Social Strategies for Business Success: The Key Role of Social Networks in SMEs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I observe that the academic changes that needed to be made have been made. The issues brought up in the last review have been fixed.

The bibliography still has mistakes in it. Some journal names are italicized, while others are not. Some references just include the name of the journal, neither the volume number or page numbers. Please take the time to read these parts.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and constructive comments on our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work.

Please find attached the rebuttal letter, where we have addressed all your comments in an integrated and structured manner. Each point has been carefully considered and the corresponding changes have been incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript.

We hope that the revisions meet your expectations, and we remain at your disposal for any further clarification.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, very good job! Though I have some points to mention. 

1. I would prefer more recent bibliography, only 8 out of all papers mentioned are after 2020.
2. you refer to many social media platforms, but I think you used data only from LinkedIn. is it correct? Probably you could mention it on the title of the research. 
3. i would like to see which variables you used from the databases “Société.com” and “Dirigeant.com”. 
4. you approach to the subject is wide. i think you should re-organize the literature review: you mention weak/strong ties in line 175, you write about knowledge in line 182, you return to ties in line 213. 
5. in line 256 you refer to publications and citation. 
6. in line 266 "Information sources are primarily verbal"  please make a reference. 
7. you mention that you take eigenvalues greater than one, but you take 4 dimensions, while only first and second dimensions have eigenvalue>1.
8. in line 621  the meaning is not clear.
9. i would like to see the resulting regression according to your results and the concluding comments on it.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and constructive comments on our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work.

Please find attached the rebuttal letter, where we have addressed all your comments in an integrated and structured manner. Each point has been carefully considered and the corresponding changes have been incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript.

We hope that the revisions meet your expectations, and we remain at your disposal for any further clarification.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In a separate discussion section (which needs to be added to the paper), the authors should insert a part of the text from the conclusion (because the conclusion is too long) and add text related to the specific limitations of the research: (1) the cross-sectional design limits the insight into long-term trends and dynamics of network effects, (2) the focus exclusively on the French market reduces the generalizability of the findings to different cultural and economic environments, and (3) the quantitative approach, although robust, does not take into account quality, strategic importance or type of management connections. Based on the aforementioned limitations, insert text through the discussion section that simultaneously provides guidelines for future research: tracking organizations through longitudinal research to analyze the dynamic effects of network connections, deeper qualitative research on the nature of network connections, expanding the geographic environment outside of France, and including additional variables such as industry specificity, digital transformation, and macroeconomic factors to further expand the theoretical model. Otherwise, the paper really has a quality methodology and certainly contributes to the spread of academic thought, at the same time giving concrete practical recommendations to managers of organizations. The reviewer congratulates the authors on their research and agrees that after these minor recommendations the paper should be published in the journal "Business".

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and constructive comments on our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work.

Please find attached the rebuttal letter, where we have addressed all your comments in an integrated and structured manner. Each point has been carefully considered and the corresponding changes have been incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript.

We hope that the revisions meet your expectations, and we remain at your disposal for any further clarification.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The document is well written and well documented. The research questions and discussion developed by the authors are relevant. The methodology used is valid. The results obtained are relevant and correctly discussed in relation to the theoretical premises, research questions, data and methodology used.

 

MINOR REVISIONS:

- In Tables 2-3-4 on pages 14, 15, and 17, reduce the number of decimal places in the numbers to a maximum of three decimal places and replace all labels with the full names of the variables so that they are clearly understandable. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and constructive comments on our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work.

Please find attached the rebuttal letter, where we have addressed all your comments in an integrated and structured manner. Each point has been carefully considered and the corresponding changes have been incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript.

We hope that the revisions meet your expectations, and we remain at your disposal for any further clarification.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Very good job!!

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I enjoyed reading this manuscript. The study addresses the role of social networks in SME performance, aligning with Sustainability’s focus on social and economic dimensions of sustainable business practices. Despite the merits, I do have some concerns.

1. The connection to sustainability is underdeveloped. While the study discusses social networks and business performance, it does not explicitly link findings to environmental, social, or governance (ESG) dimensions of sustainability. I suggest that you reframe the introduction and discussion to emphasize how social networks contribute to sustainable SME growth (e.g., fostering innovation, reducing inequalities, or enhancing resource efficiency)
2. The review leans heavily on older sources (e.g., Burt 1992, Granovetter 1983) and lacks recent literature on digital social networks (e.g., LinkedIn, industry-specific platforms) and their role in modern SME sustainability.
3. The role of digital tools in modern networking (e.g., social media) is overlooked despite its relevance to sustainable SME growth.
4. small issues: Inconsistent citation formatting (e.g., “Borzaghi(2003)” vs. “Crivelli G.(2001)”).  Typos and grammatical errors (e.g., “tivities” in the abstract, missing hyphens in “small and medium sized enterprises”).
5. Limitations, such as geographic focus on France, cross-sectional data, are briefly mentioned but not deeply analyzed.

Good luck with your research!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

-As indicated by the title, I evaluated the manuscript with the expectation of a review article. However, much of the content resembles the structure and style of a book chapter. For instance, in the section where the analysis of companies is mentioned, the analytical steps are not clearly laid out, making it difficult to follow the logic and understand how conclusions were reached.

-The section titled "Explanations of Variables" could potentially be removed or significantly reduced. Many of the descriptions seem to originate from a single source and refer to widely known concepts. For a journal article, such detailed explanations of basic terms may not be necessary.

-Please clarify which software or analytical tools were used to process the data from 12,341 companies. It would be helpful to briefly outline the key steps of your analysis so readers can better understand your methodology.

-The authors mention creating Figure 4, but the text doesn't provide a corresponding explanation. Please include a description or interpretation of the figure to help readers understand its purpose and relevance.

-I could not find any tables presenting your regression results. The tables currently in the manuscript appear to focus only on descriptive statistics. Please include the relevant regression output tables to support your findings.

-There is a reference in the text to “Table 1.1 in the attachments,” but such a section is not present in the manuscript. Please review the issue and ensure that all referenced materials are included and properly labeled.

-Between lines 91 and 115, most of the content seems to be drawn from a single source (Hite, 2005). Relying too heavily on one source for an extended portion of the text may weaken the originality and depth of the analysis.

-Many of the sources cited throughout the paper date back 20–30 years. While foundational studies are important, incorporating more recent literature would strengthen your analysis and help align your work with current perspectives in the field.

-Finally, the manuscript would gain from a more explicit delineation of its original contribution. Contextualizing and situating your research in reference to contemporary studies on social networks would elucidate its significance and originality.