The Impact of Digitalisation on Supply Chain Competitiveness: A Multi-Country Comparative Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Introduction

The following are my observations and suggestions for improving and enriching the manuscript:

The first issue is the lack of line and page numbers of the current manuscript. Providing line numbers and page numbers is essential in the peer review process to make the feedback more precise and helpful. It allows the authors to easily locate the parts of the paper being referenced and address the issues directly.

The introduction provides a basic understanding of the context and relevance of the article’s topic. However, the background and rationale for the study are not well-developed and fail to establish a strong foundation for the research. As a result, the originality and academic contribution of the study are unclear. The authors should articulate the research gap from a scholarly perspective, rather than merely pointing to a gap without adequate support or critique from prior literature.

For example, the statement of “While there is a lack of studies on the statistical correlations and interrelationships among the key drivers of SCD, there are even fewer works addressing supply chain competitiveness among Eastern European countries,” is too general and lacks citations. It does not convincingly explain how the present study addresses this gap or builds upon existing research.

Moreover, the authors have combined a research question and hypothesis within the introduction, which is methodologically inappropriate. The introduction should conclude with clearly stated research questions or objectives, while the literature review should establish the research hypotheses, grounded in a critical review of prior studies. I recommend revisiting the formulation of the hypotheses to ensure they are specific, measurable, and clearly linked to the literature review. Hypotheses should not be based on broad or unsupported claims.

To strengthen the introduction, I recommend the following:

1. Reframe the discussion to clearly define the research gap, supported by relevant academic literature.
2. Include a brief paragraph summarizing the research methods used in the study.
3. Add a specific paragraph outlining the study’s contribution to the field, alongside the existing paragraph describing the structure of the paper.

 

Literature Review

However, although the authors' literature review is thorough and well-structured, the theoretical foundation of the study is lacking. The conceptual framework has not been developed based on an established theory or model, which weakens the overall rigor of the research. Furthermore, the research hypotheses should be clearly articulated in this section, grounded in the reviewed literature and supported by theoretical reasoning.

Material and methods

The main question arises as to why the authors have used data up to 2022 and not extended it up to 2024. More justifications are needed for this decision. Additionally, the authors state that 'previous studies have vouched for the utility of econometric modeling in the study of digital transformation within the supply chain.”. However, the authors should refer to specific examples and references to support this argument.

The use of multifactorial linear regression and publicly available data sources (World Bank and Eurostat) is methodologically sound for a macroeconomic study. However, the justification for analyzing each country separately, rather than employing a panel data approach-especially given the 10-year timeframe and three countries—needs to be more robust. A panel model could have provided richer insights into cross-country dynamics and temporal effects.

The study appropriately proxy’s digitalization and logistics using measurable indicators. However, the exclusion of potentially relevant variables, such as internet penetration and road freight, due to multicollinearity, should be better justified with diagnostic test outputs. Additionally, dropping significant logistics indicators might compromise a holistic understanding of supply chain competitiveness.

The study acknowledges key limitations, such as the use of aggregate-level data and a limited geographic scope, which restrict generalizability. The suggestion to use firm-level data and expand the country sample in future research is appropriate and could substantially improve the study's practical implications and academic contribution

 

Results

This section requires more effort from the authors. It is unusual that the R² values are impressively high across all three countries (Bulgaria: 81.2%, Poland: 95.6%, Romania: 97.4%) and the sample size is very limited (only 10 observations per country), which raises concerns about the generalizability of the findings and the statistical robustness of the research models.

There is a lack of statistical significance, with the exception of air freight in Romania, which only marginally approaches significance (p = 0.0519). This weakens the central argument of the study, which claims that improved logistics efficiency contributes to greater trade openness. The authors should explore potential reasons for this, such as limitations in the data, issues with model specification, or missing variables like road transport, customs performance, or intermodal integration. Future versions of the model should consider revising or excluding these indicators accordingly.

Regarding the Durbin-Watson statistics in Bulgaria (1.52) and Romania (2.56), these values indicate potential autocorrelation issues (positive and negative, respectively), which violate classical regression assumptions. No diagnostic plots or post-estimation tests (e.g., Breusch-Godfrey or VIF scores for multicollinearity) are presented, which undermines the reliability of the regression estimates. The authors should explicitly report these tests."

 

Regarding the Discussion section: In general, the discussion section does not sufficiently link back to the conceptual framework or engage in a comparative analysis beyond listing differences among countries. Thus, I suggest incorporating more theory-based reflection (e.g., from supply chain management or digital transformation literature) to enhance analytical depth.

Further, the author should discuss the results with support from the same point of view or different perspectives. Additionally, the discussion section does not clearly interpret why some variables (e.g., transport infrastructure) were insignificant. The absence of such interpretation limits the insightfulness of the findings.

The references to Setiawan et al. and He et al. are useful but feel somewhat disconnected from the study’s own findings ( i.e. Studies by Setiawan et al. [25] suggest that more and more companies should allocate a high budget to the development and innovation of supply chains." I suggest the authors improve this by more directly linking these external studies to the observed results. For example, how do the findings in Romania, Poland, and Bulgaria align or contrast with those from China?

On the other hand, the authors merged the limitations of the research into the discussion section, which affects the quality of the discussion. I suggest splitting this into a detailed discussion section and a separate limitations and future research section at the end of the paper.

The authors failed to answer the "so what" question- where are the theoretical and practical implications of the research? The authors only refer to one practical implication in the conclusion section. A separate section on the implications MUST be provided."

There is a grammatical mistake in “ Simple size”, it should indeed be "sample size

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback. We have carefully addressed your suggestions to improve our manuscript, and we did apply them as following:

1. Introduction: Lines and pages have been numbered in our manuscript, and the background has been redefined, establishing a stronger foundation for the research. At the same time, the research gap has been articulated from a scholarly perspective, including more citations to support our research premises, and a brief paragraph outlining the study’s originality and contribution to the field has been inserted.
2. Literature Review: We did articulate our research question and research hypothesis in the current scholarly work, emphasizing the ground of our study based on the scientific literature available.
3. Material and Methods: We did provide justification for including or excluding specific variables from our analysis, as well as we did approach a different analysis based on the panel regression.
4. Results and Discussions: The results and discussions have been updated and adapted to the new materials and methods used in our research study.
5. Limitations: The limitations section has been constructed separately from the conclusions and discussion section, as suggested in the feedback provided by Reviewer 4.
6. “So what” questions have been addressed and answered alongside the results and discussions, as well of conclusions, hence outlining the relationships between the research question and the results obtained after running the analysis connected to our study.

We do appreciate your valuable insights, which have significantly contributed to enhancing the quality and clarity of our work.

Best regards,
Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The study employs a multiple linear regression model but fails to account for potential non-linear relationships between variables (e.g., decreasing marginal effects of broadband penetration on trade openness). It is recommended to incorporate non-linear tests or interaction terms, and adopt a panel data model instead of separate country regressions to enhance the validity of cross-country comparisons.
2. Transportation indicators only include air and rail freight, overlooking road transport which dominates in Eastern Europe (e.g., road freight accounts for over 70% in Poland). It is suggested to supplement road transport data and provide theoretical justification for excluding this variable.
3. While the literature review mentions digital technologies (e.g., blockchain, AI), it lacks an integrated theoretical model linking digital infrastructure, human capital, and logistics efficiency. It is advisable to reference Volkova et al.'s (2020) comparative framework to clarify the mechanism between variables.
4. Policy suggestions in the conclusion lack quantitative basis. For example, Bulgaria's "strengthening digital tool adoption" lacks specific pathways (e.g., tax incentive ratios or investment amounts). It is recommended to design quantifiable policy instruments based on regression coefficients.
5. Section 4 Results, make it more visible by drawing some pictures to show the impact of key factors on supply chain and operation. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback. We have carefully addressed your suggestions to improve our manuscript, and we did apply them as following:

1. For enhancing the validity of our cross-country comparisons, we did indeed adopt a panel data model as your suggestion has been taking in consideration and we did apply the change in our method especially for highlighting the non-linear relationships between variables.
2. Theoretical justification for including or excluding specific variables has been added to the methodology and results provided by the panel regression.
3. Based on your suggestion, we did include Volkova et al.’s comparative framework, adopting it for our case in the current study.
4. Results and discussions have been rephrased and reorganized based on your feedback and following your suggestion with rich impact on our paper.
5. Visual elements (such as images and pictures) have been included across the body of our research paper as suggested for enhancing the visibility.

We do appreciate your valuable insights, which have significantly contributed to enhancing the quality and clarity of our work.

Best regards,
Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review: The Impact of Digitalisation on Supply Chain Competitiveness: A Multi-Country Comparative Approach

 

This paper explores the impact of digitization on supply chain competitiveness, and in particular analyzes how digital and logistical factors affect trade openness in three Eastern European countries (Bulgaria, Poland, and Romania) through a multi-country comparative approach.

 

1.The acronym “SCD” is incorrectly spelled “SDC” on its first appearance and needs to be harmonized as “Supply Chain Digitalisation (SCD)” and made consistent throughout the text. “and be consistent throughout.

 

2.The text mentions “lack of studies on statistical correlations”, but does not cite specific literature to demonstrate this gap, and suggests that additional reviews be conducted (e.g., pointing out that existing studies have focused more on Western Europe than Eastern Europe).

 

3.Some of the cited literature is old (e.g., [20] was published in 2019), and it is recommended that the literature of the last 3 years (e.g., 2023-2025) be supplemented to reflect the cutting edge.

 

4.The literature mentions the effect of education on SCD [22], but the later results show that ICT graduates do not have a significant effect in Bulgaria and need to explain the contradiction in the discussion section.

 

5.Only 10 years of data (2013-2022) may result in insufficient statistical efficacy, and it is recommended to indicate whether the minimum sample requirement for time series analysis is met.

 

6.Chapter 3. is short in length. Suggested to add validation of the validity and reliability of the model.

 

7.It is acknowledged that the omission of “road freight transport” has not been analyzed in terms of its potential impact (e.g., a potentially higher share of road transport in Eastern Europe) and that additional justification is needed.

 

8.Unharmonized decimal places in Tables 1-3 (e.g., 0.2889 vs. 0.05) are recommended to be retained to two decimal places.

 

9.Durbin-Watson values (e.g., Bulgaria 1.52) are close to critical values, but treatment measures (e.g., introduction of lagged variables) are not discussed and need to be added.

 

10.Economic significance is not quantified. For example, for every 1-unit increase in the number of broadband subscriptions in Poland, trade openness increases by $197,000. However, this is not converted to a percentage or elasticity, making it difficult to assess the actual impact.

 

11.The authors should discuss in conclusion how the digitization of the supply chain affects the economic competitiveness of firms.

 

12.The title of reference [6] is mixed into the text (“Logistics 4.0: Exploring...”)

 

13.Some DOI links with “https://” (e.g. [4]), some without “https://” and some without hyperlinks need to be formatted in a uniform manner.

 

14.The number of references is recommended to be raised to 30 or more

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback. We have carefully addressed your suggestions to improve our manuscript, and we did carry them as following:

1. We did harmonize our notation for “Supply Chain Digitalisation” and we did verify our consistency throughout the body of our paper.
2. The scientific literature has been expanded for demonstrating on defending the specific points taken into account in creating the framework of the study.
3. The cutting edge of our study is currently reflected in the addition of the latest findings in the scientific literature (the past three years) as suggested.
4. Results and discussions have been updated for reflecting the relationship between the scientific literature and the findings gained after running the panel regression.
5. Data has been expanded for meeting the criteria of the new methodology that has been carried out in the current analysis.
6. The validation and the validity of the model have been mentioned in the current body of our paper.
7. Justification for including or excluding variables in or model has been provided.
8. We did edit the manuscript for a better overall consistency.

9-10.  The significance of our model has been explained in more detail for enhancing the understanding of our future readers, based on the suggestion provided by your review.

12-14. Citations and references have been raised to 30, DOI links have been harmonized and the titles have been formatted as required.

We do appreciate your valuable insights, which have significantly contributed to enhancing the quality and clarity of our work.

Best regards,
Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for selecting such an interesting topic. Digital transformation has significantly impacted the supply chain, making this a timely subject that deserves scholarly attention to further enhance our understanding of this rapidly evolving field. 

However, I find the presentation to be somewhat lackluster. For instance, the interpretation of supply chain competitiveness is not discussed, nor is the rationale for comparing three countries. I believe that the research questions should focus on "why" and "how," as these inquiries will better shape the theoretical debates surrounding your work.

I also suggest that you move the hypotheses to the third section, where you discuss your theoretical model. Additionally, the theoretical basis for the model needs to be explained more clearly. 

Finally, it is important to connect how the results of your study contribute to both the micro and macro foundations of the debate. I recommend reviewing some recent articles to strengthen your work.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I found the language to be clear and easy to understand. However, careful editing could enhance the reading experience.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful for your feedback and appreciate the time you took to review our manuscript. Below are the key revisions we have made in response to your comments.

1. Supply chain competitiveness, as taken into account in our study, has been defined and presented for enhancing the clarity of our research paper.
2. Research question has been reframed, focusing as suggested, for stating an answer to a question based on “How”.
3. The hypothesis has been included in Chapter 3. Materials and Methods, increasing at the same time the basis of our research model and the methodology adopted.
4. Enhancing the discussion section: The discussion and conclusions have been strengthened by incorporating more references and a more thorough engagement with previous research, allowing for stronger critical analysis of our findings.

Your insights have greatly contributed to the depth and clarity of our manuscript, and we sincerely appreciate your thoughtful review.

Best regards,
Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research gap is not well developed, more effort should be made to ground the study in a strong theoretical foundation (e.g., a relevant theory or a published model).

The authors should add a paragraph at the end of the introduction that clearly articulates the study's contribution to the existing literature.

The term “Supply Chain Digitalization (SCD)” should be capitalized on first mention (line 36).

The discussion section should be revisited and enhanced by incorporating references that support the research findings, along with clearly stated arguments from the current study.

The limitations of the study should be moved from the discussion section to a separate section placed at the end of the manuscript, following the conclusion.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback. We have carefully addressed your suggestions to improve our manuscript, and we did apply them as following:

1. The research gap has been highlighted in our study, providing at the same time a full understanding of the specific problem we have decided to address in our paper.
2. Using the TOE framework, we have placed our study in the theoretical foundation needed for an increased clarity of the paper.
3. We have included a paragraph highlighting the contribution of our study to the scientific literature.
4. We have harmonized the abbreviations used in our manuscript, and we have addressed the necessary changes in writing.
5. The discussion section has been modified for providing more clarity to our future readers or possible scholars interested in our work.
6. The limitations paragraph has been constructed and placed based on our understanding of the template provided by the platform.

We do appreciate your valuable insights, which have significantly contributed to enhancing the quality and clarity of our work.

Best regards,
Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Section 4 Results, make it more visible by drawing some pictures to show the impact of key factors on supply chain and operation.  The original tables should be remained. Fig and table are both ways to show the value of the results.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback. We have carefully addressed your suggestions to improve our manuscript, especially in Section 4: Results, and we did carry them as following:

1. We have updated our results section with the latest adjustments that we did carry-out in our on-going study.
2. As suggested, we did incorporate 3 tables and 3 figures for a better understanding of our findings regarding the impact of bey factors on supply chain and operations.
3. Based on your kind recommendation, we did insert back the significant table for enhancing the visibility of our results.

We do appreciate your valuable insights, which have significantly contributed to enhancing the quality and clarity of our work altogether. Please if you find any recommendations to be significant for our manuscript, do not hesitate at any given point.

Best regards,
Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I am pleased with the revised draft; however, I believe there is still considerable room for improvement. The academic language could be enhanced, as it is currently a bit below the expected standard. I encourage the authors to seek assistance from a colleague or a professional service to address this issue.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Consistency in writing is important. The flow of the story should be linear. The paragraphs are jumbled and need to be organised carefully.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful for your feedback, and we do appreciate the time you took to review our manuscript in this second round as well.  Below are the key revisions we have made in response to your comments and recommendations.

1. English clarity - while revising our manuscript, we did verify the clarity of the used English language and we took actions towards correcting and adjusting grammar and punctuation, seeking to increase the clarity of our manuscript for our future readers and scholars interested in our work.
2. Academic language – we did revise our manuscript to enhance more of the academic language and to increase its level towards the expected standard. Hence, neutral and informal verbs have been replaced with formal verbs and at the same time, the manuscript has been proofread carefully to avoid any grammar discrepancies.

Your insights have once again greatly contributed to the depth and clarity of our manuscript, and we sincerely appreciate your thoughtful recommendations in addition to your previous review.

Best regards,
Authors