Measuring Supply Chain Performance as SCOR v13.0-Based in Disruptive Technology Era: Scale Development and Validation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper discusses the different scales that have been developed for measuring supply chain performance (SCP) and highlights the limitations of some of these scales. The authors suggest that a comprehensive scale that covers all industries would be useful for future scale adaptation studies. They also compare the SCPSS scale developed in their study with other scales in the literature and conclude that SCPSS is more up-to-date and comprehensive in terms of measures.
here are some comments and potential questions that could be raised about this study:
The study appears to have followed a rigorous methodology, with several stages of data analysis and validation.
The use of multiple measurement scales for SCP could be both a strength and a limitation of the study. On one hand, it allows for a more comprehensive assessment of SCP. On the other hand, it could make it more difficult to compare results across studies that use different scales.
The sample sizes for both the pilot study and main study seem reasonable, although it would be useful to know more about the characteristics of the companies included in the sample.
What were the specific measurement scales used for SCP, and how did they differ in terms of the number of items and sub-dimensions/sub-scales?
How were the companies included in the sample selected, and how representative are they of the broader population of companies in the relevant industry or region?
What were the results of the convergent and discriminant validity appraisal, and how did they provide evidence for the validity of the SCP measurement scales?
What were the main findings of the study in terms of the structure and predictability of SCP, and how do they contribute to our understanding of supply chain performance?
Were there any challenges or limitations in the data collection or statistical analysis processes that the researchers had to overcome?
How could the findings of this study be applied in practical settings, such as in improving supply chain performance in companies?
What was the process for selecting the experts who provided input for the study? Were they from a diverse range of industries and backgrounds?
The tables need more explanation and analysis, especially tables 8 to 12.
The proposed approach for improving the current system is interesting, but it would be helpful to explain it more clearly in the diagram. The diagram should include more details about the different components of the proposed approach, how they are connected, and how they relate to the current system. This would make it easier to understand how the proposed approach would be implemented and how it would improve the current system.
This paper discusses the different scales that have been developed for measuring supply chain performance (SCP) and highlights the limitations of some of these scales. The authors suggest that a comprehensive scale that covers all industries would be useful for future scale adaptation studies. They also compare the SCPSS scale developed in their study with other scales in the literature and conclude that SCPSS is more up-to-date and comprehensive in terms of measures.
here are some comments and potential questions that could be raised about this study:
The study appears to have followed a rigorous methodology, with several stages of data analysis and validation.
The use of multiple measurement scales for SCP could be both a strength and a limitation of the study. On one hand, it allows for a more comprehensive assessment of SCP. On the other hand, it could make it more difficult to compare results across studies that use different scales.
The sample sizes for both the pilot study and main study seem reasonable, although it would be useful to know more about the characteristics of the companies included in the sample.
What were the specific measurement scales used for SCP, and how did they differ in terms of the number of items and sub-dimensions/sub-scales?
How were the companies included in the sample selected, and how representative are they of the broader population of companies in the relevant industry or region?
What were the results of the convergent and discriminant validity appraisal, and how did they provide evidence for the validity of the SCP measurement scales?
What were the main findings of the study in terms of the structure and predictability of SCP, and how do they contribute to our understanding of supply chain performance?
Were there any challenges or limitations in the data collection or statistical analysis processes that the researchers had to overcome?
How could the findings of this study be applied in practical settings, such as in improving supply chain performance in companies?
What was the process for selecting the experts who provided input for the study? Were they from a diverse range of industries and backgrounds?
The tables need more explanation and analysis, especially tables 8 to 12.
The proposed approach for improving the current system is interesting, but it would be helpful to explain it more clearly in the diagram. The diagram should include more details about the different components of the proposed approach, how they are connected, and how they relate to the current system. This would make it easier to understand how the proposed approach would be implemented and how it would improve the current system.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for the insightful comments and suggestions. We made whole possible alterations that were suggested and detailed the changes in below. Prior to response your comments we want to inform you that all the revisions and improvements are highligted yellow in revised version of our manuscipt. We would like to thank you again for your precious time and insight to to strengthen our study.
Best Regards,
Corresponding author on behalf of the authors.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
As a review paper the manuscript looks fine. Some editing of the presentation is needed. This is especially the case with the abstract.
English needs a bit improved. I was a bit confused while reading the abstract. Minor editing can make the paper easily readable.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for the insightful comments and suggestions. We made whole possible alterations that were suggested and detailed the changes in below. Prior to response your comments we want to inform you that all the revisions and improvements are highligted yellow in revised version of our manuscipt. We would like to thank you again for your precious time and insight to to strengthen our study.
Best Regards,
Corresponding author on behalf of the authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper is interesting, however there are some points should be considered before it can be accepted.
1. The authors should give some interesting results in the abstract.
2. Descriptive statistic should be added in the report such as types of companies and respondent, area of companies and some relevant information to give description about the scope of this research.
3. Please explain the model development clearly, not only focus on calculation. Show the initial and the final model.
4. The paper is too long. There are tables and appendix are not too relevant with the body of the paper.
5. Title of the paper is not appropriate with appendix 2 (Final form). The title is about measuring supply chain performance but survey questions in appendix 2 is more relevant with trend improvement. It can not be used to measure supply chain performance.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for the insightful comments and suggestions. We made whole possible alterations that were suggested and detailed the changes in below. Prior to response your comments we want to inform you that all the revisions and improvements are highligted yellow in revised version of our manuscipt. We would like to thank you again for your precious time and insight to to strengthen our study.
Best Regards,
Corresponding author on behalf of the authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The article is developed at a high substantive level. Both theoretical and research part is prepared very well. I have no comments regarding this study. The subject matter of the article is current and important both for science and practice. This type of research should be continued.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for the insightful comments and suggestions. We made some changes in the article and painted these parts yellow in the word file. We have also attached the article file. We would like to thank you again for your precious time and insight to to strengthen our study.
Best Regards,
Corresponding author on behalf of the authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
The discussed topic concerning SC performance metrics and measurements is an interesting topic. However, the presentation of the research is poor and the structure is confusing. Some parts of the manuscript have been repeated twice (e.g., see Table 7).
Add an algorithm and describe the used methodology step by step (everything that has been employed including statistical methods); the presented one is general.
Improve the quality of the writing. It is hard to follow what you did. Try to put every table on one page.
It needs to be improved.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for the insightful comments and suggestions. We made whole possible alterations that were suggested and detailed the changes in below. Prior to response your comments we want to inform you that all the revisions and improvements are highligted yellow in revised version of our manuscipt. We would like to thank you again for your precious time and insight to to strengthen our study.
Best Regards,
Corresponding author on behalf of the authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report
The paper titled "Measuring suppy chain performance as SCOR v13.0 based in disruptive technology era: Scale development and validation" contributes to future research and practical applications by presenting a more standard, comprehensive, and up-to-date measurement scale.
I have the following suggestions to authors:
- keywords - remove abbreviation and move it as a part of the main text
- it will be good to split the Introduction section into Introduction section and Related works
- figure 1 - move it on one page, not two and improve graphical imperfections. Methodology is well written
- improve table 16 as values of AVE, CR and Cronbach´s alpha are not assigned to rows
- discussion in marked as 4.1 and then, there are 4.1 theoretical contributions - please go through the text to correct such imperfections
- Discussion and Conclusions sections are well written and contains all relevant information
- it will be good to insert some up to date literature sources related to the existing approaches.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for the insightful comments and suggestions. We made some changes in the article and painted these parts yellow in the word file. We have also attached the article file. We would like to thank you again for your precious time and insight to to strengthen our study.
Best Regards,
Corresponding author on behalf of the authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 7 Report
Dear authors,
Here are some review comments for consideration and response. The sample sizes of the study for pilot study and main 249 study comprise of the 227 companies and 452 companies, respectively. However, there are no any information about the data collection in the paper. The profiles of samples are missing. How about the no-response bias? How about the common-method bias? Was nomological validity tested?
The references need to be updated to include more recent relevant studies particularly those published after 2020.
Why are the implications and limitations section provided before the conclusions section?
Overall, the paper is clearly written. The literature review needs an improvement. The references need to be updated to include more recent relevant studies particularly those published after 2020.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for the insightful comments and suggestions. We made whole possible alterations that were suggested and detailed the changes in below. Prior to response your comments we want to inform you that all the revisions and improvements are highligted yellow in revised version of our manuscipt. We would like to thank you again for your precious time and insight to to strengthen our study.
Best Regards,
Corresponding author on behalf of the authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 8 Report
thanks for improving the paper
good
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for the insightful comments and suggestions. We made some changes in the article and painted these parts yellow in the word file. We have also attached the article file. We would like to thank you again for your precious time and insight to to strengthen our study.
Best Regards,
Corresponding author on behalf of the authors.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have demonstrated a high level of expertise in the subject matter, and the writing style is clear, concise, and engaging. The paper adheres to the journal's formatting and referencing guidelines, and the quality of figures, tables, and supplementary materials is commendable. The manuscript has also been revised according to the reviewers' comments, addressing all major concerns raised during the peer-review process.
The authors have demonstrated a high level of expertise in the subject matter, and the writing style is clear, concise, and engaging. The paper adheres to the journal's formatting and referencing guidelines, and the quality of figures, tables, and supplementary materials is commendable. The manuscript has also been revised according to the reviewers' comments, addressing all major concerns raised during the peer-review process.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for your great contribution to strengthening our manuscript. Finally, you have suggested minor English language editing. The Logistics journal enables this level of English language editing service as free. We will take advantage of it.
We would like to thank you again for your precious time and insight to to strengthen our study.
Best Regards,
Corresponding author on behalf of the authors.
Reviewer 5 Report
The manuscript is interesting in practice and it's consistent with the level of Logistics. The revised version can be published after another round of proofreading.
The revised version can be published after another round of proofreading.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for your contribution to strengthening our manuscript. Finally, you have suggested minor English language editing. The Logistics journal enables this level of English language editing service as free. We will take advantage of it. In addition, we reviewed the study by rereading it ourselves.
We would like to thank you again for your precious time and insight to to strengthen our study.
Best Regards,
Corresponding author on behalf of the authors.
Reviewer 7 Report
After reviewing the revised manuscript, I feel the authors have tried to revise the paper to address the concerns raised. The quality has been improved to be considered to accept this submission.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your precious time and insight to to strengthen our study. Thanks to your suggestions, it has become a stronger and higher quality manuscript.
Best Regards,
Corresponding author on behalf of the authors.
