Predicting Explicit and Valuing Tacit Synergies of High-Tech Based Transactions: Amazon.com’s Acquisition of Dubai-Based Souq.com

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject of the paper looks interesting and suitable for JRFM journal. However, the paper requires some revisions:

Number the main and sub.sections correctly to avoid any confusion (e.g., Line 97: 2.2 Predicting an explicit collaborative synergy in Amazon.com's acquisition of Souq.com).

The gap in literature has not been sufficiently established. Need more citations in the introduction.

The research objectives should be better explained and motivated.

Please segregate contributions and conclusions into separate sections. The conclusions will be a good place to corroborate or refute your findings. In doing so, please refer to more recent literature.

The conclusions are very sparse. You should outline limitations of the study and provide avenues for future research.

Please look at the reference list closely as there are some minor errors (e.g., Mun, J., 2002. Real Options Analysis: Tools and Techniques for Valuing Strategic Investments and Decisions. 1st ed. New Jersey: 204 Wiley, John & Sons, Inc.. 386 pages), the volume and issue numbers are not correct.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for you valuable comments on my paper. Numbers the main and sub-seection have been corrected. The reseaach objective, motivation of the reseach, and the gaaap in the liteature sufficiently discussed in new Introduction chapter (lines 21-57). I have segregated Finding and Discussion chapte (lines 267-300) and Conclusion, limitations, and future wok chaapter (lines 302-358). The references were extended and corrected. All changes are in red.

Kind regads,

The author

Reviewer 2 Report

I carefully read the study titled “Foreseeing Explicit and Valuing Tacit Synergies of High-Tech based Transactions: Amazon.com's Acquisition of Dubai-based Souq.com”. This article aims to develop an empirical framework that incorporates real options theory into resource-based views (RBV) through a case study. It's actually a good research topic. In addition, the method used in the study is sufficient. On the other hand, the manuscript contains important deficiencies. Therefore, it is not appropriate to publish it as it is. Therefore, the study needs major revision.

1.     Abbreviations should be given in their long form in the first place where they are used.

2.     The purpose of the study is mentioned, but it is not enough. What is the main motivation for this work? What are the current gaps in the literature? What are the contributions of the study? These questions should be answered very clearly and precisely. Perhaps the legitimacy of the study subject can be addressed more clearly by adding an introduction to the study. Its current state is quite inadequate for academic study.

3.     Findings from the study can be discussed more comprehensively. The findings should be interpreted further. Perhaps a discussion section could be added if the editorial process is appropriate.

4.     The conclusion section should definitely be revised. In its current form, it seems quite inadequate.

 

5.     Are there any limitations to this study? What does the author suggest for future work? These questions should be answered in the conclusion section.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments on my paper. The research objective, motivation of the reseach and the gap in the literature sufficiently discussed in the new Introduction chapter (line 21-57). I have segrregated Finding and Discussion chapter (line 267-300) and Conclusions, limitations, and futue work chapter (lines 302-358). The references were exteended and corrected.

Kind regards,

The author

Reviewer 3 Report

Please refer the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments on my paper. I have claified the new contibutions of the reseach in the new Introduction chapter (lines 22-47), Finading and discussion chapter (lines 269-280;290-300), and Conclusion chapter (line 304-340). Regarding Figure 1, I have provided my own oiginal result. I have corrrecteed numbers of chapterrs, sub-chapters, figures, and numbers.

Following your recommendation, I have clarified how significant varriables were measured and interprreted ( lines 151-186; 212-230; 242-249; 259-265).

I have added the chapter Finding and discussion (line 269-300) and significantly extended Conclusion chapter. All changes are in red.

Kind regards,

The author 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor,

Although I still have some question marks in my mind, the authors made the necessary revision taking into account many suggestions. Therefore, I recommend that the study be published.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review and the decision!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Revierer,

Thank you for you constuctive comments on my paper. I have corrected typos in Fig.2. I have claifieed the method used and explained how performed the reseach to justify the prroposition (lines 132- 155). All new changes are in the red.

Kind regards,

The author