Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have used Scopus and WOS,  and preliminarily evaluated documents related to research on DT and BPM - these are 2 separate topics and a better title could consider DT in BPM or BPM in DT??

There are so much studies done on DT and BPM. This research is of contribution if the impact of DT on BPM and vice versa are investigated.

The authors considered two research questions tRQ1 - What are the dominant  research themes in research about DT and BPM? Well, many articles for several decades have explored this - nothing new!!

RQ2 - What are the trends in research  about DT and BPM? Again, several articles have explored this - nothing new!!

The authors conclude: The results regarding the main research themes on DT and BPM are "business process management," "digital transformation," and "digitalization." Analyzing  the relationship between these themes corresponds to contributions from theory to practice regarding new methods and models of business process management in the context of the digital transformation appearing in many publications from different authors and organizations. In addition, the research trends on DT and BPM are also identified as "process management," "business process modeling," and "dynamic capabilities.

These findings are not new and contemporary textbooks already have them as the fundamental  theory behind BPM.

 

This shows  that there are still many issues in process management, process modeling (from a management perspective), and considering the dynamic capabilities of organizations to bring  their processes closer to DT, which is a field that has much potential for further research.   To help organizations achieve good results and high efficiency for digital transformation,  issues regarding the organization's capabilities (dynamic capabilities), well-executed process management and modeling will be determining factors.

All these are known facts.

Please refer to similar research having more appropriate research questions and results that would interest readers. An example is given below: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268401221001596

While the approach with a variety of graphical outputs look promising, the fundamental research questions require refinement and re-engineer the research for capture the interest of the readers and with some compelling themes that can lead to future meaningful research directions.

The authors have used Scopus and WOS,  and preliminarily evaluated documents related to research on DT and BPM - these are 2 separate topics and a better title could consider DT in BPM or BPM in DT??

There are so much studies done on DT and BPM. This research is of contribution if the impact of DT on BPM and vice versa are investigated.

The authors considered two research questions tRQ1 - What are the dominant  research themes in research about DT and BPM? Well, many articles for several decades have explored this - nothing new!!

RQ2 - What are the trends in research  about DT and BPM? Again, several articles have explored this - nothing new!!

The authors conclude: The results regarding the main research themes on DT and BPM are "business process management," "digital transformation," and "digitalization." Analyzing  the relationship between these themes corresponds to contributions from theory to practice regarding new methods and models of business process management in the context of the digital transformation appearing in many publications from different authors and organizations. In addition, the research trends on DT and BPM are also identified as "process management," "business process modeling," and "dynamic capabilities.

These findings are not new and contemporary textbooks already have them as the fundamental  theory behind BPM.

 

This shows  that there are still many issues in process management, process modeling (from a management perspective), and considering the dynamic capabilities of organizations to bring  their processes closer to DT, which is a field that has much potential for further research.   To help organizations achieve good results and high efficiency for digital transformation,  issues regarding the organization's capabilities (dynamic capabilities), well-executed process management and modeling will be determining factors.

All these are known facts.

Please refer to similar research having more appropriate research questions and results that would interest readers. An example is given below: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268401221001596

While the approach with a variety of graphical outputs look promising, the fundamental research questions require refinement and re-engineer the research for capture the interest of the readers and with some compelling themes that can lead to future meaningful research directions.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic is interesting and relevant to the journal. However, in its current state, the paper suffers from many shortcomings, as follows:

1)      The introduction and methodology sections lack many references. Please add relevant references.

2)      Another limitation is that this paper does not provide a qualitative, in-depth analysis of the literature. For this purpose, it would be helpful to conduct a content analysis.

3)      A crucial question needs also to be addressed: what is the contribution of this research to the theory and practice of DT and BPM?

5)      Some references seem incomplete.

 

The paper has many typos, and it would benefit from proofreading by a native speaker.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper focuses on a bibliometric analysis of research on digital transformation and business process management from 2007 to 2022. 

 

Lines 47 to 51 : I do not understand the sentence. 

From 51 to 54: The sustainable aspects are not introduced. 

 

Pay attention to mistakes : example at the begining of line 65. 

Lines 70 to 73: I don't understand the sentence

space after management in line 75.

the sentence lines 76-77 has to be improved.

Pay attention to spaces: example line 80, 81, 83...

 

The objective of the paper can be more explained in the introduction. 

 

line 117 : space

 

from 125 to 138: this part has to be improved. 

The section on the Inclusion criteria can be more detailed. 

 

The section on results is difficult to understand. We need to know exactely what the authors want to show. It seems like just an anlysis without effective conclusions. The section will be improved by adding these conclusions.

 

The section 4 is good.

The conclusion can be improved by showing the objective of the paper and how it has been reached in the paper. 

Papers including sustainable aspects in the digital transformation are missing.  

More details on the digital transformation tools could increase the quality of the paper.

The language seems good ! 

Pay attention to mistakes!!! 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Author/s, I find your study interesting and worthy of investigation. It has been my pleasure to read it. I would suggest some minor improvements per the following comments. 

Please correct the usage of abbreviations. The abbreviation should be introduced the first time the full term is mentioned in the text, and after that only abbreviation should be used for that term, or only the full term should be used, it should not be mixed. For example, you repeat full terms alongside abbreviations in the discussion and again in the conclusion. 

Please pay more attention to the editing process, there are some extra spaces etc.

I would suggest shifting limitations and directions for future research from discussion to conclusion.

I would also suggest strengthening your discussion a bit. When discussing the results of your research please compare them with other authors' results if there is any similar research and if no results are available, please specify it in the text.

English is OK.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear authors,

Please address following:

Line 65: missing BPM word

Line 73: incomplete sentence

Line 68-70: provide reference

Line 88: provide reference

Line 93-94: Please give some illustrations to differentiate between theme and trend for better readability

Line 110 recheck sentence.

Line 211: Please explain better “(approximately 0.64% per year)”

Line 227: Please fix “(151.13.1%)”

Line 273: . The findings of “We” show….., what is We

Line 308: mention reference number

What is the reference frame to describe the local cited document and what is its importance? (Table 7)

There are incomplete sentences as mentioned above.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am satisfied with the changes made.

Minor revisions only

Author Response

REBUTTAL LETTER - ROUND 2 

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper incorporated some improvements, but my main concerns remain unaddressed.

 

The paper departs from the wrong premise – the absence of a bibliometric analysis of research that approach both BPM and DT. Why do we need such a bibliometric analysis? The mere lack of such bibliometric analysis does not necessarily mean that there is a need for one. Research papers should address gaps based on substantiated evidence.

 

Too many scientific errors, typos, and grammatical mistakes to mention them all. Here are a few:

P. 2, line 86. Too many parentheses.

P. 3, line 102. What is “AND1”?

It is impossible to read some figures as they are tiny (e.g. figure 5, 9 …)

References are still incomplete or in the wrong format.

 

Section 3.5. After each reference, you should add the year of that reference. Content analysis is not the same as summarizing each reference’s findings.

 

More importantly, the paper brings nothing new to what we already know. The authors present a series of analysis, but the findings extracted do not get novel insights to theory and practice.

The English remains unclear in many parts of the document.

Author Response

REBUTTAL LETTER - ROUND 2 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The quality of the paper has been increased with the changes! 

Congratulations!

The conclusion needs to be improved. The perspectives are missing. 

Good language

Author Response

REBUTTAL LETTER - ROUND 2 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf