Sustainable Market Entry Strategy under a Supply Chain Environment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is well written and well structured. I have some comments:
- In the Section of Introduction, before the research questions, the authors should identify the research objective, clarifying the title of the paper: Sustainable Market Entry Strategy under Supply Chain Environment
- Also in the conclusions, it is needed to clarify the aspect referring to the sustainable market entry.v
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Thank you for your comments. Appended to this letter is our point-by-point response to the comments. The comments are reproduced and our responses are given directly afterward in a different color (red).
Sincerely
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In the abstract, the authors do not clearly specify the purpose or objective (s) underlying the study. The introduction is much too long and readers get lost in some information less relevant to this study.
The authors have asked far too many questions and for this they should write a few more articles! I suggest the authors to establish in the abstract the central purpose or object of their study and to adjust its introduction by emphasizing the main line of study!
The literature is very brief and does not cover the subject. In addition, the authors do not treat the supply chain in the context of the literature. I suggest the authors to extend the specialized literature and to delimit concretely on the structure the important ideas that refer to the layered subject.
The research methodology does not present the methods considered for the investigation of the treated subject, nor the source of the data that formed the basis for the elaboration of the models. If it is a 100% original creation then I suggest the authors to specify this!
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Thank you for your comments. Appended to this letter is our point-by-point response to the comments. The comments are reproduced and our responses are given directly afterward in a different color (red).
Sincerely
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper deals with an interesting research topic, but the manuscript needs revisions.
Firstly, the aim should be evidenced in the abstract and introduction sections.
Secondly, the literature review should be enriched with recent contributions concerning sustainable development (Aldieri et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2019).
Moreover, the simulation developed should be explained more in detail for replication.
Finally, the text should be English proofread, because some sentences are not clear.
References.
Aldieri L. and Vinci C. P. (2020). Climate Change and Knowledge Spillovers for Cleaner Production, Journal of Cleaner Production, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122729.
Wang H., Huang J., Zhou H., Deng C. & Fang C. (2019). Analysis of sustainable utilization of water resources based on the improved water resources ecological footprint model: A case study of Hubei Province, China. Journal of Environmental Management, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110331.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Thank you for your comments. Appended to this letter is our point-by-point response to the comments. The comments are reproduced and our responses are given directly afterward in a different color (red).
Sincerely
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Introduction to the topic is interesting. Literature review is relatively accurate. More aspects from the point of view of sustainability concept will be beneficial. Models in the chapter 3 are more authors´ assumptions than data, or information-based models, or empiric data-based models. Processing of the models seems correct to me. It is a good example of the models´ creation procedures. But from my point of view it is not an intensive research results presentation, or scientifical review. Comprehensive methodological section is missing, as well as discussion. Sustainable aspect should be more visible in the whole manuscript.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Thank you for your comments. Appended to this letter is our point-by-point response to the comments. The comments are reproduced and our responses are given directly afterward in a different color (red).
Sincerely
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I thank the authors for providing me with the required answers.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Thank you very much for your affirmation of our work.
Sincerely
Yanjie
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is OK for publication.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Thank you very much for your affirmation of our work and recognition of our article.
Sincerely
Yanjie
Reviewer 4 Report
Unfortunately, my original conclusion did not change after studying the new version of the manuscript. The authors explained the construction of the models very well. I could imagine this as an excellent illustrative example for teaching or textbooks. In my opinion, the models rather express the way the authors think about hypothetical possibilities. I do not see sufficient use of empirical data here. Therefore, I consider it to be an educational text rather than a scientific article. It may be a good starting point for supporting theoretical concepts through more intensive research.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Thank you for your comments. Appended to this letter is our point-by-point response to the comments.
Sincerely
Yanjie
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
