Measuring Digitalization in Air Cargo Logistics: Development of an Evaluation Framework for Air Cargo Carriers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the manuscript "Measuring Digitalization in Air Cargo Logistics: Development of an Evaluation Framework for Air Cargo Carriers", I recommend a minor revision. The manuscript is structurally sound. However, there exists a few methodological issues that severely restrict the manuscript's scientific contribution. I list these issues and my recommendations below.

1. The proposed evaluation framework assumes the evaluation dimensions will all be assigned the same, or equal, weight. This has been done without any rational or empirical basis. Advised to authors to add explanation on scoring process.
2. Why authors tested proposed frameworks only for three carriers and therefore has a very limited scope of external validity.
3. A sensitivity analysis should be done to gauge the effect on the ranking of carriers, should a different set of weights be used.
4. Relatively speaking, the framework would be better served by using industry reports as opposed to soliciting only publicly available documents.
5. The authors of the framework need to be precise in their framework's scoring, especially about how indicators are given different levels of scoring.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Fix all grammatical and typo errors.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

 

Your work aims to fill a notable gap in the literature by creating a tailored evaluation framework specific to the operational realities of air cargo logistics. Your structured approach, which integrates multiple dimensions such as strategy, automation, and system interoperability, has strong practical implications and is supported by a robust methodological foundation. In light of the comments provided, I recommend a major revision to clarify certain parts of your framework, enhance the consistency of terminology, and improve the articulation of methodological details. These refinements will help ensure your contribution is as clear and impactful as possible.

 

1. Could you clarify the criteria used for selecting the specific air cargo carriers evaluated in the study? Is there a particular reason for this sample size?
2. How are the indicators within each evaluation pillar weighted? Is there a rationale behind the scoring scale?
3. Are there any operational or regional factors that influence a carrier’s digitalization level, beyond strategic investments?
4. How does the framework account for differences in carrier size or market scope?
5. Is the evaluation solely based on publicly available secondary data, and how do you ensure data comparability?
6. Could there be biases introduced by relying on publicly reported information, which might be overly optimistic or outdated?
7. Are the indicators used in the scoring system standardized across different carriers, or are some tailored specifically?
8. How do you handle cases where certain digital technologies are implemented but not properly documented?
9. Does the framework consider the maturity or quality of digital technologies, or only their presence?
10. How might cultural or organizational factors influence the implementation and perception of digitalization efforts?
11. Are there specific examples of how digitalization directly improved operational efficiency in the studied carriers?
12. In what ways could future updates to the framework improve its robustness or applicability?
13. Have you considered longitudinal studies to measure how digital maturity evolves over time among carriers?

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the authors developed a multidimensional framework for measuring the level of digitalization in air cargo logistics processes and then applied it to three international air carriers to compare their digital maturity. A five-pillar scoring system and indicators were used, and the results showed significant differences among carriers, with Turkish Cargo achieving the highest level of digitalization (96.0%), while Cargolux had the lowest (62.7%).
The abstract clearly states the objective, results and contribution of the paper and should not be changed. The introduction provides the motivation for the research – large differences in the level of digitalization among air carriers and the lack of comprehensive frameworks adapted to the specificities of air cargo logistics were observed; the research objectives are clearly defined, but the research questions are not explicitly formulated. The research questions need to be defined. The contribution of the paper is highlighted by developing a sector-specific assessment tool, expanding the existing literature and providing practical guidance.
The literature review is mainly descriptive and based on listing what other authors have done, but it also contains a critical review in the section on the research gap, where it points out the lack of models adapted to air cargo logistics processes. In this selection, the criticism could be deeper and focused on the methodological weaknesses of existing studies.
The methodology explains the procedure for developing the framework, but the basic set (population) is not defined, while the sample of three carriers is described with the selection criteria. It is necessary to state the basic set and on what basis these three carriers were selected. The methods used include collecting secondary data and scoring according to defined scales, without using statistical techniques. This is precisely the key deficiency in the results section, because there is no statistical analysis (e.g., testing the significance of differences, correlations or regression analysis) that would support the importance of the differences obtained, but only percentages and points are stated. This part of the paper needs to be improved so that it is based on statistical analysis and thus strengthens this paper, so that it is a research paper.
The discussion partially connects the findings with similar research, but does not enter into an in-depth comparison or offer a theoretical explanation of why certain pillars are crucial for digital maturity. This needs to be done in the discussion because it is crucial to explain why such results were obtained and to support this with the results of previous studies. The authors mostly repeat that investments and integration are important, without a deeper positioning in relation to existing models.
The paper does not have a special sub-selection for research limits and directions for future research, the limits are only indicated in the conclusion, and the directions are given as an extension of the indicators and a larger sample, but without operationalization. The implications of the paper are not systematically separated into theoretical, practical and managerial - the conclusion mentions that the framework can serve as a benchmark tool and decision support, while the theoretical contribution is only indicated through the extension of the literature on digital transformation in the air cargo sector. After the discussion, it is necessary to make three sub-selections: research implications, where the focus will be on managerial implications, and on theoretical and practical implications. Then add sub-selections for research limitations and directions for future research.
The tables and figures are clear and well-structured, but there is a noticeable lack of actual graphs. The references are mostly recent (most from 2020 to 2026), although there are also older works from 2002 and 2005, which is acceptable for the basic concepts.
In conclusion, the paper provides a useful and applicable framework for assessing digitization, but is methodologically limited by the lack of statistical analyses, explicit research questions, clearly defined limits, and systematically stated implications, making it more of a pilot study than a fully developed study.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved and is accepted for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors corrected the paper according to the reviews. The paper should now be accepted for publication.