Evaluating Conflict Management Strategies and Supply Chain Performance: A Systematic Literature Review Within Jordan’s Food Manufacturing Sector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Attached , you  can  find  my  comments !

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your thorough review and insightful comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each of your valuable suggestions and have made substantial revisions to the manuscript accordingly. A detailed, point-by-point response to all your comments is provided in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors provide a pertinent introduction to the concept of smart cities and their relationship to quality of life (QoL). Nevertheless, the contextualization is primarily descriptive and does not take a critical posture toward the conceptual advancements of QoL. The bibliometric approach employed could be more explicitly linked and the theoretical anchoring in existing frameworks could be more robust.
The methodology section is unclear. The authors do not provide sufficient detail regarding the rationale behind their analytic parameters, search phrases, time periods, or inclusion/exclusion criteria, despite the fact that they mention using Scopus and VosViewer. It is unclear whether this is a bibliometric or bibliographic analysis in the strictest sense. There is a lack of clarity regarding critical methodological components, including the validation of keyword clusters and network measures.

The analysis is predominantly descriptive. The discussion does not extend beyond the enumeration of trends and frequencies, despite the fact that some visualizations are presented. The reasons for the dominance of certain themes, their underexploration, or their evolution over time are not well understood. The query of "so what" remains essentially unresolved.

The conclusions are overly broad and do not obviously follow from the data that has been presented. The bibliographic data lacks reflection on potential biases, robustness of results, or limitations.

The absence of legends, labels, and low resolution renders numerous graphical elements challenging to comprehend.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your thorough review and insightful comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each of your valuable suggestions and have made substantial revisions to the manuscript accordingly. A detailed, point-by-point response to all your comments is provided in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper examines the impact of conflict management strategies (CMS) on supply chain performance (SCP) through a systematic literature review, focusing on the mediating roles of supply chain operational processes (SCOP) and customer-centric green supply chain management (CCGSCM), with the Jordanian food manufacturing industry as the research subject. The study found that collaborative CMS is the most effective, enhancing stakeholder interaction and operational resilience, while SCOP and CCGSCM play a crucial role in promoting sustainability and efficiency. The research is innovative but still has some issues that need improvement:

1. The second occurrence of “Customer-Centric Green Supply Chain Management (CCGSCM)” in the abstract on line 26 could be replaced with an abbreviation.
2. Tables 2 and 3 should specify data sources to enhance credibility.
3. The study does not detail the process of coding collected literature or the further construction of a conceptual model through thematic classification and synthesis. The derivation process from raw data to synthesized themes should be clearly explained.
4. The study lacks methodological innovation.
4. The “Discussion” section lacks theoretical depth and should focus on linking theoretical frameworks, discussing controversies, and presenting findings.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your thorough review and insightful comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each of your valuable suggestions and have made substantial revisions to the manuscript accordingly. A detailed, point-by-point response to all your comments is provided in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript reflects significant care and scholarly rigor. The comments and suggestions from the previous review have been appropriately addressed by the authors. As a result, the article is now even more cohesive, clear, and compelling in its presentation and argumentation.

The research is methodologically sound, theoretically grounded, and well-contextualized within the relevant academic literature. The English language is of high quality and no further linguistic improvements are necessary.