JezK

Edit File: 1741591062.M384451P54156.sadewa.iixcp.rumahweb.com,S=7439,W=7580:2,S

Envelope-to: profeda@arlindo.ac.id
Delivery-date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 14:17:42 +0700
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 07:16:49 +0000
From: KJSS Administrator <onbehalfof@manuscriptcentral.com>
Reply-To: kjss@ku.th
To: profeda@arlindo.ac.id
Cc: kjss@ku.th
Message-ID: <010101957ee9d865-4ca4ffbf-7c78-4445-8c81-cca7344407eb-000000@us-west-2.amazonses.com>
Subject: Your manuscript, KJSS-2025-0013, has not been accepted
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

10-Mar-2025

Ref: KJSS-2025-0013
Title: Disruptive Innovation and Business Development, A Bibliometric Study
Journal: Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences

Dear author,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Kasetsart Journal of Social Sci=
ences. Unfortunately, after reviewing your paper I feel that it is not suit=
able for publication in the journal and is unlikely to be favorably reviewe=
d by the referees. The manuscript is rejected for several reasons:

=E2=80=A2 The analysis supporting the specific objective of the study is to=
o short and not convincing. For example, the research aims to conduct bibli=
ometric analysis of disruptive innovation=E2=80=99s impact on business deve=
lopment, but the paper provides only a half page for the analysis. There is=
 no deeper analysis on this issue. Another objective of the paper is to exp=
lore strategies for managing disruptive changes, as no consensus exists on =
the best approaches. What is the consensus of exploring approaches after th=
e current analysis?

=E2=80=A2 The authors said that they use 1,018 papers for the analysis, but=
 this analysis is too simple without deeper focus on the main objectives of=
 the study. Most parts of the paper only provide trend of how many paper st=
udied this issue per year, which countries of origin, and papers with top c=
itations.

=E2=80=A2 The analysis in Tables and Figures are quite broad. For example, =
in Table 3, the author concludes that findings from this Table 3 provide va=
luable insights for researchers and institutions to understand the dynamics=
 and focus of research in the field of disruptive innovation. The conclusio=
n is not helpful for further in-depth studies. In addition, in Table 4, wha=
t are reasons for concluding that future research opportunities are related=
 to blockchain, stakeholders, and resilience.

=E2=80=A2 Recommendations are too short and very general. For example, crea=
ting supportive legal frameworks and investing in innovation infrastructure=
 are essential for fostering a favorable environment. What are details of s=
upportive legal frameworks? Only providing the suggestion like tax incentiv=
es and R&D subsidies is not enough. Or, what are innovation infrastructure =
that the government should invest?

Accordingly, the manuscript is being returned without review.

Thank you for submitting your work to Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences.

Kind regards,

Sowatree Nathalang, Ph.D.
Editor-in-Chief
Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences