Next Article in Journal
Characteristics of Recent Aftershocks Sequences (2014, 2015, 2018) Derived from New Seismological and Geodetic Data on the Ionian Islands, Greece
Next Article in Special Issue
APIs for EU Governments: A Landscape Analysis on Policy Instruments, Standards, Strategies and Best Practices
Previous Article in Journal
The Hierarchical Classifier for COVID-19 Resistance Evaluation
Data Descriptor
Peer-Review Record

Data for Sustainable Platform Economy: Connections between Platform Models and Sustainable Development Goals

Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Received: 26 November 2020 / Revised: 14 January 2021 / Accepted: 16 January 2021 / Published: 20 January 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue A European Approach to the Establishment of Data Spaces)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is a data descriptor type article explaining original dataset about various features on many platform businesses and about their relatedness to SDGs.

 

I think the description of this paper is clear and concise.

I would like to provide some comments for improvement of the quality of this paper.

 

1. In the Figure 1, there is a word of "Decode." However, in the main text, it is written as "DECODE." The authors should unify this.

 

2. At 4th paragraph in page 2, DECODE and PLUS was explained. However, there is no detailed information about this. I felt to want to know more detail about these datasets.

 

3. At the last paragraph in page 2, citation style for some references looks wrong.

 

4. If the Figure 2 was come from previous article, the authors should declare it at the note of the Figure 2.

 

5. In the subsection 3.5, the authors should provide information of decision criteria for binary variables likewise subsection 3.1 ~ 3.4.

Author Response

Dear,

Thank you for your review and the positive data descriptor assessment. 

The manuscript has been revised in detail considering your comments (please, check the attached document). The updates are given below. 

Comments

Answer

1. In the Figure 1, there is a word of "Decode." However, in the main text, it is written as "DECODE." The authors should unify this.

Done it. DECODE (with capital letters) is the acronym of the project. Thus, we use this form everywhere.

2. At 4th paragraph in page 2, DECODE and PLUS was explained. However, there is no detailed information about this. I felt to want to know more detail about these datasets.

Indeed,the detailed explanation about the conceptualization, the structure and the methodology is explained in the second section. In any case, we agree that it’s good to mention in advance. For this reason, we have added two sentences to link the first section (Introduction) and the second one (Methods).

3. At the last paragraph in page 2, citation style for some references looks wrong.

Done it. The wrong citations have been reviewed. 

4. If the Figure 2 was come from previous article, the authors should declare it at the note of the Figure 2. 

Done it. We have included the source of Figure 2.

5. In the subsection 3.5, the authors should provide information of decision criteria for binary variables likewise subsection 3.1 ~ 3.4.

To provide the criteria used by SDGs assessment, a paragraph has been added at the end of the subsection 3.5.


I hope the revised version is now suitable for publication and look forward to hearing from you in due course. 

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have done a very good job in framing their article and the paper is nicely written and presented. I believe you build on a very important and timely topic and your paper has merit. However there are some minor aspects that you should improve in the revision.

First of all there is limited background information on existing literature. In section 2 you just directly into the method section without saying much of what has been done in past studies. This is not necessarily a problem in how you have structured things bu it would be good to expand a bit on related literature so that you can better position yours. For example, you might want to have a look at the work of Kristoffersen et al., (2019 & 2020) as they draw on some important aspects of digital strategies when it comes to sustainability. Also the recent literature review of Zeiss (2020) is interesting as it cover various facets. All these papers link to sustainable development goals.

 

What is also lacking at the moment is a discussion section where you can talk about theo theoretical and practical implications of your work.

Kristoffersen, E., Aremu, O. O., Blomsma, F., Mikalef, P., & Li, J. (2019, September). Exploring the Relationship Between Data Science and Circular Economy: An Enhanced CRISP-DM Process Model. In Conference on e-Business, e-Services and e-Society (pp. 177-189). Springer, Cham.

Kristoffersen, E., Blomsma, F., Mikalef, P., & Li, J. (2020). The smart circular economy: A digital-enabled circular strategies framework for manufacturing companies. Journal of Business Research120, 241-261.

 

Zeiss, R., Ixmeier, A., Recker, J., & Kranz, J. (2020). Mobilising information systems scholarship for a circular economy: Review, synthesis, and directions for future research. Information Systems Journal.

Author Response

Dear,

Thank you for your review and the positive data descriptor assessment. 

The manuscript has been revised in detail considering your comments (please, check the attached document). The updates are given below. 

Comments

Answer

First of all there is limited background information on existing literature. In section 2 you just directly into the method section without saying much of what has been done in past studies. This is not necessarily a problem in how you have structured things bu it would be good to expand a bit on related literature so that you can better position yours. For example, you might want to have a look at the work of Kristoffersen et al., (2019 & 2020) as they draw on some important aspects of digital strategies when it comes to sustainability. Also the recent literature review of Zeiss (2020) is interesting as it cover various facets. All these papers link to sustainable development goals.

Thanks for the powerful new references. Kristoffersen et al. (2020) and Zeiss et al. (2020) have been added in the theoretical part (section 1).

What is also lacking at the moment is a discussion section where you can talk about theo theoretical and practical implications of your work.

A conclusion section has been added to dialogue with the theoretical framework and consider practical implications and future research.


I hope the revised version is now suitable for publication and look forward to hearing from you in due course. 

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper is not exactly in my area of expertise, so I can just give an assessment in terms of the quality of the presentation, but not about its scientific soundness or originality.

 

Author Response

Dear, 

Thank you for your review and the positive data descriptor assessment. 

The manuscript has been revised in detail considering your comments (please, check the attached document).

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop