A Systematic Analysis of Big Data-Driven Humanitarian Supply Chain Management Research: Implications for Emerging Economies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewers’ comment:

Reviewer One

This article uses bibliometric methods to review research on big data-driven humanitarian supply chain management. The subject of the research is interesting because the importance of humanitarian supply chain management is growing day by day. However, there are still some issues with this article, and I recommend that the author make major revisions:

 

Response: Many thanks for your encouraging words and guidance.

1. After the description in Figure 1 appears in line 45, please place Figure 1 after it.

Response: Many thanks for this suggestion. We have added appropriate citations here and removed the reference of table 1 from introduction section.

2. In Chapter 2, the author should first explain why literature was obtained solely from the Scopus database rather than from databases such as Web of Science. Furthermore, the author should attempt to provide the literature search terms in the article, as this will help readers reproduce the literature search.

Response: thank you for this very important observation. Search keywords are now provided in the material and method section. We have also added the rationale of using Scopus database only.

“These keywords include, humanitarian logistics, humanitarian supply chain, humanitarian supply chain management, emergency logistics, emergency supply chain, emergency operations, humanitarian operations, big data, big data analytics, digital technology.” (page 4 of R1)

3. Currently, the results section of Chapter 3 is relatively simple. I suggest that the author further analyze the results section from multiple perspectives, such as authors, journals, institutions, and countries, to determine which authors, institutions, and countries are conducting research in this field, as well as the main source journals.

Response: Thank you for this comment; we have added more analysis in this section now.

4. What are the reasons for the classification into six themes? Please ask the author to add more info in the article.

Response: Thanks for highlighting this issue. We have now added the explanation that how seix themes were yielded in a strategic map.

“Bibliometrix package uses certain algorithms (e.g., Louvain, Walktrap, Spherical k-means, or simple network component detection) to group keywords into a cluster/theme and the number of themes in strategic maps are not predetermined.”

5. There are also some spelling errors in the article, such as “county” should be “country.” Please review the entire article for any errors.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this. We have now thoroughly proof read the paper and the revised manuscript has more readability and is free from grammatical error.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is a review of the use of big data in humanitarian supply chains.  The selection of articles seems relevant and the presentation of the results in figure 3 is interesting. The presentation of the results as motor/base/emergent is the key strength of the paper.

However, there are two major issues with the paper which should be addressed.

(1) The title includes implications for emerging economies. The need for this focus is explained in lines 63-75 and is then revisited as a theoretical discussion in lines 314-341. In between, there is no mention of emerging economies at all.  I have no issues with the discussion, but a discussion cannot be the sole answer to a research question.  When review research questions are presented (82-89), I am expecting to find an answer to these from the review itself, not from a discussion following the review. Specific examples of challenges faced by emerging economies would be useful.

There is also an ambiguity around what the authors think of humanitarian supply chains.  To my knowledge, they involve both global organisations (e.g. the Red Cross) and local institutions.  This means that it is difficult to describe such a supply chain as either local or global, i.e. as being based in an emerging economy.  The third research question is interesting, but to answer it, I would need to read a description of the specific challenges that emerging economies members of the supply chain are facing.  Do note that I have no issue with the content in lines 314-341 staying as it is, i.e. as an discussion point. My concern is with implying that review research was done to articulate this section.

(2) Systematic reviews should ideally be reviews of evidence (see publications by David Tranfield about the origin of systematic reviews from the medical field for more details).  No evidence is reviewed in this paper. In other words, the paper is a review of abstract concepts. The risk with such conceptual reviews is that they can end up being meaningless, and I am concerned that this paper is borderline in this respect.  Based on the title, I was hoping to first find some information about how big data is used in humanitarian supply chains.  This would be information that I would expect to see both in the introduction and then in evidence tables.  For example, why would a humanitarian supply chain require the use of blockchain technology? There is a very brief discussion of facility allocation in line 270, but many type of software could achieve this. Why blockchain? In line 338, we are told that blockchain can enhance effectiveness.  This is a very meagre form of evidence. If a clear and well articulated explanation/justification is missing from the papers that were reviewed, then it could be a point for critical discussion.

Because of points (1) and (2) combined together, I do not find the paper informative and original in terms of the answers to the research question.  What is written there is often so general that the meaning to the reader can remain too vague.

Author Response

Reviewer Two:

Reviewer’s comment:

The paper is a review of the use of big data in humanitarian supply chains.  The selection of articles seems relevant and the presentation of the results in figure 3 is interesting. The presentation of the results as motor/base/emergent is the key strength of the paper.

Response: thank you for this feedback. We appreciate your encouraging words. \de

 

Reviewer’s comment:

However, there are two major issues with the paper which should be addressed.

(1) The title includes implications for emerging economies. The need for this focus is explained in lines 63-75 and is then revisited as a theoretical discussion in lines 314-341. In between, there is no mention of emerging economies at all.  I have no issues with the discussion, but a discussion cannot be the sole answer to a research question.  When review research questions are presented (82-89), I am expecting to find an answer to these from the review itself, not from a discussion following the review. Specific examples of challenges faced by emerging economies would be useful.

There is also an ambiguity around what the authors think of humanitarian supply chains.  To my knowledge, they involve both global organisations (e.g. the Red Cross) and local institutions.  This means that it is difficult to describe such a supply chain as either local or global, i.e. as being based in an emerging economy.  The third research question is interesting, but to answer it, I would need to read a description of the specific challenges that emerging economies members of the supply chain are facing.  Do note that I have no issue with the content in lines 314-341 staying as it is, i.e. as an discussion point. My concern is with implying that review research was done to articulate this section.

Response: we thank you for your important feedback, we have now revised the various subsection of the paper from an emerging country perspective. Challenges related to emerging countries context have been adequately discussed in the data analysis and results section.

“Major barriers in humanitarian supply chain in emerging country context are poor quality of data, inadequate infrastructure such as roads etc.; poor digital infrastructure, lack of financial support, delayed response time, limited skill set and technical expertise, lack of coordination and collaboration among various stakeholders, organizational resistance to adopt new technologies, information sharing and knowledge sharing, knowledge asymmetry and so on (Altay & Pal, 2014; Bag et al., 2020; Kumar et al., 2024)”

Reviewer’s comment:

(2) Systematic reviews should ideally be reviews of evidence (see publications by David Tranfield about the origin of systematic reviews from the medical field for more details).  No evidence is reviewed in this paper. In other words, the paper is a review of abstract concepts. The risk with such conceptual reviews is that they can end up being meaningless, and I am concerned that this paper is borderline in this respect.  Based on the title, I was hoping to first find some information about how big data is used in humanitarian supply chains.  This would be information that I would expect to see both in the introduction and then in evidence tables.  For example, why would a humanitarian supply chain require the use of blockchain technology? There is a very brief discussion of facility allocation in line 270, but many types of software could achieve this. Why blockchain? In line 338, we are told that blockchain can enhance effectiveness.  This is a very meagre form of evidence. If a clear and well-articulated explanation/justification is missing from the papers that were reviewed, then it could be a point for critical discussion.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this important gap in this paper. Authors have now added the explanation to how various big data-based technologies can be used to mitigate the challenges related to humanitarian supply chain in emerging country context.  

“This theme is composed of keywords such as blockchain technology, information system, logistics and HSC. Blockchain technology is found to add to the transparency and accountability of HSC operations. Blockchain technology enabled the decentralization of supply chain ledgers and provided all stakeholders with real time tracking of aid material. Also, blockchain can be used to provide a temper proof record of transactions in humanitarian operations (Baharmand et al., 2021). Conclusively, blockchain technology enhances transparency, accountability, and traceability and thus adds to the trust and commitment among various stakeholders. Trust is an important precursor of success of humanitarian operations (Gao et al., 2024)”.

 

Reviewer’s comment:

Because of points (1) and (2) combined together, I do not find the paper informative and original in terms of the answers to the research question.  What is written there is often so general that the meaning to the reader can remain too vague.

Response: thank you for the feedback you have provided. We truly appreciate these observations and have tried to address them sincerely. We trust the revised manuscript have addressed these concerns.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I am sending a review report containing suggestions that I believe are appropriate to enhance the quality of the research and to meet scientific writing standards. I kindly request that you address each item in the report in the sequential numbering provided in the document.

Your response can include the revised excerpt or an indication of the line numbers associated with the specific comment. Alternatively, please provide a proper justification for sections you believe should not be altered including citations.

Best regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer three

Article: A Systematic Analysis of Big Data-Driven Humanitarian Supply Chain Management

Research: Implications for Emerging Economies

 

A brief summary

The objective of the research is to conduct a systematic review on humanitarian supply chain

management based on big data. The topic is relevant, and the content is clear. However, there

are several aspects that negatively impact the quality of the research.

 

General concept comments.

Although the article presents positive factors, there are also areas for improvement that should

be noted by the author(s). For a better understanding of the comments, they have been divided

by the sections of the article:

 

Response: Many thanks for your positive words. Authors appreciate the detailed feedback provided by you. Authors have now reworked on the paper and incorporated all your suggestions. The revised paper is much more focused and has high degree of clarity.

Introduction

1) Line 47: “Figure one of this study substantiates this.” It is recommended that the authors remove this sentence, as the purpose of the section is solely to provide context. Readers will gain a deeper understanding of the topic once the figure is actually presented.

 

Response: Thanks for this suggestion. Authors have now removed the reference of table 1 from introduction section and added some relevant and recent citations to substantiate our argument.

2) Line 76: “In present paper we aim to extend...”. The authors are advised to adopt a neutral tone throughout the article, avoiding the use of first-person pronouns. Since the objective pertains to the research itself rather than to the authors personally, this approach is more appropriate. Please revise the remaining content accordingly.

Response: Thanks for this suggestion. This is very important feedback, and authors have edited the entire paper considering this view.

3) Lines 82–89: In this section, the authors introduce the guiding questions of the systematic literature review. It is suggested that this content be relocated to the Materials and Methods section, where the methodological procedures of the review are explicitly described. In the introduction, it would be more suitable to present the research problem (either as a question or as a declarative statement), which would then lead more naturally into the subsequent paragraph justifying the study within the broader context of the importance of SLRs in this field. This transition requires only minor adjustments.

Response: We appreciate this feedback and now have moved the research questions to method and material section.

4) Lines 90–102: Some portions are written in the future tense, although the research has already been conducted. A simple adjustment to the past tense is recommended to reflect the completed status of the study, ensuring coherence for the reader who may already be considering the findings.

Response: Thanks for this suggestion. This is very important feedback, and authors have edited this section. 

Material and methods 5)

The section requires greater attention regarding the justification of the methodology. Although the authors state that the PRISMA protocol will be employed, they do not explain why this approach is appropriate or what benefits it provides, particularly in terms of reproducibility, and fail to address the underlying assumptions associated with this protocol.

Response: Thank you for bringing this to the attention. We have now added the advantage of using PRISMA framework and cited the relevant citation also.

6) The authors mention the use of bibliometric analysis (line 110), seemingly in combination with a systematic review (as stated in the title), but they do not clarify the specific contribution of each method to the study. The second paragraph discusses the relevance of bibliometric analysis, yet no mention is made of the systematic review approach.

Response: thank you for highlighting this point. We have now added the advantages of using systematic literature review for the purpose of this paper.

7) Line 120: The authors indicate that the review will focus on studies sourced from the Scopus database. However, in line 107, they claim to aim for a comprehensive review of the literature on the topic. Relying solely on a single database is insufficient for capturing the full scope of the literature. In its current form, the study represents a bibliometric review based on a single source, rather than a comprehensive literature review as proposed. Notably, relevant contributions may also be found in databases such as Web of Science, Springer Nature, and Emerald, which are not covered by Scopus. This issue, concerning the number of databases required to ensure broad coverage, is central to scientometric studies and is not addressed in this research. Likewise, no discussion is provided regarding studies that explore the merging of complementary databases.

Response: Authors thank reviewer for this comment. Authors have now added the rationale and justification of using Scopus data base. There is precedent that Scopus is used over web of sciences in social science categories due to its larger coverage comparatively.

We like to submit that springer nature and emerald are publishers and research papers published in their journals, books etc. are available on these publishers’ website. Whereas Scopus© provides data irrespective of publishers. We have provided the Scopus link to one of the journals published by each Springer nature and emerald to substantiate this.

https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/21101138720?origin=resultslist

https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/63777?origin=resultslist

8) Furthermore, the authors do not justify why Scopus was selected as the primary data source for this study.

Response: Thank you for this observation. Authors have now added the justification with citation for using Scopus as primary source.

9) What is the time frame for the data collection? On what date were the data retrieved? This section leaves many questions unanswered.

Response: Thank you for this. Date on which data was is now mentioned in the data retrieval process (April 2025).

10) The inclusion and exclusion criteria are not clearly defined for readers. They are only briefly mentioned starting from subsection 2.1.

Response: Thank you for this observation. Now, authors have detailed the exclusion and inclusion criteria both in the text and PRISMA flow diagram.

11) Why was grey literature included in the review? Are theoretical, empirical, and review articles all equally relevant to the research objectives? This discussion needs to be explicitly addressed.

Response: thank you for bringing this point to front. Authors have now added the importance of considering all type of peer reviewed research documents such a theoretical, conceptual, empirical, review papers etc.

12) During the screening stage, the number of studies was reduced from 79 to 64, but the excluded n = 15 is not documented or reflected in the exclusion categories.

Response: Thank you for this observation. In the revised paper, excluded documents are mentioned.

13) In subsection 2.1, the authors present the keywords used in the search strings, but they do not specify which Boolean operators were applied. This omission compromises the reproducibility of the article.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this very important point. Yes, we inadvertently missed the reporting of Boolean operator and thanks to the reviewer that these Booleans are now reported along with he keywords. 

14) In subsection 2.2, the authors indicate that bibliometric techniques will be used, based on a few selected metrics. Only three metrics are cited and justified, despite the existence of a much broader set of available indicators. In addition, the authors do not mention which software tool will be used. This lack of detail represents a serious issue in the study. For example, VOSviewer offers 19 different types of bibliometric maps, while Bibliometrix provides access to over 30 metrics. Why, then, are so many relevant analyses excluded from the research? For further guidance on this point, see the recently published article in Journal Fintech (MDPI): https://www.mdpi.com/2674-1032/4/3/32

Response: Authors thank reviewer for suggesting this. We have now used more metrics for analysis and added these results and discussion in the relevant chapters. The newly added techniques are discussed in the next point below.

 

 

Results

15) The main limitations of this section relate to the narrow range of metrics employed, which restricts a deeper understanding of the topic. Collaboration maps and clusters, keyword co-occurrence, research areas, countries, institutions, and citation structures are some of the additional perspectives that could be incorporated for a more comprehensive mapping of the field. These dimensions have the potential to provide valuable insights for both practitioners and scholars in the fields of management and business.

Response: many thanks for your feedback. The original submission only had objectives of mapping two knowledge structure i.e. conceptual and intellectual knowledge map. For Conceptual knowledge map, authors have used key word co-occurrence analysis and for intellectual knowledge map, authors have used co-citation analysis. Although, following your advice, authors have now employed more bibliometrics techniques such collaboration map between authors, most influential institutes and so on.

Discussion & Implications

16) Although this section aims to discuss the findings and their implications, it initially reiterates content already presented earlier in the paper. This section is expected to engage directly with the findings, contrasting them with existing evidence in the literature. In its current form, only four citations are included, which reflects a significant limitation in assessing how the study advances existing knowledge. This shortcoming may stem partly from the restricted analytical scope noted in the previous section, but it also highlights a lack of deeper engagement with insights from previous research, insights that this study was meant to build upon.

Response: Thank you for this important feedback and suggestion. We have now extended the discussion in reference to developed and developing economy while citing the recent and relevant discussion.

17) From a practical standpoint, several other pathways could be outlined for managers, entrepreneurs, and policymakers alike.

Response: Thank you for this feedback. We have now added the specific intervention for managers, policymakers etc.

 Conclusion, limitation and future research

18) The limitations acknowledged by the authors are appropriate but remain overly restricted. There is no discussion of limitations inherent to the chosen methods— namely, those associated with any bibliometric analysis or systematic literature review. Similarly, the authors overlook several relevant bibliometric metrics, even those available within the tool used in the study (Bibliometrix), as well as the implications of relying on a single database. It is strongly recommended that the authors consult the limitations section of the previously mentioned article to better understand the range of constraints commonly associated with studies of this nature.

Response: thank you for this observation and feedback. Authors have now added the specific limitations related to SLR, bibliometric techniques etc.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Please check the content of the article carefully and correct minor errors. For example, the "20205" on line 148 should be "2025", and the use of logical connectors such as “first,” “second,” and “third” in the 4. Discussion & Implications section.
2. I would suggest the author switch the order of Research Question 3 and Research Question 4 in 2. Material and Methods.
3. Authors should ensure that each figure is referenced in the main text before it appears. Figures 1, 4, and 5 all exhibit this issue.
4. In lines 172–176, the author only introduced the content of sections 3.1–3.3, omitting any discussion of section 3.4.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Revier Comment 1:

Please check the content of the article carefully and correct minor errors. For example, the "20205" on line 148 should be "2025", and the use of logical connectors such as “first,” “second,” and “third” in the 4. Discussion & Implications section.

Response: Authors thank the reviewer for this comment, we have now made appropriate changes.

Revier Comment 2:

I would suggest the author switch the order of Research Question 3 and Research Question 4 in 2. Material and Methods.

Response: Authors thank the reviewer for this important observation and now have changed the order of research question 3 and 4. This certainly has improved the overall flow of findings.  

Revier Comment 3:

Authors should ensure that each figure is referenced in the main text before it appears. Figures 1, 4, and 5 all exhibit this issue.

Response: Authors thank the reviewer for highlighting this and now have added the reference of these tables in the text.

Revier Comment 4: 

In lines 172–176, the author only introduced the content of sections 3.1–3.3, omitting any discussion of section 3.4.

Response: Authors thank the reviewer for highlighting this and now have added introduction of section 3.4.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although each of my comments have been addressed by the authors, the changes made to the paper are rather cosmetic and do not fully address my concerns.  After reading this revised version, I am still none the wiser about the data that is required to manage humanitarian supply chain. The research questions remain very generic (they could be used for any systematic review).   I would prefer the paper to start with a detailed statement of data management challenges faced by humanitarian supply chain, which would provide the right background to organise the findings around.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

Comment 1:

Although each of my comments have been addressed by the authors, the changes made to the paper are rather cosmetic and do not fully address my concerns.  After reading this revised version, I am still none the wiser about the data that is required to manage humanitarian supply chain. The research questions remain very generic (they could be used for any systematic review).   I would prefer the paper to start with a detailed statement of data management challenges faced by humanitarian supply chain, which would provide the right background to organise the findings around.

Response: Thank you for this observation. We have tried addressing all the suggestions and observation made by you diligently. The scope and focus of this paper is to comprehensively analyse and structure the existing research on big data and humanitarian supply chain. Fo this purpose, various bibliometric techniques have been employed, and findings of that analysis have been contextualised within an emerging country context.

A detailed argument around the data management challenges in humanitarian logistics has been added in the introduction section following reviewer’s suggestion.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The current version represents a significant improvement in quality. The discussions are more in-depth, and the bibliometric metrics have broadened the scope and provided a more comprehensive understanding of the topic. I believe this effort has greatly benefited your study.

My only remaining concern continues to be Comment 18 (following the numbering from the previous round). The article I recommended to the authors (Comment 14) devotes 10 paragraphs solely to discussing the inherent limitations of a bibliometric study, whereas the current version of your article still presents only one. I strongly encourage the authors to revisit this content, reflect on its points of convergence with their study, and consider ways in which these limitations could be addressed in future research.

Best regards,

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

Comment

The current version represents a significant improvement in quality. The discussions are more in-depth, and the bibliometric metrics have broadened the scope and provided a more comprehensive understanding of the topic. I believe this effort has greatly benefited your study.

My only remaining concern continues to be Comment 18 (following the numbering from the previous round). The article I recommended to the authors (Comment 14) devotes 10 paragraphs solely to discussing the inherent limitations of a bibliometric study, whereas the current version of your article still presents only one. I strongly encourage the authors to revisit this content, reflect on its points of convergence with their study, and consider ways in which these limitations could be addressed in future research.

Response: Authors thank the reviewer for their encouraging comment about the revised manuscript. Reviewer’s detailed feedback has helped authors greatly in improving the scope and depth of the paper.

Regarding the limitations of the bibliometric study, authors have expanded the limitation section of the paper.

“Present paper employed bibliometric techniques for data analysis. The bibliometric techniques itself have several limitations including methodological inconsistencies, inherent biases of bibliometric databases and integration of bibliometric techniques with other approaches of literature review. In terms of methodological limitations, the major limitation is lack of methodological inconsistency. Bibliometric analyses often suffer from ambiguity in use of various bibliometric techniques, and this may cause an inconsistency among conclusions and applications of such analyses (Azarian et al., 2023). The popular databases for retrieving bibliometric metadata of relevant research are Web of Science and Scopus databases. Although these two databases offer sufficient coverage in business management domain, there might be a chance of exclusion of some relevant piece of research on basis of language and region. Lastly, bibliometric techniques may not provide a comprehensive understanding of research field and hence requires an integration with other structural literature review approaches (Boell & Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2015)”.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction contains an additional paragraph to address my concern about the broad scope of the paper, i.e. it is never quite clear what is the big data that we are talking about in the paper.  The authors have also added that "While these reviews have contributed valuable insights, they exhibit certain limitations. First, their scope is often narrow, concentrating on specific aspects such as operational challenges or prioritization frameworks".  I have checked one of references (Kondraganti et al., 2024). I did not find it to be narrow as it is another literature review but I found it much more useful in terms of clearly presenting the different big data needs.  This source is about humanitarian operations rather than supply chain, and the fact that such a distinction is not made is another concern.  Given the diversity of big data needs in humanitarian supply chains, I think that there is a reason why papers about big data management are going to be "narrow".  This is because managing spatial data, SMS data, or social media data (for example) are distinct classes of problems.  A paper discussing how these different types of data can be integrated into a big data system would be interesting, but this not mentioned in the conclusion.  I remain concerned that by adopting a very broad scope, the authors are struggling to discover meaningful and novel conclusions.  The findings and the conclusion are too predictable and general to warrant a literature review and a publication.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Reviewer Comment 1:

The introduction contains an additional paragraph to address my concern about the broad scope of the paper, i.e. it is never quite clear what the big data that we are talking about is in the paper.  The authors have also added that "While these reviews have contributed valuable insights, they exhibit certain limitations. First, their scope is often narrow, concentrating on specific aspects such as operational challenges or prioritization frameworks".  I have checked one of references (Kondraganti et al., 2024). I did not find it to be narrow as it is another literature review, but I found it much more useful in terms of clearly presenting the different big data needs.  This source is about humanitarian operations rather than supply chain, and the fact that such a distinction is not made is another concern.  Given the diversity of big data needs in humanitarian supply chains, I think that there is a reason why papers about big data management are going to be "narrow".  This is because managing spatial data, SMS data, or social media data (for example) are distinct classes of problems.  A paper discussing how these different types of data can be integrated into a big data system would be interesting, but this not mentioned in the conclusion.  I remain concerned that by adopting a very broad scope, the authors are struggling to discover meaningful and novel conclusions.  The findings and the conclusion are too predictable and general to warrant a literature review and a publication.

 

Author response:

Thanks to reviewer for this observation, we have again searched for similar types of reviews and added relevant reviews to bring forth what is already known and how present review is contributing to this domain. We agree that Kondraganti et al., 2024, is primarily in humanitarian operations and not on humanitarian supply chain. This itself suggests that a structured literature review is warranted in the humanitarian supply chain too and author responded to this gap and developed present paper.

Author also wishes to submit that the scope of this paper is not about various types of data, data technologies but is generic to big data-based technologies and humanitarian supply chain management. Future research may examine the big data technologies in humanitarian supply chain context with narrow scope and present paper certainly provides motivation for such future explorations.

“For example, future research can integrate various theoretical perspectives such as technological acceptance model (what are the barriers and enablers of use of big da-ta-based technologies in humanitarian logistics?), information processing theory (explore the role of big data in improving the coordination among government agencies, NGOs, and other partners), and resource and dynamic capability perspective (how big data based capabilities can enhance the resilience of humanitarian operations and how big data based technologies can support adaptive logistics strategies). Few other re-search questions could be around the role of big data technologies in enhancing transparency and accountability, donor trust and so on. Research can also examine the issues related to data privacy, digital divide, and other ethical concerns in humanitarian logistics within emerging countries context.”