PONE-D-23-38056Investigation on the Strategy of Business Administration Level of Enterprises in the New Economic EnvironmentPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Xiao,

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. Based on the comments by the reviewers, the revision will help enable the manuscript to overcome the highlighted issues and improve the quality of the manuscript.  

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 04 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,

Yasir Ahmad

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

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

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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will .take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: " ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ".

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

 [This work was supported by the young innovative talents project in Guangdong Province in 2023 "Research on the High-quality Development Path of Qingyuan Chicken Industry from the Perspective of Industrial Integration" (Project  NO. 2023WQNCX249).].  

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In the online submission form, you indicated that [if request, I will provide it]. 

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 

5. 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. 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 #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

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: No

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: No

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 lacks specific examples or data to support the claims made. Providing concrete examples of the problems faced by Chinese enterprises, as well as tangible instances of successful management strategies, would make the narrative more compelling and convincing.

Comment 2: The introduction makes several claims about the problems faced by Chinese enterprises and the necessity of improving management, but there are no references or citations to support these statements. Incorporating relevant literature, studies, or examples from reputable sources would add credibility to the arguments presented.

Comment 3: Some statements are quite general and lack specificity. For example, the opening sentences broadly state that many scholars have discussed the problems of business management in the new economic environment without specifying the key problems or themes addressed. Be more specific and concise to enhance the relevance of the related work.

Comment 4: The last sentence attempts to introduce a research gap related to enterprise management strategies in the new economic environment. However, the statement lacks specificity and clarity. Clearly articulate what aspects of management strategies have not been explored under the conditions of the new economic environment.

Comment 5: Some statements in Significance of Improving the Level of Business Management of Enterprises, such as "The economy is developed," are overly broad and lack specific details or evidence to support the claim. Providing more concrete examples or data to substantiate such statements would strengthen the argument.

Comment 6: The Significance of Improving the Level of Business Management of Enterprises section mentions the need to "improve the overall quality of the entire enterprise to a certain extent," but the specific goals or benchmarks for improvement are not clearly outlined. Providing measurable objectives would enhance the clarity of the intended outcomes.

Comment 7: The Problems in Business Administration of Chinese Enterprises section suggests that the lack of close MBA training organizations within enterprises contributes to inefficient management training. However, there is no supporting evidence or examples to substantiate this claim. Providing specific instances or studies showcasing the impact of inadequate MBA training on management efficiency would strengthen the argument.

Comment 8: The conclusion mentions that as enterprises adapt to the new environment, the business management level will become more comprehensive. However, it lacks specific insights into how this improvement will occur or what specific aspects of management will see enhancement. Providing more details on the expected improvements would strengthen the conclusion.

Reviewer #2: During the review I have found some issues to inform the author(s). Those are given below:

About grammatical improvements;

Fragmented Sentences:

Original: "Under the conditions of the new economic environment, in order to achieve long-term development, enterprises must continuously improve their capabilities."

Suggested: "In the face of the new economic environment, enterprises must continuously enhance their capabilities to achieve long-term development."

Redundancy:

Original: "Under the current market situation, business management is a kind of knowledge based on economic management and legal accounting."

Suggested: "In the current market scenario, business management relies on economic principles and legal accounting."

Repetition:

Original: "In view of the current market situation, the article analyzed the enterprise’s system reform and production planning, and gave corresponding countermeasures."

Suggested: "Considering the current market situation, the article analyzed enterprise system reform and production planning, proposing corresponding countermeasures."

Ambiguity:

Original: "By comparing with the traditional management model in the complexity of enterprise management process, enterprise management efficiency, management level score, and enterprise quarterly profit..."

Suggested: "Comparing with the traditional management model in terms of the complexity of enterprise management processes, efficiency, management level score, and quarterly profit..."

Awkward Phrasing:

Original: "It has also been explained that under the new economy, the management level of enterprises needs to be improved in order to enable enterprises to achieve long-term development."

Suggested: "Furthermore, it is elucidated that, in the new economy, enhancing the management level is essential for enabling enterprises to attain long-term development."

Numbers and Units:

Original: "It has been found that the management model under the new economic environment has reduced the complexity of enterprise process by 0.17."

Suggested: "Findings reveal that the management model in the new economic environment has reduced the complexity of the enterprise process by 0.17 points."

Consistency:

Ensure consistent use of either singular or plural forms, e.g., "enterprise's system reform" versus "enterprises needed."

Clarity:

Consider restructuring sentences for clearer expression and avoiding overly complex sentence structures.

Introduction:

the introduction appropriately sets the stage for discussing the challenges and opportunities faced by enterprises in the evolving economic landscape and lays the groundwork for the subsequent detailed analysis.

Literature/Related works:

Authors need to mention more rigorously the absolute and relative gap and the importance to bridge the it.

The use of the phrase "under the new economic environment" is repeated multiple times. Consider varying the language for better flow and clarity.

The transition between different studies and their findings could be smoother. Consider using transition sentences to link the various research topics more cohesively.

In the summary of research findings, some statements are general and could benefit from more specific details. For example, when discussing Honggowati S's research, provide more information about the findings beyond general statements like "management’s shareholding had a negative impact on the level of strategic management disclosure."

Ensure that the citation style is consistent throughout the review. For instance, some citations are presented with the author's name followed by the initial, while others include the full name.

While the review mentions various studies, it does not delve deeply into the methodologies or specific findings of each study. Providing a bit more detail on the methodologies and key findings would enhance the depth of the review.

The statement, "In the aspect of enterprise business management, scholars have conducted many discussions, but no research has been done on enterprise management strategies," lacks specificity. It would be beneficial to clearly identify the specific gap in the literature regarding enterprise management strategies.

Methodology:

Author may use some established methodology for this type of study. in this study, the method is not clear enough. kindly mention and give some reasoning why and why not using different methods.

Reviewer #3: First and foremost, I want to commend you on your diligent work in exploring a research topic that holds significant novelty and relevance in the current economic landscape. Your investigation into the challenges and opportunities facing enterprises in the new economic environment is both timely and insightful, and it reflects a commendable dedication to advancing our understanding of contemporary business management practices.

While your research undoubtedly contributes valuable insights to the field, I believe there are several areas where further improvements can be made to enhance the quality and impact of your paper. Here are some suggestions for refinement:

1. Enhanced Structure and Clarity:

• Consider revising the structure of your paper to provide a clearer roadmap for readers, guiding them through the literature review, methodology, results, and discussion sections in a logical sequence.

• Ensure that each section is well-defined and articulated, with clear transitions between ideas and arguments.

2. Deeper Literature Review:

• Expand your literature review to encompass a broader range of scholarly works and perspectives relevant to your research topic.

• Provide more detailed analysis and critique of existing literature, highlighting gaps, contradictions, and areas for further investigation.

3. Methodological Rigor:

• Strengthen the methodological approach employed in your research, ensuring that data collection and analysis procedures are well-defined and rigorously executed.

• Consider incorporating additional research methods or approaches to enrich the depth and robustness of your findings.

4. Evidence-Based Analysis:

• Ground your analysis and discussion in empirical evidence, drawing on real-world examples, case studies, or statistical data to support your arguments and conclusions.

• Clearly present your findings in a systematic and transparent manner, allowing readers to assess the validity and reliability of your research outcomes.

5. Concluding Insights and Implications:

• Offer insightful reflections on the implications of your findings for theory, practice, and future research directions.

• Highlight the practical implications of your research for business leaders, policymakers, and other stakeholders, emphasizing actionable recommendations for improving enterprise management in the new economic environment.

By incorporating these suggestions into your paper, you can further elevate its quality and significance, ultimately making a more substantial contribution to the academic discourse on enterprise management and the evolving economic landscape.

**********

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: Yes: Dr. Ahsan Ali Ashraf

**********

[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.

Investigation on the Strategy of Business Administration Level of Enterprises in the New Economic Environment

PONE-D-23-38056R1

Dear Dr.Xiao,

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,

Yasir Ahmad

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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 #3: 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 #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: Yes

**********

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: As a reviewer, after thoroughly examining the manuscript and considering the revisions made in response to my comments, I am pleased to recommend that the paper be accepted and published. The authors have adequately addressed the critiques provided, enhancing the depth and clarity of the manuscript.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: No

**********