Impact of Supply Chain Risk Management on Product Innovation Performance of Omani SMEs: Synergetic Moderation of Technological Turbulence and Entrepreneurial Networking

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Report for "Impact of Supply Chain Risk Management over Product Innovation Performance of Omani SMEs; Synergetic Moderation of Technological Turbulence and Entrepreneurial Networking"

I. Overall Evaluation

This paper focuses on the relationship between supply chain risk management (SCRM) and product innovation performance of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Oman and further explores the moderating effects of technological turbulence and entrepreneurial networking. The topic is highly relevant to the current practical problems faced by enterprises and has important practical significance. The research method is scientific and rigorous. It adopts a quantitative research method, collects data through adapted questionnaires, and uses structural equation modeling for analysis, effectively ensuring the reliability and validity of the research results. The overall research is clear and logically coherent, progressing from theoretical basis, research hypotheses, methods, results to discussion and implications, providing valuable references for SME managers and scholars in related fields.

II. Problems and Suggestions

1.Limitations in sample selection: The study only selected 99 SMEs with a complete supply chain management system as the sample. The sample size is relatively small and there is a certain selection bias, which may not fully represent the overall situation of SMEs in Oman. It is recommended to increase the sample size and adopt more representative sampling methods such as random sampling in future research to enhance the universality of the research results.

2.Lack of details in variable measurement: For the key variables in the study, such as supply chain risk management, product innovation performance, entrepreneurial networking, and technological turbulence, although the sources of the measurement scales are stated, the details of how to ensure the applicability and validity of these scales in the context of Omani SMEs are not elaborated. A detailed description of the variable measurement process should be added, including whether a pretest was conducted and how to deal with possible cultural differences or industry specificities.

3.Room for improvement in theoretical depth: In the theoretical basis section, although the resource-based view (RBV), resource dependence theory (RDT), and contingency theory are integrated, the internal logical relationship between each theory and the research variables can be further deepened. For example, when explaining the moderating role of technological turbulence, a more detailed combination with the core viewpoints of the contingency theory can be made to clarify how it specifically affects the relationship between supply chain risk management and product innovation performance, making the integration of theory and research content more seamless.

4.Lack of dynamic research design: The study uses cross-sectional data and cannot capture the changes of enterprises over time. Given the dynamic nature of supply chain risks and the technological environment, it is recommended that future research adopt a longitudinal research design to track the changes of enterprises at different time points, so as to gain a deeper understanding of the causal relationship and dynamic evolution process among variables.

5.Insufficient consideration of industry differences: The paper does not distinguish and analyze SMEs in different industries. However, there may be significant differences in supply chain risk characteristics, innovation needs, and network resource utilization among different industries. Future research can further explore the impact of industry factors on the research results by conducting industry-specific analyses or introducing industry control variables to improve the accuracy of the research.

6.Lack of practical guidance for application: In the management implications section, although suggestions such as enterprises should use entrepreneurial networks to deal with technological turbulence and strengthen supply chain risk management are put forward, there is a lack of detailed operational guidance on how enterprises can specifically implement these strategies. Actual case analyses or specific action steps can be added to help enterprise managers better apply the research results to practice.

7.Insufficient in-depth comparison with existing research: In the discussion section, although the relationship between this study and existing research is mentioned, the comparative analysis is not detailed and comprehensive enough. A more in-depth comparison of the similarities and differences between the results of this study and existing related research should be made to clarify the unique contributions of this study and its position in the academic context, and strengthen the elaboration of the theoretical contributions of the research.  

Author Response

1. Overall Evaluation

This paper focuses on the relationship between supply chain risk management (SCRM) and product innovation performance of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Oman and further explores the moderating effects of technological turbulence and entrepreneurial networking. The topic is highly relevant to the current practical problems faced by enterprises and has important practical significance. The research method is scientific and rigorous. It adopts a quantitative research method, collects data through adapted questionnaires, and uses structural equation modeling for analysis, effectively ensuring the reliability and validity of the research results. The overall research is clear and logically coherent, progressing from theoretical basis, research hypotheses, methods, results to discussion and implications, providing valuable references for SME managers and scholars in related fields.

Response

Thank you for the compliments

1. Problems and Suggestions

1.Limitations in sample selection: The study only selected 99 SMEs with a complete supply chain management system as the sample. The sample size is relatively small and there is a certain selection bias, which may not fully represent the overall situation of SMEs in Oman. It is recommended to increase the sample size and adopt more representative sampling methods such as random sampling in future research to enhance the universality of the research results.

Response

Thank you for the kind response, however, as per SME Development Authority there are 141,126 SMEs in Oman out of which 120,000 are micro and only 19000 are small and 1100 are medium. SMEs having a supply chain network were among the medium enterprises, which were only 1100. It was very difficult to collect the data from them because as per the culture of the country people are not very comfortable in answering regarding anything about their business.  So, I have added a few lines justifying small sample size.

 

2.Lack of details in variable measurement: For the key variables in the study, such as supply chain risk management, product innovation performance, entrepreneurial networking, and technological turbulence, although the sources of the measurement scales are stated, the details of how to ensure the applicability and validity of these scales in the context of Omani SMEs are not elaborated. A detailed description of the variable measurement process should be added, including whether a pretest was conducted and how to deal with possible cultural differences or industry specificities.

Response

The variables have been explained in the methodology, detailed description of the variable measurement process has been added. As far as the validity is concerned, item loadings, Cronbach’s Alpha, Composite Reliability, and Average Variance Extracted have been analyzed to confirm the validity and reliability of the study. Secondly, the sample size is small, so the data collection was performed in one time without any pretest because the instrument used was adopted from prior studies. No new instrument was developed which necessitates pretesting.

 

3.Room for improvement in theoretical depth: In the theoretical basis section, although the resource-based view (RBV), resource dependence theory (RDT), and contingency theory are integrated, the internal logical relationship between each theory and the research variables can be further deepened. For example, when explaining the moderating role of technological turbulence, a more detailed combination with the core viewpoints of the contingency theory can be made to clarify how it specifically affects the relationship between supply chain risk management and product innovation performance, making the integration of theory and research content more seamless.

Response

The link between theories and the variables has been further explained, also the linking of contingency theory with the technological turbulence has been explained further.

 

4.Lack of dynamic research design: The study uses cross-sectional data and cannot capture the changes of enterprises over time. Given the dynamic nature of supply chain risks and the technological environment, it is recommended that future research adopt a longitudinal research design to track the changes of enterprises at different time points, to gain a deeper understanding of the causal relationship and dynamic evolution process among variables.

Response

This longitudinal study has been suggested in future.

 

5.Insufficient consideration of industry differences: The paper does not distinguish and analyze SMEs in different industries. However, there may be significant differences in supply chain risk characteristics, innovation needs, and network resource utilization among different industries. Future research can further explore the impact of industry factors on the research results by conducting industry-specific analyses or introducing industry control variables to improve the accuracy of the research.

Response

This has also been suggested in future recommendations. Secondly mostly the businesses in Oman are related to trade and very few related to manufacturing. So, most of the SMEs participated were mainly from trade and services.

 

6.Lack of practical guidance for application: In the management implications section, although suggestions such as enterprises should use entrepreneurial networks to deal with technological turbulence and strengthen supply chain risk management are put forward, there is a lack of detailed operational guidance on how enterprises can specifically implement these strategies. Actual case analyses or specific action steps can be added to help enterprise managers better apply the research results to practice.

Response

Practical implications have been extended further.

 

7.Insufficient in-depth comparison with existing research: In the discussion section, although the relationship between this study and existing research is mentioned, the comparative analysis is not detailed and comprehensive enough. A more in-depth comparison of the similarities and differences between the results of this study and existing related research should be made to clarify the unique contributions of this study and its position in the academic context and strengthen the elaboration of the theoretical contributions of the research.  

Response

Further comparison has been made in the discussion section before the theoretical contribution.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.In introduction, this paper reviews the research in related fields, but fails to fully summarize the shortcomings of existing research and clearly points out how this study fills these gaps. For example, when discussing the impact of technological turbulence on innovation, it does not mention the cutting-edge research on the relationship between digital transformation and innovation performance in recent years.
2.The study selected 99 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Oman. The sample size is small and limited to a single country, which is difficult to represent the general situation of SMEs around the world or in different regions. This limitation may affect the external validity of the research conclusions. Under different economic development levels, technological environments and policy support backgrounds, SMEs' supply chain risk management and product innovation behaviors may vary significantly. 
3.The article adopts purposive sampling and only selects SMEs with their own supply chain networks, which may lead to sample bias. Other SMEs without independent supply chain networks may face different risks and innovation challenges, but these situations are not covered in the study. 
4.In Table 7, although the study used a structural equation model (PLS-SEM) for analysis, the model's explanatory power (R²) for product innovation performance was only 0.324 (when no moderating variables were added), which indicates that the model may have missed other important influencing factors, such as the company's internal R&D capabilities and the degree of market competition. 
5.The newly(2025&2024) published related works such as '10.1016/j.ress.2023.109693'should be added and discussed,especially from this journal(Sustainability).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A carefully proofreading is suggested.

Author Response

1.In introduction, this paper reviews the research in related fields, but fails to fully summarize the shortcomings of existing research and clearly points out how this study fills these gaps. For example, when discussing the impact of technological turbulence on innovation, it does not mention the cutting-edge research on the relationship between digital transformation and innovation performance in recent years.

Response

Introduction section has been enhanced a bit further and studies that have shown the significance of technological turbulence for innovation have been highlighted.

 
2.The study selected 99 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Oman. The sample size is small and limited to a single country, which is difficult to represent the general situation of SMEs around the world or in different regions. This limitation may affect the external validity of the research conclusions. Under different economic development levels, technological environments and policy support backgrounds, SMEs' supply chain risk management and product innovation behaviors may vary significantly. 

Response

Thank you for the kind response, however, as per SME Development Authority there are 141,126 SMEs in Oman out of which 120,000 are micro and only 19000 are small and 1100 are medium. SMEs having a supply chain network were among the medium enterprises, which were only 1100. It was very difficult to collect the data from them because as per the culture of the country people are not very comfortable in answering regarding anything about their business.  So, I have added a few lines justifying small sample size.

 

3.The article adopts purposive sampling and only selects SMEs with their own supply chain networks, which may lead to sample bias. Other SMEs without independent supply chain networks may face different risks and innovation challenges, but these situations are not covered in the study. 

Response

The purpose of the study was to identify the role of supply chain risk management for product innovation performance; hence the SMEs that were not having supply chain network were basically those SMEs which were micro or small, in this situation, those SMEs were basically out of the scope. SMEs without independent supply chain were micro enterprises and they get the supplied directly from the retailers, so they were not exposed to these risks. It is suggested for the future researchers to analyse the same model in different economic situations. Still sample selection and small sample size has been further explained in the methodology.

4.In Table 7, although the study used a structural equation model (PLS-SEM) for analysis, the model's explanatory power (R²) for product innovation performance was only 0.324 (when no moderating variables were added), which indicates that the model may have missed other important influencing factors, such as the company's internal R&D capabilities and the degree of market competition.

Response

Thank you for the valuable input, however, there is always some scope of the study and yes research and development, market competition, market orientation, and a few more are obvious but it has been studied a lot before, so we avoided to reinvent the wheel.
5.The newly(2025&2024) published related works such as '10.1016/j.ress.2023.109693'should be added and discussed, especially from this journal(Sustainability).

Response

I have reviewed the suggested paper, but I am extremely sorry I was unable to find any link of the suggested paper with the study, secondly was published in 2023 and majority of the references and citations I have used are from the last 5 years, Additionally the suggested Paper do not even belong to sustainability but manufacturing.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made good revisions, and I have no additional comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language The English writing is acceptable.   分享

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is revised carefully,the acceptance is suggested.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The english expression could be polished.