Role of Metropolis in Regional and Global Dimension of Value-Added Chain: Examples from Warsaw and Its Region
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
"Role of Metropolis in Regional and Global Dimension of 2
Value-Added Chain: Examples from Warsaw and Its Region"
Criticisms of the manuscript are as follows:
- The theoretical explanations in the introduction should be developed. The intro is pretty weak. The theoretical foundations of the relations between the variables should be explained.
- The purpose and contributions of the research are not clear. It should be written in detail. What is the difference from other studies? The motivation of the research is not clear. It should be written in detail and clearly.
- The reasons for preference of the country within the scope of the research should be explained in detail. Why was this country included in the study?
- The literature section is rather weak. classification should be strengthened.
- The conclusion should be strengthened in a way that is consistent with the findings. Policy recommendations are rather weak. Policy recommendations should be developed consistent with the findings.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your review of the article submitted by us to the “Sustainability” journal. It was very insightful and helpful in increasing the quality of our paper. All your remarks were thoroughly analyzed by us and necessary revisions were introduced. Specifically, following changes to the paper were made:
- The structure of the paper was improved to follow the IMRAD structure, so that it clearly points to the background, method, results, and discussion. Moreover, introduction was restructured to include background, research aims and questions, and major strategies.
- Theoretical background of the research was significantly improved: the literature review in the hypotheses development part was expanded and analyzed literature was categorized into that related to global value chains, subnational context in location choices, global cities, and global cities as nodes in GVC. Furthermore, these phenomena were related to each other, creating context for our research and pointing to research gap we attempt to fill in.
- Description of the research methodology and design was expanded and improved.
- The discussion part was expanded with focus on contribution of our research to existing body of knowledge and difference from other studies.
- Preference of the country and region was better explained, giving arguments to use the case of Warsaw metropolis and Mazovia-region as representative for spatial and economic processes observed Central and Eastern Europe.
- Limitations of the presented research were presented.
We hope that the above list exhausts your suggestions and the attached article is fit for publication in “Sustainability”.
We appreciate your work, time and thorough analysis put in our paper. Resulting additions and alterations introduced in the text increased the value of our study and gave us inspirations for further research.
Your sincerely, Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I read your article and although it has some interesting points, I do have some concerns mainly about the methodological aspects and the analysis soundness.
First of all, there are no details about the sampling method and how the companies involved in the study were chosen. How was representativity ensured? There are no details about the questionnaire either, number or type of questions. Further, there are no details about the companies in the sample, apart from their number.
Some of the data are quite old, e.g. table 1, 2, and no explanation is given why more recent data were not presented, especially given the fact that the survey was conducted in the autumn of 2020, in the midst of the COVID crisis, which might have had an impact (the sources of tables 3 and 4 state the survey was conducted from 2021 to 2020).
The analysis does not provide an insight regarding the intensity of the relations, it merely lists companies that sell products to foreign customers/buy from foreign suppliers.
In section 2 of the paper there are listed five hypotheses, however their testing is not presented further.
I am not convinced of the contribution the paper could bring to the field, and I do not see a strong link with the topic of the journal nor those of the special issue. I suggest you make a stronger case for your research.
Best of luck!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your review of the article submitted by us to the “Sustainability” journal. It was very insightful and helpful in increasing the quality of our paper. All your remarks were thoroughly analyzed by us and necessary revisions were introduced. Specifically, following changes to the paper were made:
- The structure of the paper was improved to follow the IMRAD structure, so that it clearly points to the background, method, results, and discussion. Moreover, introduction was restructured to include background, research aims and questions, and major strategies.
- Theoretical background of the research was significantly improved: the literature review in the hypotheses development part was expanded and analyzed literature was categorized into that related to global value chains, subnational context in location choices, global cities, and global cities as nodes in GVC. Furthermore, these phenomena were related to each other, creating context for our research and pointing to research gap we attempt to fill in.
- Description of the research methodology and design was expanded and improved: hypotheses are articulated in a clearer manner, method described, and questionnaire and statistical analysis descriptors included.
- The discussion part was expanded with focus on contribution of our research to existing body of knowledge and difference from other studies.
- As far as hypotheses are concerned, not only were they clearly specified but also presented using figure to help better grasp ideas and relations between each hypothesis.
- Link of our area of research was added both to the Journal’s topic (sustainability of development), as well as to the special issue’s subject (smart regional specializations).
We hope that the above list exhausts your suggestions and the attached article is fit for publication in “Sustainability”.
We appreciate your work, time and thorough analysis put in our paper. Resulting additions and alterations introduced in the text increased the value of our study and gave us inspirations for further research.
Your sincerely, Authors
Reviewer 3 Report
The topic of the paper, which is about the role of cities and their surroundings (metropolis) in regional and global dimension of value-added chain using Warsaw and Warsaw Capital Region as a case study, is interesting and can be beneficial for policy makers. Overall, I think the paper is good as it try to demonstrate the important role of metropolis in today’s modern economy that stresses competitive advantage. However, there are some issues that I think need some clarification. Please find my constructive feedback below.
1. Hypothesis of the study should be clearly specify. In the current version of the paper, there are 4 hypotheses, but I don’t see the link between them or how they are related. Please considering revise this part to make it clearer to the readers. You may consider using figure to help readers better grasp the ideas and the link between each hypothesis.
2. A brief overview of the methods used in the study should be provided. This is necessary as it would supply readers with basic materials to understand the issues addressed by the authors better. For example, a brief description about CATI/CAWI techniques or why the authors choose such techniques should be given.
3. Originality and research contribution should be clearly stated.
4. The context and objectives of the study and the issue of sustainability must be linked in order to make the content of the article is within the scope of the journal.
5. The current version of the conclusion section can be improved. Limitations and implications of the study should be provided.
6. Figures presented in the paper is not in good quality, e.g., Figures 3-6. Please consider redesigning them and save them in an appropriate format.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your review of the article submitted by us to the “Sustainability” journal. It was very insightful and helpful in increasing the quality of our paper. All your remarks were thoroughly analyzed by us and necessary revisions were introduced. Specifically, following changes to the paper were made:
- The structure of the paper was improved to follow the IMRAD structure, so that it clearly points to the background, method, results, and discussion. Moreover, introduction was restructured to include background, research aims and questions, and major strategies.
- Theoretical background of the research was significantly improved: the literature review in the hypotheses development part was expanded and analyzed literature was categorized into that related to global value chains, subnational context in location choices, global cities, and global cities as nodes in GVC. Furthermore, these phenomena were related to each other, creating context for our research and pointing to research gap we attempt to fill in.
- Description of the research methodology and design was expanded and improved: hypotheses are articulated in a clearer manner, method described, and questionnaire and statistical analysis descriptors included.
- The discussion part was expanded with focus on contribution of our research to existing body of knowledge and difference from other studies.
- As far as hypotheses are concerned, not only were they clearly specified but also presented using figure to help better grasp ideas and relations between each hypothesis.
- Link of our area of research was added both to the Journal’s topic (sustainability of development), as well as to the special issue’s subject (smart regional specializations).
- The quality of figures was improved.
- Limitations of the presented research were presented.
We hope that the above list exhausts your suggestions and the attached article is fit for publication in “Sustainability”.
We appreciate your work, time and thorough analysis put in our paper. Resulting additions and alterations introduced in the text increased the value of our study and gave us inspirations for further research.
Your sincerely, Authors
Reviewer 4 Report
An interesting study. CATI should presented in full at first instance. This is computed aided telephone interview. CAWI is computed aided web interview, GVC is global value chain...
No theoretical framework proposed.
Literature gaps are needed to identify
Section 3 presents a descriptive results. Should be compare to relevant literature findings. Add managerial implications and limitations of the study.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your review of the article submitted by us to the “Sustainability” journal. It was very insightful and helpful in increasing the quality of our paper. All your remarks were thoroughly analyzed by us and necessary revisions were introduced. Specifically, following changes to the paper were made:
- The structure of the paper was improved to follow the IMRAD structure, so that it clearly points to the background, method, results, and discussion. Moreover, introduction was restructured to include background, research aims and questions, and major strategies.
- Theoretical background of the research was significantly improved: the literature review in the hypotheses development part was expanded and analyzed literature was categorized into that related to global value chains, subnational context in location choices, global cities, and global cities as nodes in GVC. Furthermore, these phenomena were related to each other, creating context for our research and pointing to research gap we attempt to fill in.
- Description of the research methodology and design was expanded and improved: hypotheses are articulated in a clearer manner, method described, and questionnaire and statistical analysis descriptors included.
- The discussion part was expanded with focus on contribution of our research to existing body of knowledge and difference from other studies.
- As far as hypotheses are concerned, not only were they clearly specified but also presented using figure to help better grasp ideas and relations between each hypothesis.
- Preference of the country and region was better explained, giving arguments to use the case of Warsaw metropolis and Mazovia-region as representative for spatial and economic processes observed Central and Eastern Europe.
- Link of our area of research was added both to the Journal’s topic (sustainability of development), as well as to the special issue’s subject (smart regional specializations).
- Limitations of the presented research were presented.
We hope that the above list exhausts your suggestions and the attached article is fit for publication in “Sustainability”.
We appreciate your work, time and thorough analysis put in our paper. Resulting additions and alterations introduced in the text increased the value of our study and gave us inspirations for further research.
Your sincerely, Authors
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I reviewed your manuscript which has been significantly improved. However, I noticed that you didn't include the questionnaire as stated in your answer. So, please include it.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your updated review. We have included the questionnaire in Table 2 of the revised manuscript.
With regards,
Authors
Reviewer 4 Report
Some improvement. Need to use examples to illustrate your changes. Now is difficult for reviewers to chase although you used track changes. Sorry, I don't see you address literature gap by read through the revised version again.
Line 102: hypotheses development. please list out your hypotheses
You research logic is very strange to me.
Only up to year 2018 data, how about year 2021?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your updated review. We have updated table regarding entities with foreign capital and included data for 2020 – the latest available in Polish statistical office.
Hypotheses are listed in the last paragraph of the “Hypotheses development” section – lines 244-251 of the revised manuscript.
The literature gap we refer to is also described in mentioned section. Especially in lines 232-237 and later summarized in lines 238-243.
We have also contacted the editor as far as the text formatting in order to make our revisions clearer.
With regards,
Authors
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report
Some improvements. Please explain your sources of measurements. You need to devote a new section introducing a theory/theories used. Please add sections: theoretical contributions, managerial implications. Conclusion should be separated from Discussion and Conclusion.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments and suggestions.
We have updated our paper in a following way:
- In part “3. Materials and methods” we added one paragraph about the questionnaire, interpretation of answers and the way in which we calculated final results. It refers to your suggestions concerning sources of measurements.
- Following your suggestions concerning theoretical section we have:
- Split part “2. Theoretical background and hypotheses development” into two subsections: “2.1. Theoretical background” and 2.2. Literature gap and hypotheses
- Included additional references to the literature to bring theoretical background to the notion of GVCs, cities and regional development (in subsection “2.1. Theoretical background”)
- The former Discussion and conclusions section is now divided into two separate sections. Moreover section Discussion is divided into two subsections: “5.1. Theoretical contributions” and “5.2. Managerial and policy implications”. These two subsections include new material that we have added to fulfill your expectations.
Thank you again for your thorough review.
With best regards, Authors
