I regret to inform you that our reviewers have now considered your paper but unfortunately feel it unsuitable for publication in The *** Journal. For your information I attach the reviewer comments at the bottom of this email. I hope you will find them to be constructive and helpful. You are of course now free to submit the paper elsewhere should you choose to do so.
Thank you for considering *** Journal. I hope the outcome of this specific submission will not discourage you from the submission of future manuscripts. We will always be pleased to receive a paper from you.
Sincerely,
****
Editor, *** Journal
*****
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
The paper is about the relationship between ******** and the moderating effect of *****The topic is relevant, interesting and positioned since Authors take the area of *****
In the following sections, I summarize my main concerns.
Theory development and hypotheses
One page 3 Authors discuss the relationship between *****. Even if the summarize all the relevant literature I think they combine different perspectives on internal and external organizational consequences of *** that make the reader a little be confused. I would suggest organizing the work more clearly.
On page 5 Authors start describing the theoretical framework. They start citing some definitions of******and draw, from the *********’s contribution, their own definition. I think that this part must be clarified more and needs to be complemented with other, more recent, contributions on *******including ***.
On page 6 Authors say “*********.” I do believe this statement needs to be better explained.
One page 6, Authors argue “****.” Please elaborate on the statement to clarify the point.
On page 9, the description of the relationship between **** is not as clear. Authors say “****.”. from the prior discussion it is not as clear that *** necessarily promote ***. If this is what Authors propose they need to clarify why and how.
Authors also state “Second, *****.” Even if I can follow the meaning of the sentence, I do believe it needs to be clarified heavily, otherwise it looks like a sum of statements. Please take it as an overall comment that can be applied to several points in the paper.
Overall the “Theory development and hypotheses” section must be seriously reconsidered and updated in some parts. Even if the hypotheses appear reasonable, according to my knowledge on the subject, the prior discussion is poor and sometime confused. Please, build each single hypothesis coherently with the literature and developing your own argument.
Methods
Even if I personally agree with the use of scales and measures used by other Authors, I do suggest Authors to discussing their own measures otherwise the reader get “confused” if he/she is not familiar with the literature cited in the paper. Moreover, even if the use of well-known measures is commendable, it does not imply that the measures are free from weaknesses; the Authors should discuss and make clear that the measures are appropriate for their own purposes.
It is not clear to me the presence of Table 2 and Table 3, they appear to be the same Tables but with different results. Table 3 is not cited in the paper. Moreover Table 2 is incomplete, what is in brackets? Is table 3 a mistake? Why are some coefficients highlighted?
Discussion
The section contains only a brief section on the regressions results. A discussion section is missing.
Overall comments
I personally think the paper fits an interesting and promising area of research, however, I can not say the same as regard the current version of this paper. I do believe the Authors have created a very interesting database but at the current stage of development the paper appears to be more a working paper than a paper ready to be submitted. According to me, the literature review section and the measure section suffer a number of limitations (see my previous comments) and the discussion section is practically missing. Currently, the most complete section is that of the data analysis. Moreover, I would suggest the use of a processional copy editor in order to solve the huge amount of mistakes and errors before future submissions.
Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
I appreciate the author’s(s’) efforts on examining the contingent effects of ***. In general, the examinations are presented logically and clearly. However, I think that this study has some significant weaknesses that need to be enhanced I present these weaknesses as follows, together with a couple of mistakes.
Title of Manuscript. This paper aims to increase knowledge to literature by investigating the contingency role of ***. However, the title of the manuscript clearly shows that the focus is *** I suggest that the title should be modified to signify its purposes.
Research Hypotheses. You formulate three hypotheses (pages 7 and 11) respectively specifying the effects of ***. However, the development logics are weak. Please use examples in *** to specify how *** and *** affect performance (which kind? …) and then further discuss how *** moderate the effects of *** under the cases.
Methods. You claim that the sample is based on a random sample of 450 from all ***. Please specify the random process generating the sample. Furthermore, you announce that you use *** as a control. However, the variable is not found in the results. On the contrary, you say that you do not control firm size, but the variable (scale) appears in the results. In addition, please specify the whole statements of your questionnaire items to improve readability.
Analyses and Results. Figure 1 is not correct. I suggest that you conduct a slope analysis and delete the figure. Table 4 shows that the History variable is a control, but the variable is not found in the measurement. Does the History variable refer to firm age? In addition, please specify the figure by two decimals.
加微信，拉你入群
全部版块
我的主页
收藏
