JezK

Edit File: 1720868750.M370689P56582.sadewa.iixcp.rumahweb.com,S=12037,W=12262:2,S

Envelope-to: profeda@arlindo.ac.id
Delivery-date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:05:50 +0700
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 11:04:58 +0000
From: Cogent Business & Management <onbehalfof@manuscriptcentral.com>
Reply-To: oyedele.ogundana@ntu.ac.uk
To: ed4prof@gmail.com, profeda@arlindo.ac.id
Cc: ed4prof@gmail.com, profeda@arlindo.ac.id, rahmawati_fe@staff.uns.ac.id, 
	sitiarifah@untidar.ac.id
Message-ID: <01010190abc478cd-5b1ecbf1-12eb-4375-8bbe-81a20ecd143d-000000@us-west-2.amazonses.com>
Subject: 244157235.R2 (Cogent Business & Management) A revise decision has
 been made on your submission
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Feedback-ID: ::1.us-west-2.y8789kd/oyDlGffYrP88IUZ2JiqaxJLDOSJ1+/ZSPI4=:AmazonSES
    
 Content analysis details:   (-0.2 points, 5.0 required)
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED          ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was
                             blocked.  See
                             http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
                              for more information.
                             [URIs: tandfonline.com]
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID_EF          Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
                             envelope-from domain
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU          Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
                             author's domain
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID             Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily
                             valid
X-Spam-Flag: NO

13-Jul-2024

Dear Dr Endang Dwi Amperawati:

I have received your revised manuscript entitled "Disruptive Innovation and=
 Business Development, A Bibliometric Study", which you submitted to Cogent=
 Business & Management.

There are a few additional requirements that are needed, included at the bo=
ttom of this letter. Please consider these suggestions, and I look forward =
to receiving your further revision.

Your revision is due by 10-Aug-2024.

When you revise your manuscript please highlight the changes you make in th=
e manuscript by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or=
 coloured text.

In addition, please submit a clean, editable version of your revised paper.=
 These files should be in either Word (.doc) or LaTeX format. Any figures s=
hould be saved as either .ps, .eps, .tif or .jpeg file types.

To submit a revision, go to:
https://rp.tandfonline.com/submission/flow?submissionId=3D244157235.R2&step=
=3D1.

If you decide to revise the work, please submit a list of changes or a rebu=
ttal against each point which is being raised when you submit the revised m=
anuscript.

If you have any questions or technical issues, please contact the journal's=
 editorial office at QABM-peerreview@journals.taylorandfrancis.com.

IMPORTANT:  Your original files are available to you when you upload your r=
evised manuscript.  Please delete any redundant files before completing the=
 submission.

Because we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submi=
tted to Cogent Business & Management, your revised manuscript should be upl=
oaded by 10-Aug-2024.  You may request an extension of the due date of 10-A=
ug-2024 by contacting the journal. Please note if your manuscript becomes o=
verdue, after a certain time period it will be withdrawn.

Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Cogent Business & M=
anagement and I look forward to receiving your revision.

Sincerely,
Dr Oyedele Ogundana
Academic Editor, Cogent Business & Management
oyedele.ogundana@ntu.ac.uk, oyeomotayo@gmail.com

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:

Reviewer: 1

Comments to the Author
The article =E2=80=9CDisruptive Innovation and Business Development, A Bibl=
iometric Study=E2=80=9D comprehensively reviews the topic. The bibliometric=
 analysis is explained well, and the authors have made significant contribu=
tions during revisions. I have some minor observations for the authors that=
 would further add value addition to the study:
1.=09The authors should add some of the most influential research papers an=
d authors in disruptive innovation. How have their contributions shaped the=
 current understanding of business development?
2.=09The introduction does not clearly state the motivation for conducting =
this study. The authors should discuss why this study is necessary and how =
it differs from existing reviews on the topic.
3.=09For example, given the increasing use of AI in disruptive innovation, =
a future research direction could be to explore the ethical implications of=
 AI-driven disruptive innovation. What future research directions are sugge=
sted by current bibliometric trends in disruptive innovation and business d=
evelopment?
4.=09What are the ethical considerations and societal impacts highlighted i=
n the most cited works on disruptive innovation?
5.=09It would be highly beneficial if the authors could provide a clearer v=
alidation for the identified clusters within disruptive innovation. This wo=
uld not only strengthen the manuscript but also enrich the discourse in the=
 field.=20

Reviewer: 2

Comments to the Author
Your research is interesting and has potential to positively contribute to =
relevant literature such as organizational and management studies, entrepre=
neurship etc.
In this version of the paper, I failed to see a strong justification for th=
e research. I find the front end of the paper (introduction) to be weak and=
 disconnected.=20
I disagree with how you link declined sales during Covid to lack of creativ=
ity and innovation. However, I see how creativity and innovation can play a=
 crucial role in bringing businesses out of  post-Covid situations. This is=
 not a paper about Covid, so starting your paper with a conversation about =
Covid is not very helpful. In fact, I do not see the need to mention Covid/=
pandemic at all.
The introduction then provides definitions of constructs, which is difficul=
t to follow because little or no effort is made to connect these constructs=
 or highlight what is lacking in the literature. Statements are made that a=
re not properly referenced and is hard to tell if they are your opinion, an=
 advocacy, a recommendation etc. Some examples are provided below. =20

=E2=80=9CBusiness people do not want to run a company for one or two years.=
 They plan to continue their business for a longer period so their successo=
rs can enjoy the outturns of their business=E2=80=9D
=E2=80=9CBusiness actors should have been more creative and innovative in c=
reating products and/or services to meet consumer needs and desires. They c=
ould work more effectively and efficiently because of creativity and innova=
tion. Thus, it is expected that it will continue to be the development of n=
ew products and services so that business actors can find new opportunities=
 in running their business=E2=80=9D
=E2=80=9CA product will be purchased by a customer based on whether the pro=
duct meets the customer's preference or otherwise. Products should be creat=
ed with differentiation from alike businesses so that consumers can choose =
which products they think to suit them the best. The business one runs shou=
ld create a special place in the consumers it serves. In the current situat=
ion, business actors should be able to utilize technology in marketing thei=
r products and services, namely online shops, thus reaching the wider marke=
t target=E2=80=9D
Beyond definitions, what is lacking in literature or previous research that=
 this study helps to fill the gap? To me, identifying the ranking and quali=
ty of previous research and identifying author collaborations do not seem l=
ike valuable contributions.=20
However, you could make a case for the rise of disruptive innovations in ou=
r world today and do a mapping of literature to establish patterns/trends/i=
nsights in disruptive innovation research. This will help us to see if prac=
tice and theory are synchronized or not. If you do this, the front end of t=
he paper will need to include a critical review of disruptive innovations. =
What do we know about them? What do we need to know? How has research helpe=
d and how can research continue to help?
Once you find a better research justification, your discussion section will=
 also improve. You should find a way to categorize the pattern of your find=
ings and then discuss them. A summary of the papers you reviewed will not n=
ecessarily help. For example, you could find that some authors are focused =
on AI. In this category you could discuss the different themes that you fin=
d. Another category could be the different methodologies that researchers a=
re using for research on disruptive innovation. You may find similar or dis=
similar methods and you may be able to discuss the benefits of the differen=
t methods.
My biggest concern is about the weak research justification and disconnecti=
on observed in different parts of the manuscript. Once you find a way to fi=
x this, you will have some new and important knowledge to share. I wish you=
 the best as you work to improve the paper.