Difficulties Encountered by SMMEs in uMhlathuze Municipality Due to COVID-19 Crisis

Comment 1: The methodology section is incomplete, with only parts of the research philosophy and methodological choice discussed. 

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. A discussion of the ontological, epistemological, and axiological assumptions related to this research has been added (see the highlighted section of the last paragraph on page 6). Reasons for adopting qualitative research have been added as well (see highlighted section the second paragraph on page 7).

Comment 2: The referencing style is inconsistent and incomplete (e.g., "Saunders et al, 2016" vs. "Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2016:720").

Response 2: Noted. Please refer to the whole document on the changes made in this regard.

Comment 3: The methodology section lacks detail on sampling, data analysis techniques, and ethical considerations.

Response 3: Thank you for raising this. More detail on sampling and ethical considerations has been added (see the highlighted first and forth paragraphs on page 8 respectively). However, the researchers are of the opinion that data analysis has been fairly discussed. Please see the last 2 paragraphs on page 8.

Comment 4: The rationale for choosing a qualitative approach is not clearly explained.

Response 4: Kindly noted. In response to your comment, we have accordingly provided the reasons why qualitative research was adopted (See highlighted section of paragraph 2 on page 7).

Comment 5: Conduct a comprehensive literature review that critically evaluates the existing research and clearly articulates the research gap that the study aims to address. 

Response 5: Noted. The researchers have outlined the research gap the study wishes to address in response to this comment (Check the last paragraph highlighted in red on page 2). With regards to a comprehensive literature review, the researchers feel they fairly addressed that. Kindly check the literature review section.

Comment 6: Provide more information about the data collection process, including the sample size, participant selection, and data saturation.  Clearly describe the data analysis techniques used, including theme identification, and data interpretation.

Response 6: Additions made with regards to data collection, sample size, and participant selection are highlighted in red on the first paragraph on page 8. Information on data saturation has been included as well (see the last sentence on paragraph 3 page 8). Data analysis techniques adopted including theme identification had already been addressed to the best of the researchers’ abilities (see the last 2 paragraphs on page 8 and the first two paragraphs on page 9 including figure 1).

Comment 7: Incorporate Quantitative Methods: To enhance the robustness of the research, consider integrating quantitative methods, to complement the qualitative data.

Response 7: Kindly noted. However, the research was purely qualitative hence integrating any quantitative methods would transform it to mixed methods research, a totally new approach with different methodological and interpretation requirements.

8:  Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing style is somewhat informal for an academic paper (e.g., use of "In simple,").

There are some grammatical and formatting issues (e.g., inconsistent capitalization, missing spaces after periods)

Should improve the overall writing quality, ensuring a more formal academic tone and correcting minor grammatical errors.

Inconsistent formatting: The text appears to be a mix of different formatting styles, with some sections having numbered lines and others not. It would be better to have a consistent formatting throughout the document.

Lack of clarity: Some sentences are wordy or unclear, making it difficult to understand the intended meaning. For example, the sentence "The quotations above disclose that due to corruption and incompetency of government officials, SMMEs were harassed, failed, or had difficulties in accessing permits and financial aid from the government" could be rephrased for better clarity.

Minor errors: There are a few minor errors, such as missing articles ("a" or "the") in some places, which can be easily corrected.

8: Response to comments on the quality of English Language – Kindly noted. An English editor will be employed to address these shortcomings. If you have the service for language editing and copy editing, we would appreciate it and you may quote us for that service.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Comment 1: Explain better why this paper is still relevant and the gap it intends to fill and why?

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. A lot of literature that is available in South Africa on challenges SMMEs faced because of COVID-19 comes from government departments and scholars such as Ladzani (2022) who used desk research to conduct their research. Such literature might not adequately reveal what happened in individual municipalities with regards to the challenges SMMEs encountered due to COVID-19. Additionally, the pandemic impact also varied geographically across the country in terms of economic losses, and the number of infections and loss of life. Against this background, the researchers are of the view that a better understanding of the challenges SMMEs in South Africa faced due to the pandemic, that can be used by both the government and SMMEs to prepare for future disasters, can only be obtained by conducting research that is focused on SMMEs in individual municipalities. This is the gap this research seeks to fill by carrying out this research.

Comment 2: Improve the link between the literature and the questions raised/proposed in the research, maybe introducing them within the literature review or by providing additional support in the material and methods section.

Response 2: Agree. We have, accordingly, listed some of the questions asked during the interviews under the methodology section on paragraph 3 page 8.

Comment 3: Increase the discussion of the paper by relating them with the previous literature, which is overall missing in the paper.

Response 3: Noted. However, contrary to the reviewer’s comment, researchers believe they linked the discussion of the research findings to existing literature. Please go through the ‘Discussion of research findings’ from pages 15 to 18 for evidence.

Comment 4: Aligned with my previous concern (and probably explain this absence), there are no relevant papers from 2023 onwards, with a few exceptions; it appears that the paper could have been written two years ago.

Response 4: Thank you for raising this.  What happened is the researchers were engaged in another COVID-19 related research before the writing of this paper. Hence, when they decided to write this paper, they used most of the resources they already had in their library on COVID-19.

Comment 5: I didn't see clearly in the paper the identification of the two months where the interviews were collected by the authors.

Response 5: Noted. We have accordingly included this in the methodology section. Please refer to paragraph 3 page 8.

5. Additional clarifications

[Here, mention any other clarifications you would like to provide to the journal editor/reviewer.]

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Comment 1: From my side, I still think the paper does not clearly and explicitly provide readers with an understanding of the set of questions proposed to the participants. Readability and scientific soundness must be improved by initially clarifying the questions/ themes to be assessed afterwards. A codification could be useful for this purpose, as I already proposed. I don’t know why the authors insisted on not improving this aspect, which is relevant from my point of view.

Response 1: Kindly noted. Improvements in this regard have been made. Some of the questions which were contained in the interview guide have been provided under the data collection section. Please refer to page 8. An excerpt of a coded interview has also been provided to this effect. Please refer to page 9.

Comment 1: The results are clearly presented using qualitative data and themes. Improvements might include additional visuals or tables for reader engagement and comprehension. The images although visible are a little fuzzy, require some better-quality crops.

Response 1: Kindly noted. Researchers have accordingly replaced unclear images with typed quotations. Please see all highlighted sections on pages 9-12. A table which summarises the challenges experienced by entrepreneurs has been added too on page 13.

Comment 2: The lack of explicitly stated hypothesis is an issue as it can guide expected outcomes and analysis.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. Research questions in place of a hypothesis have been included. Kindly refer to the last paragraph, page 2.

Comment 3: The conclusions are supported by the data but could benefit from a stronger linkage back to the research questions and hypothesis.

Response 3: Thank you for raising this. Improvements have been made to address this issue. See highlighted sections on page 16.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Comment 1: Thank you for the improvements made. However, I’m sorry to insist on this point: from my perspective, the proposed questions should be better supported by the literature review so that readers can understand its relevance from a scientific standpoint. This is a relevant aspect (the “heart” of this research) for me, and the authors did not improve it properly.

Response 1: Kindly noted. Improvements in the literature review have been made to align it with the research questions. Please refer to the literature review section and the research questions on the last paragraph on page 2

Comment 2: I suggest authors review some unnecessary excerpts, namely those that explain what some methodological matters mean, which should be of general knowledge to readers.

Response 2: Your feedback is greatly appreciated. Most of the excerpts have been replaced with typed quotations in response to your suggestion. Refer to pages 9 – 12.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments