section needs a revision with unique findings, proper managerial implications, and future research work.
8. Why do the authors think that this study is appropriate for the Sustainability journal? How sustainability is filled by this study?
9. Several bulky references are there. Each previous study has a unique finding, try to explore that and compare it with your study.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageA proper English language check is required to remove typos and grammatical errors.
Author Response
Attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis research investigates how the adoption of the Internet of Things (IoT) affects organizational performance, with a focus on analyzing the mediating influence of supply chain integration, performance, and competitive advantages. This manuscript addresses a compelling research topic. However, it is important to consider the following comments and suggestions in order to enhance the overall quality of the paper.
1. The authors are urged to offer a more comprehensive explanation of the significance of the present study, clarify the research gap, and articulate the study questions in greater detail.
2. The theoretical background and literature review (1.1), and the conceptual model (1.2) should be treated as a distinct section rather than being incorporated as a subsection within the introduction.
3. In the materials and methods section, given the utilization of online data collection, it is recommended to conduct a pilot test to verify the clarity and comprehensibility of the questionnaire.
4. The research questionnaire should be included as an appendix.
5. Please categorize all items in Table 2 based on their sequence of appearance in the questionnaire. Furthermore, kindly provide an explanation for the exclusion of items that are not included in Table 2.
6. The authors initially used the Fornell-Larcker criterion to evaluate the outer model discriminant validity (3.3.1 subsection), but this criterion is not considered a strong metric for this purpose. Instead, experts recommend using the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio of Correlations (HTMT) as a more rigorous alternative. Therefore, the authors are encouraged the use of the HTMT ratio to check the discriminant validity.
7. The manuscript can be enhanced by reviewing additional recent studies and expanding the discussion section.
8. The study implications are considered insufficient. Therefore, the authors are encouraged to enhance both theoretical and practical implications.
All the best,
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsother than Hypothesis development there is nothing real that could be used to improve a supply chain in the real world, before publishing improve the study with some concrete results
Comments on the Quality of English Languageimprove
Author Response
Attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper addresses a relevant topic and is well written in general terms. The proposal is sound and seems to be technically correct. The hypotheses are validated, and several and significant experiments are provided. Descriptions are exhaustive with several figures and tables.
In general, I think the paper may be accepted. However, I suggest one improvement:
You need to discuss the vality threats. At least the internal and external. Why these experiments are relevant and representative? Are other alternative explanations feasible?
Author Response
Attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is a pity that the authors did not revise the manuscript in full accordance with the previous comments. This is shocking.
Author Response
The authors thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their second round of constructive comments which have been incorporated throughout the revised manuscript. Please refer to the highlighted texts in the revised manuscript reflecting the new additions, and/or revisions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsStill some major issues are there, which need to be fixed for further consideration. My suggestions are as follows:
1. The abstract should be abbreviation free. Abbreviations should start from the introduction section.
2. The study's novelty and contributions are still unclear in the introduction section.
3. Provide an author(s) contribution table within the literature review section to highlight the novelty of this study compared to the existing literature.
4. Several important literature are missing in the direction of Industry 4.0 or smart supply chain, some are as follows:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-022-02046-4; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122978; 10.1108/SASBE-12-2021-0224; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121123
The authors are advised to read recently published articles in this direction and make proper corrections. and include the abovementioned articles.
5. So many bulky and unnecessary references are there, try to use those references which are related to this study.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageCheck the minor language problems and typos.
Author Response
The authors thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their second round of constructive comments which have been incorporated throughout the revised manuscript. Please refer to the highlighted texts in the revised manuscript reflecting the new additions, and/or revisions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have done a good job in addressing my comments and suggestions, but some minor revisions are needed to enhance the manuscript.
1. In the materials and methods section, given the utilization of online data collection, it is recommended to conduct a pilot test to verify the clarity and comprehensibility of the questionnaire.
2. Kindly analyze the results obtained in lines 548-550 by referring to prior studies that have examined the correlation between SC integration and SC performance (H3). Examples of such studies are provided below:
· https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-04129-6
· http://doi.org/10.17270/J.LOG.2022.641
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
The authors thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their second round of constructive comments which have been incorporated throughout the revised manuscript. Please refer to the highlighted texts in the revised manuscript reflecting the new additions, and/or revisions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors significantly improved the paper's content with extra additions.
Comments on the Quality of English Languageimprove
Author Response
The authors thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their second round of constructive comments which have been incorporated throughout the revised manuscript. Please refer to the highlighted texts in the revised manuscript reflecting the new additions, and/or revisions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors译文
- Although the authors only selectively modified the manuscript according to a small number of comments, this did not fundamentally change the quality of the manuscript. Therefore, the current version is unacceptable.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt was asked to provide an author(s) contribution table within the literature review to show the novelty of this study compared to existing literature. Some references were also provided to learn about this author(s) contribution table. However, I can not find any author(s) contribution table throughout the manuscript. Thus, include the author(s) contribution table in your manuscript for further processing.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageA minor English language check is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
