The first noticeable mistake is in the article’s abstract. While an abstract should contain all the significant points of the study, the authors did not mention their key findings in the abstract. Instead of clearly stating the findings or results, the authors noted that “the results represent an important step forward in the knowledge of the conditions to promote higher stages of DT…” The reader has to skim through the discussion section of the article to locate the findings. Therefore, if someone were selecting some articles and has little time to determine each article’s conclusions, this study would be difficult to categorize due to the mistake of failing to state the results in the abstract expressly.
Although the authors focus on three key firm characteristics throughout the study, the related proposition (P4) is not specific to these characteristics. Proposition P4 states that “Firm characteristics are present or absent in solutions where companies show a higher level of compromise with DT.” Such generalization makes the proposition vague and impossible to measure or assess using data. The three firm characteristics identified, namely, capital ownership, business size, and internationalization level, should be explicitly mentioned in P4. Otherwise, the reader has to search the article for the specific characteristics that the authors will assess.
In several instances, the authors introduced an acronym without its accompanying full name. For example, fsQCA methodology, which is the short form for fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis, appears three times in the text before its full name is given in the fourth appearance. Usually, authors should provide the full name at the first appearance with the acronym placed in brackets, allowing the writer to use the short form for the rest of the paper.
Reference
José António Porfírio, Tiago Carrilho, José Augusto Felício, Jacinto Jardim. Leadership characteristics and digital transformation. Journal of Business Research, Volume 124, 2021.