Analysis of the Economic Sustainability of the Supply Chain Sector by Applying the Altman Z-Score Predictor
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your review of the paper. In particular, we have made the following changes taking into account your comments:
-We have posed two questions for this research from the beginning. These have been developed and answered throughout the paper.
-The variables in equation 4 and 5 have been explained.
-Section 4 has been separated into discussions and conclusion.
-The bibliography has been revised and expanded, with more current references and the ones you indicated have been incorporated.
Thank you very much for your review.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
First of all, as start to read this proposed article, find title of the work biased as does abstract. Authors stress term "supply chain sector", however, this is only used in title, abstract, and early parts of introduction. After reading the entire study, wonder still, what is the definition of "supply chain sector (or company)". Does it include shipping companies? Or road transportation companies and railway companies? What about warehousing? Or third party logistics services? Or these all? Why manufacturing is not considered as "supply chain sector/company"? Quite often manufacturing companies perform many supply chain tasks themselves, and are vital parts of any supply chain. Why they are not in this definition? What about software companies? Some of these must be developing IT applications for supply chains or providing software support and implementation. Authors need to solve this issue - and it starts from definition of "supply chain sector/ company". Now this is not done. With this definition, authors need to state clearly their research question(s) (or make research problem introduction).
As you are dealing supply chain sector, then why literature of this field is not introduced in literature review (related e.g. financial supply chains).
In literature review Equation 5 is introduced, but all variables are not defined. Still wonder, what I and S mean.
Article says that it has analyzed more than 1300 companies, and more than 5500 financial reports. What country these reports and companies include? What public exchanges these companies are listed on? What data sources were used? Can we trust them? Please make proper research methodology section, where these issues are clarified. Personally, also wonder still, have authors just calculated some Z-scores, however, without checking did these companies actually went bankrupt. Is this just index calculating exercise? What is the contribution? Think about current business environment. Would you consider Spanish restaurants and hotels with low risk (as your research argues)? Supply chain companies had also very difficult time in 2010-2019, and many went to financial troubles (mostly due to low margins, and negative ones, main criteria also in Altman).
Does Altman Z differ between different years in these analyzed companies?
Authors would also need to cite properly tables. Currently it is just stated "table n. 5" in the middle of sentence. It should be "Table 5". Same applies to the final section, where author(s) write in one person, "I consider". Research is always written within passive, and also think that this research is mere work of many, "we".
Again, going back to the very beginning, you need to define key terms of this research, illustrate research gap to be filled (in introduction), and then fill this gap with research work. This process does not work in here. It needs to be corrected.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your review of the paper. In particular, we have made the following changes taking into account your comments:
-We have focused on the supply chain sector in the paper, indicating that the
ultimate supply chain, which is present in multiple industries, will be addressed.
We have better explained what the ultimate supply chain is and how a
company's risks affect the supply chain, and we have highlighted the
importance of considering a bankruptcy probability indicator within the supply
chain improvement indicators (SCPM), which is not currently contemplated,
making it a gap in the state of the art. In addition, two research questions of
this paper are formulated, developed and discussed.
-The review of the state of the art related to the financial supply chain and its
improvement (SCPM) is enlarged. And new and more current references are
included.
-The variables in equation 5 are explained.
-It is indicated that the data are from Spanish companies. The database (SABI) is
indicated. The information and discussion is extended.
Altman's Z-value may vary from year to year, but the research question seeks to
justify the importance of including an indicator of the probability of bankruptcy
in supply chain measurements, as well as to establish a comparison that can
help to say whether it is above or below the average values for the industry.
-The tables have been properly cited, the article has been rewritten to be in the
passive and plural.
-In the introduction and in the abstract, the research questions and the gap to
be filled with this article have been defined.
Thank you very much for your review.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
accept
Author Response
We sincerely thank you for your review which allows us to improve our manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Shall give sincere thanks for authors from completing extensive revision from first round version of the manuscript. Even if I am pleased on many of completed changes, would still like to see further improvements in the following:
- In empirical analysis authors analyze Spanish companies from 2010-2013, and calculated Z scores. Is this just Z score calculation exercise or have you linked or followed, how many companies went to bankrupt (e.g. in 2014-2020)?
- Do IT companies belong to SC sector companies group? Think that they do. Your analysis is interesting, but discussion should be directed afterwards on strong and weak parts of SC sector.
- Further research directions should end the manuscript.
Authors should proof read manuscript carefully, and be sure that "wholesale" is written together, and e.g. all lists of items end with "and" between last and second last item in the list.
Author Response
We sincerely thank you for your review which allows us to improve our manuscript. We have taken your comments into account and have made the following changes.
1.-We have considered as a future research your proposal to study the companies that have gone bankrupt from 2014-2020.
2.-In the discussion section, we have included a detailed explanation for each industry and the result obtained to justify those results, also relying on other research.
3.-We have included future research directions.
4.- We have corrected the errors indicated and we have carried out a revision of the manuscript.
We have also corrected the reference so that the first surname is the first instead of the second.
