Next Article in Journal
Information Dynamics in Complex Systems Negates a Dichotomy between Chance and Necessity
Next Article in Special Issue
Communication Strategies in Social Media in the Example of ICT Companies
Previous Article in Journal
Using a Long Short-Term Memory Recurrent Neural Network (LSTM-RNN) to Classify Network Attacks
Previous Article in Special Issue
Social Media Marketing in Creative Industries: How to Use Social Media Marketing to Promote Computer Games?
Article
Peer-Review Record

Selected Aspects of Evaluating Knowledge Management Quality in Contemporary Enterprises

Information 2020, 11(5), 244; https://doi.org/10.3390/info11050244
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Sergii Kavun
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Information 2020, 11(5), 244; https://doi.org/10.3390/info11050244
Received: 17 March 2020 / Revised: 14 April 2020 / Accepted: 29 April 2020 / Published: 1 May 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In my opinion, the article should have a very extensive review that includes not only an explanation of the theoretical sources on which it is based, but also the use of somewhat more sophisticated empirical methods than the simple calculation of correlation coefficients and a simple lineal regression analysis without no analysis on the goodness of the model beyond the calculation of R2 and the standard error.


In addition, many of the claims that the authors make should be better founded or, where appropriate, nuanced.
For example, on page 6 and again in the last section, the authors repeat that knowledge quality scores higher in large than in small companies. This statement is based solely on the simple mean of the answers to a question. In my opinion, at least, some test should have been carried out to verify that the differences in the means have statistical significance or not.

In relation to section 1, I think that the introduction should explain somewhat better and in greater depth what is being attempted as well as its theoretical anchors and the similar empirical works that may exist.

Regarding section 2, I think the authors would have to try to explain why the explanatory variables are chosen and what is their relationship with the theory. Likewise, it would be interesting to explain a priori what would be the direction of the influence of these variables on the quality of knowledge. In the same way, the links with the theoretical literature should be increased.

As far as the section 3 is concerned, again,  specific statements to be nuanced (eg on page 4 companies are rated as efficient simply by registering three consecutive years with positive results when efficient use of resources available to the company requires something more than that).

On the other hand, it is recognized that the sample is not random but not much more is said about how it was selected. Nor is it explained how the fact that there may be more than one response from each company is handled. What is said in the first paragraph would also apply to this third section.

To conclude, in my opinion, the work in its current form should undergo a major revision and especially an improvement in the econometric techniques to be considered for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for all the comments and suggestions that helped us significantly improve the article. We took all of them into the consideration because of the quality of the article. The table below presents our answers to your comments and recommendations. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the Information journal.

Yours sincerely,

Olga Sobolewska and Agnieszka Bitkowska

 

Review no. 1

Suggestions for improvements from the review

Author’s Answers

In my opinion, the article should have a very extensive review that includes not only an explanation of the theoretical sources on which it is based, but also the use of somewhat more sophisticated empirical methods than the simple calculation of correlation coefficients and a simple lineal regression analysis without no analysis on the goodness of the model beyond the calculation of R2 and the standard error.

 

We would like to thank you for the valuable comments. We tried to extend this part of manuscript referring to the most important references. In this case the data only these kind of statistical analysis was useful. We will use more sophisticated methods in the future with some special systems and the new data collection.

Lines:35-47, 522-534

 

In addition, many of the claims that the authors make should be better founded or, where appropriate, nuanced.
For example, on page 6 and again in the last section, the authors repeat that knowledge quality scores higher in large than in small companies. This statement is based solely on the simple mean of the answers to a question. In my opinion, at least, some test should have been carried out to verify that the differences in the means have statistical significance or not.

 

Thank you for your attention, which is very valuable and will certainly be used by us in further research. In the case of assessing the quality of knowledge, this is a factor that arises as a result of the answers to questions about the assessment: the amount of knowledge available, its quality and ease of access to it. The factors that make up the components are actually assessed in a subjective way, which we indicated in the description of the research. In accordance with the valuable reviewer's advice, we have supplemented the information on constructs included in the knowledge quality assessment.

Lines: 229-234

 

In relation to section 1, I think that the introduction should explain somewhat better and in greater depth what is being attempted as well as its theoretical anchors and the similar empirical works that may exist.

 

Thank you for the comments. We tried to extend this part of the manuscript in theoretical perspective and we have added some empirical works.

Lines:35-47

 

Regarding section 2, I think the authors would have to try to explain why the explanatory variables are chosen and what is their relationship with the theory. Likewise, it would be interesting to explain a priori what would be the direction of the influence of these variables on the quality of knowledge. In the same way, the links with the theoretical literature should be increased.

 

The connection of the factors analyzed by the authors with theoretic literature is highlighted in Table 1. There are references to the literature on the subject. This is, of course, not an exhaustive list, as the subject of knowledge management and estimation of its quality is a constantly developed issue and, to our great joy, is exploited in various areas and industries.

Lines:35-47, Table 1

 

As far as the section 3 is concerned, again,  specific statements to be nuanced (eg on page 4 companies are rated as efficient simply by registering three consecutive years with positive results when efficient use of resources available to the company requires something more than that). On the other hand, it is recognized that the sample is not random but not much more is said about how it was selected. Nor is it explained how the fact that there may be more than one response from each company is handled. What is said in the first paragraph would also apply to this third section.

 

 

The choice of enterprises for the study was dictated by the assumption of their profit in the last 3 years. It was a non-random sample, indicating the effectiveness of operations on the market of the surveyed enterprises.

Lines 175- 182

 

For some of the surveyed companies, more than one answer could appear. This was due to the fact that in relation to large corporations the survey was sent to several departments, and in the case of small and medium-sized enterprises it was the 1 answer.

Lines 195 -198 and Table 2

Moderate English changes required.

Currently, the manuscript was modified and have also been thoroughly checked as a part of the proofreading service.

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The authors should exept any abbreviations from Abstract, even well-known (lines 16, 21), it would be more easy for reading by usual readers.

2. Regarding to names of the paragraphs: they must be understanabless and indicate the essence of this part, for example, paragraph 2 (line 38) reminds a literature review. Thus, its mustn't be in common plan. In addition, if the authors exaplane about "Materials and Methods", then it must be "Materials and Methods" which the authors have used in their own research.

3. When you use some names of well-known persons, enterprises or software, you should use their copyright sign or/and indicate by appropriate reference (see lines 141, 178, 240).

4. Authors have used the abbreviation "KQ", but regarding this paper it was been presented in three!! different values (see lines 126 (in the table), 176 and 153). So, finally what it means ?

5. I think authors should write their name and surname in the part "Author Contributions" fully (line 281), not as abbreviations.

6. It's very hard to understanding the following moments:

6.1. What the relation between number of organizations and number of surveys? Is it one-to-one ? How muth surveys were been hundled in generally ? Based on the information from this paper: 58 (line 145) + 84 (line 147) - 4 (line 146) - 12 (line 146) = 126. Is it right ? Could the authors show all specific values.

6.2. Table 2. In header of this table was indicated the variable "N=84", but this variable also shows in the head of table (the second column), but with different values (for example, for the large org. size N=23). How it can be ?

6.3. How all presented values (for example, in table 2) were been calculated ? Where is a description of author's developed models, formulas, expressions, relations, etc. ? Or the authors used well-known models, formulas, expressions, relations, etc. ? but, in this case, where is the appropriate references ? Especially, when the authors presented their evaluations.

6.4. Figure 2. What's the measure units in this figure ? How were been calculated these values ? Based on which ctriteria the authors categorized the obtained results to three groups (small, medium, large) ?

6.5. Table 4. Why the authors have used only Pearson criterion ? How about other well-known criteria, such as Fisher, Student, etc. ?

6.6. What's the software was been used for calculation of all obtained results ?

7. Paper hasn't a paragraph "Conclusion", but it's a necessary point for any scientific paper.

8. List of references has 32,4% of the modern sources (not older than 5 years) and 62% of the international researches, I think it's very good.

9. The references list is not exhaustive, I think the authors can add some references from previous papers of this journal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for all the comments and suggestions that helped us significantly improve the article. We took all of them into the consideration because of the quality of the article. The table below presents our answers to your comments and recommendations. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the Information journal.

Yours sincerely,

Olga Sobolewska and Agnieszka Bitkowska

 

Review no. 2

Suggestions for improvements from the review

Author’s Answers

1. The authors should exept any abbreviations from Abstract, even well-known (lines 16, 21), it would be more easy for reading by usual readers.

 

Currently, abstract as well all modified and any abbreviations have also been thoroughly changed.

 

Lines 35-47

 

2. Regarding to names of the paragraphs: they must be understanabless and indicate the essence of this part, for example, paragraph 2 (line 38) reminds a literature review. Thus, its mustn't be in common plan. In addition, if the authors exaplane about "Materials and Methods", then it must be "Materials and Methods" which the authors have used in their own research.

 

The title of this part  was modified  ("Materials and Methods", was changed into Literature Review). The literature review prepared in this section provided the basis for ongoing research. The next titles were added or rename.

 

Lines 52-53, 111

3. When you use some names of well-known persons, enterprises or software, you should use their copyright sign or/and indicate by appropriate reference (see lines 141, 178, 240).

 

 Thank you very much for the comment, but it is difficult to find. In this line, we do not refer to the concrete references.

 

 

4. Authors have used the abbreviation "KQ", but regarding this paper it was been presented in three!! different values (see lines 126 (in the table), 176 and 153). So, finally what it means ?

 

In the manuscript we concentrated on knowledge quality in knowledge management processes in contemporary organizations.

 

Lines 44-47

5. I think authors should write their name and surname in the part "Author Contributions" fully (line 281), not as abbreviations.

 

Currently,  the we have eliminated the abbreviations surname in the part "Author Contributions".

 

Line 363

6. It's very hard to understanding the following moments:

6.1. What the relation between number of organizations and number of surveys? Is it one-to-one ? How muth surveys were been hundled in generally ? Based on the information from this paper: 58 (line 145) + 84 (line 147) - 4 (line 146) - 12 (line 146) = 126. Is it right ? Could the authors show all specific values.

 

Currently,  the we have modified the Table 2 and we explain description of research sample.We have described all specific values. For some of the surveyed companies, more than one answer could appear. This was due to the fact that in relation to large corporations the survey was sent to several departments, and in the case of small and medium-sized enterprises it was the 1 answer.

Lines 184 -189 and Table 2

6.2. Table 2. In header of this table was indicated the variable "N=84", but this variable also shows in the head of table (the second column), but with different values (for example, for the large org. size N=23). How it can be ?

 

Currently,  the we have modified the table 2 and we explain description of research sample.

 

Table 2

6.3. How all presented values (for example, in table 2) were been calculated ? Where is a description of author's developed models, formulas, expressions, relations, etc. ? Or the authors used well-known models, formulas, expressions, relations, etc. ? but, in this case, where is the appropriate references ? Especially, when the authors presented their evaluations.

We have present the relation in table 1 (referring to literature) and table 3 (constructs in the survey).

Table 1, Table 3

6.4. Figure 2. What's the measure units in this figure ? How were been calculated these values ? Based on which ctriteria the authors categorized the obtained results to three groups (small, medium, large) ?

The authors pointed out the Likert scale (from 1 to 5).

Lines 192-194

 

 

6.5. Table 4. Why the authors have used only Pearson criterion ? How about other well-known criteria, such as Fisher, Student, etc. ?

 

First of all  the authors used Pearson test to show the correlation between the criteria, but another  well-known and in-depth were used in the next tables (table 5 and table 6).

Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6

 

 

6.6. What's the software was been used for calculation of all obtained results ?

 

In section “Materials and Methods" we have explained the typical tool which we used to analyze the data.

We used the Excel- it was our own calculation.

 

7. Paper hasn't a paragraph "Conclusion", but it's a necessary point for any scientific paper.

We renamed the last section “Discussion” as Discussion and Conclusion and we have added some part of summarizing.

Lines 323, 329-331, 346-348, 353-355

 

8. List of references has 32,4% of the modern sources (not older than 5 years) and 62% of the international researches, I think it's very good.

 

Thank you very much for the comments, we have tried to prepare the literature reviewed for the last few years. Thank you for the appreciating our efforts.

 

9. The references list is not exhaustive, I think the authors can add some references from previous papers of this journal.

 

Currently,  we have added some publications from Informations Journal, for example:

Farhan Aslam , Wang Aimin , Mingze Li and Khaliq Ur RehmanInnovation in the Era of IoT and Industry 5.0: Absolute Innovation Management (AIM) Framework, Information 2020, 11(2), 124; 

Gabriel Nyame, Zhiguang Qin , Kwame Opuni-Boachie Obour Agyekum, Emmanuel Boateng Sifah An ECDSA Approach to Access Control in Knowledge Management Systems Using Blockchain, Information 2020, 11(2), 111; 

 

Lines 522- 527

 

English language and style are fine/minor spell check required.

Currently, the manuscript was modified and have also been thoroughly checked as a part of the proofreading service.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for your work. Although the research topic of knowledge management is valuable, it is a little old and lack of new ideas. In this paper, the research on the quality of knowledge management is general and not deep discussed.

Although a questionnaire survey was conducted to collect data, the analysis was not thorough enough. For example, what is the specific definition of modern enterprises? Would the characteristics of knowledge management differ among different types of enterprises? Why are these differences? Why does knowledge management quality show the current results? Is it because of the management attribute or technical factors of the enterprise? Or is it caused by differences in corporate strategy or corporate culture? These questions are not well answered in this paper, and these might be the more valuable part of this issue.

Although the paper has done a standard data analysis work, it may be a work that has been done in the previous literature, not enough theoretical innovation and contribution.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for all the comments and suggestions that helped us significantly improve the article. We took all of them into the consideration because of the quality of the article. The table below presents our answers to your comments and recommendations. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the Information journal.

Yours sincerely,

Olga Sobolewska and Agnieszka Bitkowska

 

Review no 3.

Suggestions for improvements from the review

Author’s Answers

Thank you for your work. Although the research topic of knowledge management is valuable, it is a little old and lack of new ideas. In this paper, the research on the quality of knowledge management is general and not deep discussed.

 

We have improved this section referring to some research connected with evaluating Knowledge Management Systems.

Research on knowledge management in the context of quality has not been conducted on a larger scale, we will deepen it in further work.

Lines 35-47, 127-140

Although a questionnaire survey was conducted to collect data, the analysis was not thorough enough. For example, what is the specific definition of modern enterprises? Would the characteristics of knowledge management differ among different types of enterprises? Why are these differences?

 

 

The choice of enterprises for the study was dictated by the assumption of their profit in the last 3 years. It was a non-random sample, indicating the effectiveness of operations on the market of the surveyed enterprises. It means that are the contemporary organizations.

Because  the not large enough sample of research the detailed statistical analysis,  among different types of enterprises was not satisfactory.

Lines 183-187

 

Why does knowledge management quality show the current results? ? Is it because of the management attribute or technical factors of the enterprise? Or is it caused by differences in corporate strategy or corporate culture? These questions are not well answered in this paper, and these might be the more valuable part of this issue.

 

The research of knowledge management quality has taken into consideration only operational aspects. The aspects connected with the strategy or the culture will be continued in the future research.

 

In the current study, the survey was addressed to tactical managers. These are people who have excellent knowledge of processes related to the implementation of tasks, but do not always have knowledge of the details of the strategy or organizational culture. Examining these elements would require sending the survey back to other recipients. This is an interesting idea and certainly worth implementing in the future.

 

3. Materials and Methods

 

English language and style are fine/minor spell check required

Currently, the manuscript was modified and have also been thoroughly checked as a part of the proofreading service.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

It's enough better

Reviewer 3 Report

This version is well revised and can be accepted.

Back to TopTop