PONE-D-23-42214Digital Transformation and Supply Chain Efficiency Improvement: An Empirical Study from A-Share Listed Companies in ChinaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Fan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

After carefully reading the  current version of your manuscript, a few suggestions could be followed : please improve the link among the variables from the literature review, as to better support the hypotheses; within the Methodology and data analysis, please provide the thresholds as they were considered, with literature support; the same recommendation extends for the Results. Further, you need to clearly provide the status of your research Hypotheses and discuss it in the light of previous research. Limitations should also be considered for the current analysis. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 23 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ioana Gutu, Postdoctoral

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for uploading your study's underlying data set. Unfortunately, the repository you have noted in your Data Availability statement does not qualify as an acceptable data repository according to PLOS's standards.

At this time, please upload the minimal data set necessary to replicate your study's findings to a stable, public repository (such as figshare or Dryad) and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a list of recommended repositories and additional information on PLOS standards for data deposition, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Comment 1: The introduction delves into generalities about the importance of an efficient supply chain without delving into the specific objectives or focus of the study until later. A more explicit statement about the research question, objectives, or hypotheses would make the introduction more focused and engaging.

Comment 2: While the introduction references existing literature on digital transformation, it falls short in explicitly identifying the gap that this study aims to fill. Clearly stating the research gap would strengthen the rationale for conducting the study and demonstrate the paper's contribution to the field.

Comment 3: While the review covers the basics of supply chain efficiency and the integration of advanced technologies, it lacks in-depth analysis and critical evaluation of existing literature. A more critical examination of methodologies, limitations, and gaps in the literature would strengthen the review.

Comment 4: The literature review identifies a need for enrichment and expansion in research perspectives, mechanisms, and scope regarding the relationship between digital transformation and supply chain efficiency. While this is valid, it would be helpful to explicitly state specific research questions or areas that future studies could explore.

the authors can rely on some other references to enrich there study in the literature and methodology:

- Khatib, S. F., Ismail, I. H., Salameh, N., Abbas, A. F., Bazhair, A. H., & Sulimany, H. G. H. (2023). Carbon emission and firm performance: The moderating role of management environmental training. Sustainability, 15(13), 10485.

- Ye, X., & Yue, P. (2023). Financial literacy and household energy efficiency: An analysis of credit market and supply chain. Finance Research Letters, 52, 103563.

Comment 5: The hypotheses (H1, H2, H3) are briefly stated but lack clarity in terms of how they will be tested or validated. Providing more explicit details on the variables involved in each hypothesis and the expected outcomes would enhance the rigor of the research framework.

Comment 6: The findings are reiterated in the introduction of the discussion section. Instead of restating the positive impact of digital transformation, consider delving directly into the interpretation and implications of the results to maintain reader engagement.

Comment 7: The study outlines its contributions in terms of content, mechanism, and expansion, but it would be beneficial to explicitly link each contribution to the specific findings or results discussed in the study. This would provide a clearer understanding of how each contribution is substantiated.

Comment 8: In the research findings section ensure that the policy recommendations directly align with the research findings. Explicitly state how each recommendation is derived from the study's results, reinforcing the practical implications of the research.

Comment 9: Integrate the limitations mentioned in the discussion section into the conclusion. Addressing limitations in the conclusion provides a holistic perspective on the study's scope and potential areas for improvement in future research.

Reviewer #2: ” Digital Transformation and Supply Chain Efficiency Improvement: An Empirical Study from A-Share Listed Companies in China” is an interesting paper, on a relevant topic, using a decent methodology. The information is easy to navigate, and the structure of the paper allows readers to analyse the concepts approached, providing an interesting insight of the topic. The paper is written according to academic standards, using proper language and scientific style.

However, before acceptance, the authors should pay attention to the following:

- The methodology lacks better presentation and detail. The reader is not informed what type of methodology is employed. A short mentioning is made only in section 5 Discussion:” Through group regression analysis, this paper captures the heterogeneity of the effects of digital transformation, providing detailed guidance for different types of enterprises on how to achieve supply chain efficiency improvement in the context of digital transformation. At the same time, through economic consequences analysis, the research also examines how digital transformation can reduce future external transaction costs by improving corporate supply chain efficiency, which has important policy guidance value for advancing digital transformation and supply chain management practices.”

Authors should develop this information in the Research methodology section and also briefly mention it in the Introduction part.

- For equations (1) and (2) the authors do not provide references. Moreover, at the beginning of section 3.3 Model Construction, authors state that:” Drawing on previous research...” and no reference is made to previous research that was analysed here.

Authors should develop the Research methodology part and include all necessary references that were investigated to build the model.

Reviewer #3: Dear Editor,

I reviewed the paper entitled Digital Transformation and Supply Chain Efficiency Improvement: An Empirical Study from A-Share Listed Companies in China and I have some things that concern me.

The paper has many strong points that, at first, convinced me it can be published after a minor revision.

These are:

1. The objective that can generate the interest of the readers and the arguments of the authors regarding the originality of the approach.

2. Literature review that is presented in an easy-to-follow way and that supports the research objective.

3. The methodology used, which considers several steps through which the authors solve specific problems such as: heterogeneity, endogeneity, etc.

4. Consistent database and varied variables, as well as the concern for checking the robustness of the results.

5. Correlation of own results with recent ones and confirmation of hypotheses.

6. Correlation of results with public policy proposals.

7. Accepting the existence of limitations.

However, checking if the authors have identified the most recent publications on the researched topic, I found a paper which does not appear in the references: Feimei Liao, Yaoyao Hu, Mengjie Chen, Shulin Xu, Digital transformation and corporate green supply chain efficiency: Evidence from China, Economic Analysis and Policy, Volume 81, 2024, Pages 195-207, ISSN 0313-5926, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2023.11.033.

The similarities between the reviewed paper and the one cited above are quite concerning, starting with the abstract. For this reason, I cannot decide on this article. I believe that the decision should be made by the editor according to the journal policy.

Thank you for understanding!

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-23-42214R1Digital Transformation and Supply Chain Efficiency Improvement: An Empirical Study from A-Share Listed Companies in ChinaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Fan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please consider clearly and concisely addressing all the concepts and variables that define your research, along with other minor issues as kindly recommended by Reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 03 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ioana Gutu, Postdoctoral

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I strongly recommend that we submit this paper for publication. The depth of research, clarity of arguments, and significance of findings make it an ideal candidate for dissemination within the academic community. The meticulous attention to detail, thorough analysis, and innovative approach showcased throughout the manuscript demonstrate the dedication and expertise of the authors. By sharing this work with the broader scientific community, we not only contribute to the advancement of knowledge in our field but also invite valuable feedback and discussion that can further refine and strengthen our conclusions. Therefore, I believe it is imperative that we seize this opportunity to disseminate our findings through publication, ultimately enriching the scholarly discourse and advancing our collective understanding

Reviewer #4: Based on the paper's content, the paper is well executed but would benefit from several improvements.

1 Regarding "internal corporate governance" and "external market competition" as two major mechanisms of digital transformation, ensure that the most recent and relevant literature is cited to reinforce the authority of these concepts.

2 In the abstract, the statement that "digital transformation significantly enhances supply chain efficiency" should be revised to "the research indicates that digital transformation plays a key role in significantly enhancing supply chain efficiency" to increase the accuracy of the semantics.

3 Review all cited references in the paper, especially in the abstract and conclusion sections, to ensure consistency and accuracy of the citation format, such as author names, publication years, and paper titles following prescribed guidelines.

4 When discussing how digital transformation impacts supply chain efficiency across different corporate backgrounds, consider optimizing the structure of this section to make it more logical and organized. Clear subheadings could be used to distinguish between different aspects, providing better clarity.

5 Carefully check the citation format and ensure uniformity and standardization of all figures and image annotations throughout the document.

6 For the conclusion section that states "the improvement in supply chain efficiency caused by digital transformation can reduce future external transaction costs and enhance the market position and financial performance of the enterprise," it is recommended to rephrase more concisely as "digital transformation drives down future external transaction costs, thereby consolidating the enterprise's market competitiveness and elevating financial performance," to emphasize its direct positive impact on the company's performance.

I hope it helps with your research. Good luck.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Digital Transformation and Supply Chain Efficiency Improvement: An Empirical Study from A-Share Listed Companies in China

PONE-D-23-42214R2

Dear Dr. Min Fan,,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ioana Gutu, Postdoctoral

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: