Driving Factors of Industry 4.0 Readiness among Manufacturing SMEs in Malaysia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors

It was with great pleasure that I reviewed this manuscript.

However, I have a few considerations to make:

In line 937 is EVA and should be AVE.

In table 4.4 I see AVE values equal to 1.000, which indicates to me that this is a saturated model. You must review this situation.

In table 4.7 I see a p-value of 1.686. I believe it is an error because this is also the t-value.

In table 4.7 there are p-values equal to zero. It should not be zero, but < 0.001 because that is what is established in the description of the results.

My Best Regards

Author Response

Point 1: In line 937 is EVA and should be AVE.

Response 1: Thank you for your observation. The term has been revised to "AVE". The revised manuscript has been carefully checked and edited.

Point 2: In table 4.4 I see AVE values equal to 1.000, which indicates to me that this is a saturated model. You must review this situation.

Response 2: Thank you for your comment, and we have rerun the analysis. The AVE value is still 1.000. I found support for my Table 4.4 (now it is labeled as Table 10, page 22)

The average variance extracted ranges from 0 to 1, and a factor shows convergent validity when ≥ 0.5 (Hökerberg, Y. H., Reichenheim, M. E., Faerstein, E., Passos, S. R., Fritzell, J., Toivanen, S., & Westerlund, H. (2014). Cross-cultural validity of the demand-control questionnaire: Swedish and Brazilian workers. Revista de saude publica, 48(3), 486–496. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0034-8910.2014048005126)

Point 3: In table 4.7 I see a p-value of 1.686. I believe it is an error because this is also the t-value.

Response 3: Thank you for your observation. The p-value has been amended to 0.046 in Table 4.7 ( we have re-labeled all Tables in our manuscript. It is now labeled as Table 13, Assessment of the Structural Model, page 24)

.

Point 4: In table 4.7 there are p-values equal to zero. It should not be zero, but < 0.001 because that is what is established in the description of the results.

Response 4: Thank you for your observation. As in the description of the results, we employed a p-value of 0.000 in Table 4.7 (now Table 13, page 24).

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

This research brought empirical case from Malaysian SMEs in Industry 4.0 issue. It was promising topic and offered practical implication from its findings. Generally, this article delivered systematical results in good presentation. However, several improved should be followed up:

1. The Introduction was too long, even consisted of several sub-heading, but its premises were weak and too rambling. Please try to present the premise with more concise argumentations.

2. Improve the Fig.1's quality due to its readability was low.

3. Change the Table 2.1 into narration since its content was too short and simple.

4. Premises to detail how to construct each hypothesis were too long. Please deliver them with more concise argumentations. Moreover, some previous research had proven their several hypotheses, then what did this research prove for?

5. Narration in Method section was too long. Please adapt figure or table or visualize the content. 

6. The instruments were derived from 68th reference only? Based on premises as narrated in Literature Review, there were many previous research could be referred, including their instruments.

7. Fig.1 (Total variance) can be presented in overview with complete version in hyperlink. 

8. The narration about statistics was too long and redundant with table's content. Make it more concise so that the reader can directly see the authors' interpretation as core value of this research.

9. The references should be standardized. Check every components, such as caps lock in article title (see 10 and 130) and sentence case in journal name (see 75, 81,and 95)

Thank you and keep struggling.

Author Response

Point 1: The Introduction was too long, even consisted of several sub-heading, but its premises were weak and too rambling. Please try to present the premise with more concise argumentations.

Response 1: Introduction Section has been revised accordingly.

Point 2: Improve the Fig.1's quality due to its readability was low.

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. The quality of Figure 1 has been improved and revised.

Point 3: Change the Table 2.1 into narration since its content was too short and simple.

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. This Table has been removed and changed into the narration as suggested.

Point 4: Premises to detail how to construct each hypothesis were too long. Please deliver them with more concise argumentations. Moreover, some previous research had proven their several hypotheses, then what did this research prove for?

Response 4: Thanks for your observation. The details for each hypothesis have been revised in details and have been shortened.

Point 5: Narration in Method section was too long. Please adapt figure or Table or visualize the content.

Response 5: Thanks for your observation. The narration for the Method section has been shortened.

Point 6: The instruments were derived from 68th reference only? Based on premises as narrated in Literature Review, there were many previous research could be referred, including their instruments.

Response 6: We employed Kee and Khin (2020) because they have developed a reliable measure specifically for manufacturing SMEs in the Malaysian context.

Point 7: Fig.1 (Total variance) can be presented in overview with complete version in hyperlink.

Response 7: Figure 1 is the theoretical framework (See page 5).

Point 8: The narration about statistics was too long and redundant with Table's content. Make it more concise so that the reader can directly see the authors' interpretation as core value of this research.

Response 8: Thanks for your recommendation. The narration has been revised and shortened.

Point 9: The references should be standardized. Check every components, such as caps lock in article title (see 10 and 130) and sentence case in journal name (see 75, 81,and 95)

Response 9: Thank you for your observation. The references have been carefully checked and edited accordingly.

Reviewer 3 Report

Interesting article on an important and interesting topic. Very long & extensive, which makes it a bit difficult to read and fully understand during " only one approach". On the other hand, the authors show how much work they have done. The structure of the article is correct, it contains all the elements. The reasoning is carried out in a logical way, the conclusions drawn correspond to the presented input data and the analyzes carried out. Congratulations to the authors of the final result.

PS. I found only 1 obvious error, in Line 799 - "The expected response would be 100 (500 x 10% = 100), which meets the minimum sample ze of 84 ..." ummm 500 x 10% = 50 :)

Author Response

Point 1: I found only 1 obvious error, in Line 799 - "The expected response would be 100 (500 x 10% = 100), which meets the minimum sample ze of 84 ..." ummm 500 x 10% = 50 :)

Response 1: Thank you for your observation and correction. It has been amended to 500 x 20% = 100.