Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper adopts a demand lens and examines the economies of scope in platform research and applications, focusing on Big Tech business strategy. The idea is interesting, but the paper could be improved in several ways.

 

First, the introduction should not start with a research question. Instead, a good case should be built to explain why this research is necessary (e.g., what are the theoretical gaps and what are the issues in practice that motivate this research).

 

Second, a methodology section should be included to provide a detailed and rigorous explanation about the design and process underpinning the research in this study.

 

Third, the study’s focus on platform research is centered on GAFRAM. While this is generally okay, it is important to also stimulate new research that examines alternative models, for example, the sharing economy, whose scope is both contemporary and substantial in the marketplace, and thus should be included as part of the directions for future research (see Foundations of consumption and production in the sharing economy in Electronic Commerce Research, and The sharing economy: A marketing perspective in Australasian Marketing Journal).

 

Fourth, the study also needs to demonstrate an awareness of current issues. In this regard, some comments about future research in light of recent events such as the Ukraine and Russia war that has affected GAFRAM and others need to be touched and leverage upon (see What is at stake in a war? A prospective evaluation of the Ukraine and Russia conflict for business and society. Global Business and Organizational Excellence). Other notable trends in business and strategy should also be included (see Ushering a new era of Global Business and Organizational Excellence: Taking a leaf out of recent trends in the new normal. Global Business and Organizational Excellence).

 

Fifth, please do a careful proofread of the paper. You have template instructions still visible on Page 7, Page 9, Page 10, etc.

 

Good luck and all the very best!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper's composition is coherent; the structure is logical and meets the goal of the paper. The title "Demand side economies of scope in Big Tech business strategy" puts well the paper's objective; it is clear and expresses the issue being described very well. Even if the paper is based mostly on description and comparison analysis, the views of the authors regarding the analyzed issue I found very interesting and useful. The results have a certain scientific value and therefore it may be interested both for journal readers as well as other professional communities. However major revision is necessary to get the manuscript published in the journal. It is recommended the authors to make a major revision, and the specific amendments to the text are as follows:

-       In Abstract to underline the added value, the research methods used, would be recommended.

-       In Introduction part I recommend mentioning the purpose and ways of application of the research results in the practice bringing up any benefits and added value with expressing the research novelty, along with the way it can be filled in by your research output.

-       In Introduction to underline the added value, novelty, purpose along with the brief methodology and data sources being used and ways of application of the research results would be recommended.

-       Please specify the originality and relevance of the topic in the field of Industry 4.0 and world and national economies and industry. Since the journal is called Sustainability the sustainable economic and social development issue regarding the Industry 4.0 concept implementation would be recommended to be analyzed.

-       The Methodology part is missing, the research methods description and their application should be explained and outlined.

-       Regarding the methodology a hypothesis statement would be appreciated; especially setting and proving the hypothesis estimation. As the ranking of Sustainability journal is pretty high, more sophisticated statistical methods and assessments would be appreciated including hypothesis estimation.

-       It would be beneficial for the findings and outcomes to be clearer whether the main tables could be supported by figures/charts.  

-       The Discussion section is missing. Some kind of polemic discourse comparing the research outcomes with the literature overview part would be beneficial to be involved in Discussion.

-       I recommend adding to the Conclusion section a brief research limitation.

-     Conclusions should be just briefly summarizing the research outcomes, recommendations as well as by making a final statement reflecting the assessed issue along with the way how the research results could be implemented in the practice bringing up any benefits and added value.

-       The final research statements in Conclusion should be more supported by your evidence and arguments from your own research findings.

      -    Wikipedia is not the proper source to be used in scientific paper as a reference. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised paper titled “Demand side economies of scope in Big Tech business strategy” to be published in Systems Journal meets all the requirements for a professional scientific journal. All the significant comments, recommendations and remarks of reviewers have been incorporated into the manuscript in a proper way giving the paper higher added value and professional features.