Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article contributes significantly to research by applying and extending the TOE framework to the understudied Saudi dairy industry, using a well-executed qualitative methodology, and presenting consistent and empirically supported findings with clear practical implications related to the UN SDGs, while addressing the timely topic of food safety and supply chain transparency.

• Comments and Suggestions for Improvement:

Figure 1 Clarity (Modified TOE Framework): Although the figure clearly shows the components, the arrows indicating the influence of “Technological Factors,” “Organizational Factors,” and “Environmental Factors” all point to “Adoption of Traceability Technologies.” The “Performance” box is then linked only by an arrow from “Adoption of Traceability Technologies.” Consider adding arrows or a text note to clarify the direct influence of certain factors on “Performance” if such relationships were found in the analysis, beyond mediation by adoption. For example, some “Technological Factors” or “Organizational Factors” may have a direct impact on performance that is not fully captured by the impact on adoption alone.

Managing inappropriate self-citations: The article contains several self-citations where the current authors (Alessa, Shee, De Vass) cite their previous work. While self-citations are acceptable, ensure that these citations are always necessary and contribute directly to the argument, rather than appearing to support the authors' publications. Consider whether any of these points could be sufficiently supported by the work of other researchers, or whether the specific contribution of your previous work should be made explicit in each case.

Refine the discussion on propositions 2 and 13: Proposition 2 states: “The implementation of the Saudization policy has a lesser influence on the adoption of new technologies in the Saudi dairy sector.” Proposition 13 states: “The Saudization policy has a slightly negative impact on the adoption of new technologies in the Saudi dairy sector.” Revise the wording of these propositions and their discussions to ensure absolute clarity. If “lesser influence” implies a lack of significant positive or negative impact, and “slightly negative impact” indicates a specific negative effect, the difference needs to be more explicitly articulated and explained in the text. It might be wise to combine them or refine the definitions of “lesser influence” and “slightly negative impact” in the context of Saudization.

Expanding on the “not yet adopted” cases: Tables 3 and 4 indicate that three of the nine firms surveyed (F, H, J) have not yet adopted the FTT. While the discussion focuses on barriers, it might be useful to provide a more specific overview or qualitative details from these firms regarding their main reasons or perceived challenges, even briefly. This could strengthen the practical implications for smaller firms.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer-1

Please find attached our response to your comments.

We are greatful to your valuable feedback.
With regards,

Himanshu Shee

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The manuscript is lengthy and dense, which may hinder readability. 

2. The flow between sections could be improved. For example, the transition from literature review to methodology feels abrupt.

3. While the TOE framework is well-explained, its application to the Saudi dairy sector could be more explicitly tied to the findings. 

4. The sample size is small (9 interviewees), and the qualitative nature of the study limits generalizability. The manuscript acknowledges this but could better address how the findings still offer valuable insights despite the limitation.

5. The 13 propositions are extensive and somewhat repetitive. Some could be merged or streamlined to focus on the most critical findings.

6. The discussion section is comprehensive but could better highlight contradictions with prior literature (e.g., complexity not being a barrier, contrary to other studies).

7. The practical implications are well-stated but could be more actionable for policymakers and managers.

9. Minor grammatical errors and awkward phrasing are present (e.g., "Saudization policy on technology adoption has overly depended on Saudi nationals...").

10. Tables are informative but could be simplified for better readability. For instance, Table 5 is dense and may not clearly convey thematic frequencies to readers.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer-2,

Please find attached our response to your comments.

We are thankful for your feedback to improve the manuscript quality.

With best regards,

Himanshu 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reading the entire article, I noticed a number of issues related to:
Abstract. The authors do not specify the methodology used, the results obtained, or the conclusions. I suggest the authors to do this.
Introduction. The authors specify the general objective of their research, highlight the gap covered by the specialized literature, and launch the research question that underlies their study.
Literature review. The section is well structured into subsections and well documented in terms of bibliographic references.
Methodology. The authors describe the methodology applied for the investigation, the stages of data analysis, identify the results obtained, and interpret them.
Discussions. The authors interpret the results and come up with propositions and the modified TOE framework for adopting traceability technology. The theoretical and practical implications of their research are commented on.
Conclusions and limitations. The authors present the main contributions of their research, the limits of the research, and outline a future research direction.

Author Response

Dear Reviwer-3,

Thank you for your feedback, it means a lot to us.

See our response to the comments which helped to improve the quality of the manuscript.

With best regards,

Himanshu 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript meets the requirements for publication.