Main Problems of Cooperation Management: Insights from Slovak Companies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article should respects the rigors of a scientific paper.
- It is supposed to not be necessary to introduce so many basic facts and approximate the local context of Slovakia, and Lithuania(why?) without any correlation, and links with the main subject of the article .
- To be profundity reviewed Materials and Methods and Results and Conclusions
Explanations are too much blended. It is not clear at all what is the mathematically quantifiable connection between variables and which are they, because we are told that a qualitative analysis was made, but also a quantitative one was carried out . There are not input variables explained and well established from which to start the research; is not used the proper statistical tool(s) for getting the output values so that the results to be exempted from any subjectivism.
- Required much better and coherent explanations, correlations, statistical data and conclusion reflecting nature and cross- conditionalities along the years. It is expected to find out a conceptualization model.
- To be introduce the chapter Literature review
Do not blended ideas.
Author Response
Thank you for valuable remarks
- Considering basic facts about Slovakia (and Lithuania) – we agree, it is not important for the paper´s subject. We deleted those sections.
- Considering materials and methods: We try to explain the procedure more precisely. We prepare more comprehensive methodological chapter.
- Considering the research process, we were looking for complex information from several of our surveys. We use content analysis and results interpretation as a logical method. So qualitative approach was dominant.
- We have identified very important information about critical problem areas considering cooperation management. This is a certain basis for a model solution. But this was not our goal. We consider the main problems identification as the main research asset.
- Considering literature review, we agree that the more standard solution is to provide this chapter at the beginning.
We hope that you will understand our approach. Of course, we are very open for other helpful remarks.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is interesting and generally, it deserves to be published with some revisions that are suggested below:
1) Would you please let us know how to do a SWOT analysis, STEEP analysis, and index of satisfaction since you state in the abstract of the article.
2) How to examine the correlation between mutual trust, the adherence to contractual requirements, and the benefit from the cooperation, that was identified as main criteria considering the importance for effective and beneficial cooperation in your article
3) You may add the latest years' literature, for example, 2018-2020, for your study references.
Author Response
Thank you for valuable remarks
Considering SWOT and STEEP analysis… it is not relevant for this paper. We have deleted it. Thank you for noticing the issue. It was a “relict” from older version.
Thanks for noticing this, in original version we consider as answer the part in discussion about trust. Now we have specified the connection more precisely (please see the “Trust” article in the section 4.1).
Considering more recent literature, from our point of view, the original references covered the topic quite well. But it is a valid remark, we add a few more recent references.
Reviewer 3 Report
Qualitative Insight into the Main Problems when deciding to apply cooperative management in Slovak Companies
The data is from the period 2012 to 2015. There may have been new developments since 2015 that may be important for developments in cooperative management.
The manuscript is not well structured (see comments below) and needs improvements.
Use of tables/figures should be considered to improve readability.
Reference [48] does not seem to be used.
- Introduction
The term “cooperation management” should be defined at the start. Now, the definition is provided in subsection 1.1. “Cooperation management” is not a widely used term. A search on Google Scholar shows several papers related to “cooperative management” from Slovakia. Earlier research should be presented, and it should be pointed out what new results this contribution provides compared to earlier publications.
The research questions should be clearly defined (in one place). What exactly are you trying to achieve with your research?
- Materials and Methods
Regarding the bullet list at the end of the section: Please explain how these areas relates to earlier research.
- Results
What are the two identified main problems related to the use of cooperative management?
“We present the results in two sections; first section offers a comprehensive overview of the performed literature review about the topic of cooperation management, while the second section presents highlights of the results generated through our research of cooperation management.” So why do you then have three sections? And what is the connection between the numbered list, and the following [A], [B] and [C].
[A], [B] and [C] seems to be part of the theoretical background.
3.1 Theoretical background of cooperation and cooperation management
The theoretical background must be closely related to the discussion (section 4).
3.2 Surveys in the business environment of the Slovak Republic conducted from 2012-2015
Have these or parts of these results been published in previous publications? If they have, you should provide references. (The reason for the question is that some of the data is now nine years old).
3.3 Problems of collaborations in the business environment in the Slovak Republic identified in the research from 2012-2015
Please explain how [A] to [E] were selected.
- Discussion
The link between the theoretical background provided in subsection 3.1 and the discussion could be improved.
4.5 Limitations
Relevant limitations are addressed.
- Conclusions
Again, using a table may improve readability. The use of a variety of bullet lists are reducing the readability.
References
References should be checked for correctness and completeness. Example:
Reference [1]. This article is from the November-December 1998 issue, and the page numbers are 77-90. His name is Michael E. Porter, so I guess it should be “Porter, M.E.”.
It is not Harward, but Harvard.
Author Response
The data is from the period 2012 to 2015. There may have been new developments since 2015 that may be important for developments in cooperative management.
- We tried to explain the reason for this decision more precisely. Please see the beginning of “introduction to the topic”. Our goal was to identify the main problem areas with use of our older data (from comprehensive surveys).
The manuscript is not well structured (see comments below) and needs improvements.
- We agree, we have deleted not crucial parts and prepare more comprehensive methodological chapter.
Use of tables/figures should be considered to improve readability.
- According to your recommendation, we tried several options to present the results with tables. It was always too complex, too much text. For better readability we elaborated an overview of main problem areas as a table. Considering the conclusions – it was much easier.
Reference [48] does not seem to be used.
- Thanks for noticing it (solved).
- Introduction
The term “cooperation management” should be defined at the start. Now, the definition is provided in subsection 1.1. “Cooperation management” is not a widely used term. A search on Google Scholar shows several papers related to “cooperative management” from Slovakia. Earlier research should be presented, and it should be pointed out what new results this contribution provides compared to earlier publications.
The research questions should be clearly defined (in one place). What exactly are you trying to achieve with your research?
- We explained the term on the paper´s beginning. We have ad also the research areas/questions there. We explained them more in the methodological section. Considering the term “cooperation management”, we have unified it the whole text-
Materials and Methods
Regarding the bullet list at the end of the section: Please explain how these areas relates to earlier research.
- We try to explain it more precise. Please see the end of section 2 (just before section 2.1).
- Results
What are the two identified main problems related to the use of cooperative management?
“We present the results in two sections; first section offers a comprehensive overview of the performed literature review about the topic of cooperation management, while the second section presents highlights of the results generated through our research of cooperation management.” So why do you then have three sections? And what is the connection between the numbered list, and the following [A], [B] and [C].
[A], [B] and [C] seems to be part of the theoretical background.
- In the first version we try emphasizing the connection between theoretical background and our results. According to your remark (and from reviewer 2) we have decided to move the theoretical background to the first part of the paper. It will be more standard structure.
3.1 Theoretical background of cooperation and cooperation management
The theoretical background must be closely related to the discussion (section 4).
- We elaborated a section within discussion where we address the main theoretical principles (please see section 4.5).
3.2 Surveys in the business environment of the Slovak Republic conducted from 2012-2015
Have these or parts of these results been published in previous publications? If they have, you should provide references. (The reason for the question is that some of the data is now nine years old).
- We have provided references for already published data. And we have also explained the main reasons for working with these data more precisely.
3.3 Problems of collaborations in the business environment in the Slovak Republic identified in the research from 2012-2015
Please explain how [A] to [E] were selected.
- It is interpretation of our data, findings: firstly, they were determined based on the significance of individual cooperation factors according to theoretical sources, and secondly, as our generalized interpretation of the results of our empirical research.
- Discussion
The link between the theoretical background provided in subsection 3.1 and the discussion could be improved.
- Understand, please see section 4.5.
4.5 Limitations
Relevant limitations are addressed.
- Conclusions
Again, using a table may improve readability. The use of a variety of bullet lists are reducing the readability.
- Yes, we changed the presentation of the bullet lists into tables.
References
References should be checked for correctness and completeness. Example:
Reference [1]. This article is from the November-December 1998 issue, and the page numbers are 77-90. His name is Michael E. Porter, so I guess it should be “Porter, M.E.”.
It is not Harward, but Harvard.
- Thank you for noticing those typos. Corrected.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors struggled for their work, respect them. I suggest to continue but using another backbone as method for getting the goals. Proper fit materials, methods, results and conclusion are recommended. A little bit, improve (academic) English used.
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive remarks. They have helped to improve the final version of the text.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for your revised according my comments, which may benefit your study
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive remarks. They have helped to improve the final version of the text.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed the issues raised in the previous review.
The description of background and previous research has improved, and manuscript is now easier to read.
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive remarks. They have helped to improve the final version of the text.
