Please read this carefully and fix the comments <\/p>\n
Reviewer(s)’ Comments to Author: Please read this carefully and fix the comments Reviewer(s)’ Comments to Author: Referee: 1 Recommendation: Reject Comments: This paper attempts to investigate the intersection of organizational behavior, supply chain practices, economic outcomes, financial excellence, and CSR for corporate identity improvement. However, the items measured in each scale, such as organizational behavior, supply chain practices, corporate […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"disciplines":[9],"paper_types":[],"tagged":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/34663"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/questions"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=34663"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/34663\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34663"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"disciplines","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/disciplines?post=34663"},{"taxonomy":"paper_types","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/paper_types?post=34663"},{"taxonomy":"tagged","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tagged?post=34663"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n
\nReferee: 1
\n
\nRecommendation: Reject
\n<\/span>
\nComments:
\nThis paper attempts to investigate the intersection of organizational behavior,
\nsupply chain practices, economic outcomes, financial excellence, and CSR for
\ncorporate identity improvement. However, the items measured in each scale, such
\nas organizational behavior, supply chain practices, corporate identity
\nimprovement, are not clearly specified or thoroughly articulated based on
\nprevious literature in this paper. The findings do not clearly explain the
\ninterplay and relationships among these variables within a coherent conceptual
\nmodel.
\n
\nAdditional Questions:
\n1. Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information
\nadequate to justify publication?: The items measured in each scale, such as
\norganizational behavior, supply chain practices, economic outcomes, financial
\nexcellence, and corporate social responsibility for corporate identity
\nimprovement, are not clearly specified in this paper. Furthermore, the basis of
\nthe research methodology, namely the survey instrument, is not thoroughly
\narticulated. Due to the lack of scale clarity, it is difficult to justify the
\nfindings of this research.
\n
\n2. Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate
\nunderstanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate
\nrange of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?: The
\nauthors only highlight how CSR is related to each variable, such as corporate
\nimage, financial performance, and supply chain practices. However, they do not
\nspecify any interplay or interconnection among these different variables in the
\nliterature review. For example, the potential moderating or mediating effects
\namong the variables could be addressed based on previous research in order to
\nunderstand the complexity of the interconnections.
\n
\n3. Methodology: Is the paper’s argument built on an appropriate base of
\ntheory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent
\nintellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the
\nmethods employed appropriate?: The authors explained that data were collected
\nthrough a mix of surveys and publicly available corporate annual reports, but
\nthey did not clearly describe how the survey was constructed or the quality of
\nthe information in the corporate annual reports. The authors described a
\ncontent analysis approach that utilized codes such as “0,”
\n“3,” and “5” to assess the activity intensity, employing
\nthese techniques to thoroughly code the dataset. However, the authors did not
\nclearly explain, based on which existing literature, how they determined these
\nspecific codes.
\n
\n4. Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?
\n Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the
\npaper?: Due to the lack of clear research methodology, ambiguity in scale
\nmeasurement, and insufficient justification of the coding process, it is
\ndifficult to comment on the findings of this research.
\n
\n5. Implications for research, practice and\/or society: Does the paper
\nidentify clearly any implications for research, practice and\/or society?
\n Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the
\nresearch be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to
\ninfluence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)?
\n What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting
\nquality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and
\nconclusions of the paper?: This paper attempts to investigate the intersection
\nof organizational behavior, supply chain practices, economic outcomes,
\nfinancial excellence, and CSR for corporate identity improvement. However, the
\nfindings do not clearly articulate the interplay and relationships among these
\nvariables within a coherent conceptual model.
\n
\n6. Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case,
\nmeasured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge
\nof the journal’s readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of
\nexpression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms,
\netc.: The key challenge in this research is the lack of a clear theoretical
\nframework. The hypothesis is not built on a thorough literature review, and the
\nauthors do not propose any hypotheses related to the interconnections among the
\nvariables. This lack of alignment with the research purpose is an issue.
\n
\n
\nReferee: 2
\n
\nRecommendation: Major Revision
\n<\/span>
\nComments:
\nThis research question is significant to social needs, and the samples are
\nunique. The following suggestions will increase the contribution of the
\narticle. First, the article must be restructured using an academic format,
\nespecially in presenting figures and tables. I think it’s best to refer to the
\napproach taken by other academic papers in disclosing information. Second,
\ndescribing the research methods should explain the data processing procedures
\nmore clearly. Using cross-year analysis and cross-nation analysis for variables
\ncould enhance the contribution of research findings. Third, it is suggested
\nthat only one or two theories, such as the Resource-Based Theory or the
\nStakeholder Theory, be used. Finally, it is recommended that the article be
\nsubmitted for English editing to improve readability and fluency.
\n
\nAdditional Questions:
\n1. Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information
\nadequate to justify publication?: This study integrates three theories to
\nanalyze the relationships between CSR, corporate image, financial performance,
\nsupply chain practices, and organizational behavior (OB). The sample of 120
\ncompanies comes from Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia, using PLS and
\nSEM analysis tools, and all hypotheses are confirmed. The research’s most
\ndistinctive contribution is collecting samples from three countries. However,
\nit is a pity that the research did not do the cross-national comparisons. And
\nthe study would be more valuable if it conducted multi-relationship validation
\nduring variables.
\n
\n2. Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate
\nunderstanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate
\nrange of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?: The study
\nis based on Stakeholder Theory, Brand Equity Theory, and Resource-Based Theory.
\nHowever, we need to see the foundation literature in the research. The research
\nuses six variables: Corporate Social Responsibility, Organizational Behavior,
\nCorporate Image, Financial Performance, Supply Chain Practices, and Economic
\nResults. One or two theories can cover those variables. And make the arguments
\nmore straightforward.
\n
\nWernerfelt, B. (1984). A Resource-Based View of the Firm. Strategic Management
\nJournal, 5(2), 171-180.
\n
\nBarney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal
\nof Management, 17(1), 99-120.
\n
\nBarney, J.B., Ketchen, D.J., & Wright, M. (2011). The Future of
\nResource-Based Theory: Revitalization or Decline? Journal of Management, 37(5),
\n1299-1315.
\n
\nHarrison, J.S., Bosse, D.A., & Phillips, R.A. (2010). Managing for
\nStakeholders, Stakeholder Utility Functions, and Competitive Advantage.
\nStrategic Management Journal, 31(1), 58-74.
\n
\nFreeman, R.E., Wicks, A.C., & Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder Theory and
\n“The Corporate Objective Revisited.” Organization Science, 15(3),
\n364-369.
\n
\nClarkson, M.E. (1995). A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating
\nCorporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92-117.
\n
\n3. Methodology: Is the paper’s argument built on an appropriate base of
\ntheory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent
\nintellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the
\nmethods employed appropriate?: The research method is appropriate. However,
\n the study needs to clarify the sample selection and measurement of
\nvariables. The data from corporate annual reports and the researcher coding
\ndata into variable scores (1-5). Please introduce the data convent process and
\nmethod. Additionally, on page 10, it needs to be clarified whether the study
\nsample consists of 102 responses or 120 companies.
\n
\nMoreover, the study uses multi-year data, with each variable having time lag
\neffects. The study conducts same-year analyses only. It is challenging to
\npresent the causal relationships between variables.
\n
\n4. Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?
\n Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the
\npaper?: The paper has invested significantly in analysis and has tested the
\nhypotheses. I think the conclusion should echo the arguments cited in the
\nliterature review. Many studies focus on CSR and financial performance, but
\nmore control variables are used to understand causal relationships.
\n
\n5. Implications for research, practice and\/or society: Does the paper
\nidentify clearly any implications for research, practice and\/or society?
\n Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the
\nresearch be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to
\ninfluence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)?
\n What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting
\nquality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and
\nconclusions of the paper?: The study needs to analyze their relationship in
\ndetail, for example, the effects of specific CSR aspects. Moreover, the
\nrelationships among variables may not be linear only. Clear identification of
\nvarious relationships would be more helpful for practitioners.
\n
\n6. Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case,
\nmeasured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge
\nof the journal’s readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of
\nexpression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms,
\netc.: The expression of the study should be more structured, clear, and
\nreadable. Please use the academic formats. It is uncommon for scholarly
\narticles to include tables in the introduction. Research hypotheses should be
\nclearly explained after the literature review. The research has too many
\ntables, so reporting important statistical information will be fine.
\nNote these are the comments from Reviewer i need someone who can fix these all with no issue left at the end <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"