The Impact of Digital Technology Characteristics on Operational Decision Optimization: The Mediating Role of Information System Agility in Healthcare Supply Chains

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the submission. The authors present an integrated conceptual framework based on organizational information processing theory, aiming to enhance operational decision optimization via information system agility in healthcare supply chains. The content is a good fit for the journal and SI’s scope.

Abstract: It is well constructed. You could include numbers/percentages/improvements if possible.

Introduction: This section well-written. No need for further improvements.

Literature Review: Literature review is very well written and supported by the relevant up-to-date citations.

Hypotheses Development: Developed hypotheses are very well explained for all dimension (agility, compatibility, reliability, visibility)

Data Analysis and Results: Exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, correlation analysis, path analysis, and test of mediating effect are conducted. You can include the merits of each method. Why you chose these methods over others.

Discussion: Conclusion, theoretical and practical contributions are given. Limitation and future research are included very well.

The similarity report percent match is 21 %. This should be reduced in the next revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting and valuable paper. The research is well-structured, clearly defined, and the findings are well-presented. The manuscript is strong and, in my opinion, has the potential to be accepted for publication after the implementation of the following minor revisions.

The discussion and conclusion are currently combined. I recommend separating these into two distinct sections. The Discussion section should be dedicated to interpreting the results, comparing them with existing literature, and explaining their significance. The Conclusion section should then succinctly summarize the main findings, state the study's contributions, and suggest potential avenues for future research.

The concept in Figure 1 is important, but its clarity could be enhanced. I suggest improving the figure by using higher contrast, clearer labels, or a simplified design to make it easier for readers to understand the central concept it aims to convey.

The introduction effectively sets the context. To make it even stronger, I recommend adding a clear paragraph that explicitly highlights the motivation for the study, identifies the specific research gap in the existing literature that this paper addresses, and formally states the research questions or objectives that guide the work.

Please proofread to correct minor grammatical errors and improve the flow of language. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please proofread to correct minor grammatical errors and improve the flow of language. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the opportunity to cooperate in improving the manuscript entitled: The Impact of Digital Technology Characteristics on Operational Decision Optimization: The Mediating Role of Information System Agility in Healthcare Supply Chains.

The aim is to study the mechanisms through which digital technology characteristics, enhance operational decision optimization via information system agility in healthcare supply chains.

The subject is relevant.

Abstract. Informs the aim, method, and main results. Good.

1.Introduction. Main studies presented, gap established, objective informed. Good.

2. Literature review. The three characteristics of the unified framework was presented (Compatibility, Reliability, and Visibility). Relevant studies presented. Good.

3. Hypotheses Development. 3.3. Measurement. Please advise if any pre-testing was done.

3.4. Demographics. Please give additional information about these organizations, for instance, their relationship with the healthcare supply-chain.

4. Data Analysis and Results. 4.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Please inform the meaning of the acronyms: GFI, AGFI, ...

5. Discussion. 

5.3. Practical implications. I invite the authors to emphasize that increased efficiency and resources conservation contribute to the sustainability of the world, which is the title of the journal you intend to publish, not just "...sustained effectiveness of decision optimization."

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Rev1_sustainability-3843056

I have read the manuscript "The Impact of Digital Technology Characteristics on Operational Decision Optimization: The Mediating Role of Information System Agility in Healthcare Supply Chains", which uses a statistical empirical methodology and structural equation modeling based on covariance to analyze the mediating role of information system agility between digital technology and the optimization of operational decisions within the of the dominance of healthcare supply chains in China. The topic is relevant to both the scientific literature and the journal's thematic spirit, the Sustainability Journal. However, I would like to make a few observations to improve the text.

1. The matrix of congruence present between title, approach, and objective is consistent. However, I recommend making the objective explicit and formal throughout the work: use a verb in the infinitive, clearly define variables, specify the association, and define the unit of analysis. Avoid including the word "research" at the beginning of your objective, as it may be tautological: "Research is intended to investigate".

Also, keep in mind that the overall goal includes the maximum scope of your research. In this case, its maximum reach is the result of an advanced SEM technique; it is a mediation. A parsimonious and formal objective could be: "to analyze the mediating role of information system agility between digital technology and the optimization of operational decisions within health care supply chains in China."

2. The introduction complies in a clear and supported manner with the necessary elements. He discusses the problem, provides a summary of the background, and concludes with a paragraph that sets an objective. It also closes with a capitulating paragraph. (Consider the correctional comments on the aim of point 1.)

3. Review of literature, conceptual framework, and theoretical support of assumptions. The SEM-based methodology requires a strong conceptual and theoretical foundation for the defense of hypotheses. In this case, these sections are sufficiently and prominently complied with. It closes nicely with a clear presentation of its theoretical model.

4. Methodology. This section is usually the most important in scientific research. The clarity and support of each of the phases of our research design guarantee the rigor of the theoretical demonstrations that are made in an original article. I was surprised that the manuscript does not have a section on Methodology. Therefore, I recommend consulting the literature on your subject that CBSEM has used and examining the sections that are styled to report on your "Methodology Section". This magazine has a wealth of documents that can help you. An example of a basic structure is:

a. Research approach and design. It indicates the type of study, and something that should justify and strongly support this decision in this section is the use of the CBSEM technique. What is the nature of the objective, of the data, of the sample that justifies basing itself on covariance and not the prediction of SEM-PLS?
b. Population, sample, and collection procedure. Here include "3.4. Demographics". However, it should also describe the target population, as well as its sampling technique (probabilistic or non-probabilistic). Clarify the strategy for applying instruments (online, face-to-face, etc.).

In this respect, the condition of the CBSEM technique is the requirement for large sample sizes. It must present evidence and support that the sample size is sufficient for a CBSEM technique, for example, a sample sufficiency test with GPower.

c. Common method bias. Demonstrate and justify how you ensure your survey doesn't artificially inflate the correlation between variables.

d. Measuring instruments. Here, include your content of "3.3. Measurement", but also a description of the scales (Likert, semantics, etc.).

e. Analysis technique. Description of the software used; analysis strategy (two-step approach: first measurement model, then structural model). Adjustment criteria. In addition to estimation methods and their justification.

5. I consider the results, discussions, conclusions, and recommendations to be well presented and consistent with the critical apparatus of the work. It is necessary to strengthen the methodology to withstand the rigor of its findings.

Fraternal,

Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

RV2_sustainability-3843056

I have read the new version of the manuscript "The Impact of Digital Technology Characteristics on Operational Decision Optimization: The Mediating Role of Information System Agility in Healthcare Supply Chains", which uses an empirical statistical methodology and a structural equation model based on covariance. The objective of the research was to analyze the mediating role of information system agility between digital technology and the optimization of operational decisions within the digital technology domain of healthcare supply chains in China. The article has undergone significant improvements; however, I would like to make a few minor suggestions to enhance the text further.

1. The objective congruence matrix in summary and introduction. It seems to me that the new objective is concise and academically formal; however, it differs from the one presented in the abstract.
As a recommendation, the same objective of the introduction should be replicated in the abstract to ensure consistency.

2. Methodology.

The section has been reinforced in support of the work of Dash and Paul (2021), which was published in a high-impact journal. This gives support. In the same article by Dash and colleagues, it can be observed that the authors support their statements regarding SEM techniques with seminal literature of the techniques, also pointing out each of the parameters and tests within SEM.

As a recommendation, from the same article by Dash and Paul (2021) take up seminal literature to support its section "3.3. Methodology".

3. Population, sample, and collection procedure.

While he uses the citation "[86]" to support "two steps" with the use of AMOS, this same citation "[86]" arises from a title that specializes in Stata. In this same section, there is a bug that you should be careful of. It is stated that the sampling technique was by means of a random procedure. This is illogical because to carry out this procedure, it is required to have the universe number of its analysis unit "managers of Chinese companies in sanitary supply chains". The data of the universe of managers could fall into the category of "infinite universe" or "uncountable", since it would not be complicated, at first glance, to have the total number of this universe available.

As a recommendation in this section, use more relevant sources to support your methodology and technique. As for the sampling technique, it would also be necessary to support it with its literature and define a sampling technique congruent with the study. If it were random, it would have to dedicate a special section to describe and support this rigorous procedure.

4. Common method bias.

Although there is a basis and information on non-bias.
As a recommendation, briefly develop the conditions and parameters that support your obtained values.

5. Analysis technique (CB-SEM / AMOS).
   Returning to the recommendation of "recommendation 2", return to the seminal literature to support each of the tests and parameters of the stages, both of the i) measurement model, ii) structural model, and iii) of mediation.

Fraternally,

Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

RV3_sustainability-3843056

I have read the new version of the manuscript, which uses an empirical statistical methodology and a model of structural equations based on covariance. The objective of this research was to analyze the mediating role of information systems agility in the relationship between digital technology and the optimization of operational decisions in the digital technology sector of healthcare supply chains in China. The item has undergone significant improvements.

1. The objective congruence matrix in the summary and introduction.

In consistency, he has replicated in the abstract the same objective of the introduction to ensure coherence.

2. Methodology.

This section takes up seminal publications to support its section "3.3. Methodology".

I recommend: Review the logic of your topics and subtopics. "3.3. Methodology" cannot be a subtopic of "3. Hypotheses Development"· The "Methodology" section is independent; it should be section "4".

It is recommended to adjust the scheme in its methodology as follows:

4. Methodology

4.1. Measurement model

4.2. Structural model

4.3. Mediation.

 

Fraternally

Critical

Author Response

Comments 1: This section takes up seminal publications to support its section "3.3. Methodology". I recommend: Review the logic of your topics and subtopics. "3.3. Methodology" cannot be a subtopic of "3. Hypotheses Development"· The "Methodology" section is independent; it should be section "4". It is recommended to adjust the scheme in its methodology as follows:
4. Methodology
4.1. Measurement model
4.2. Structural model
4.3. Mediation.

Response 1: 

Thank you very much for your constructive suggestion regarding the structure of the paper. I sincerely appreciate your careful reading and guidance.

Following your recommendation, I have revised the structure of the manuscript. The Methodology section has now been separated as an independent section (Section 4. Methodology), instead of being placed under Hypotheses Development. I believe this adjustment improves the logical flow and clarity of the paper.

Thank you again for pointing out this issue and helping me improve the quality of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf