Building Micro-Foundations for Digital Transformation: A Moderated Mediation Model of the Interplay between Digital Literacy and Digital Transformation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.  Introduction: The introduction synthesizes various theoretical perspectives and previous research to provide a comprehensive picture of the importance of digital transformation in Turkey. The inclusion of more recent research would have helped to strengthen the context.

2.   Common Method Bias Assessment: I hope to test it with the method provided by kock (2015) by using FULLvif test

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your valuable time and effort in validating my manuscript “Building Micro-Foundations for Digital Transformation: A Moderated Mediation Model of the Interplay between Digital Literacy and Digital Transformation” and I am grateful for the valuable suggestions provided in revising the paper. The changes are marked in red color in the manuscript.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• Introduction: The introduction synthesizes various theoretical perspectives and previous research to provide a comprehensive picture of the importance of digital transformation in Turkey. The inclusion of more recent research would have helped to strengthen the context.

Reply: Reply: Thank you for your constructive feedback on the introduction section of our manuscript. We appreciate your acknowledgment of the synthesis of theoretical perspectives and previous research regarding digital transformation in Turkey. There is sufficient recent research is included in the manuscript.

• Common Method Bias Assessment: I hope to test it with the method provided by kock (2015) by using the FULLvif test

Correction: We thank the reviewer and in addressing the reviewer's comment on the Common Method Bias (CMB) Assessment, we conducted the full collinearity test using the variance inflation factors (VIFs) for all constructs, as suggested by Kock (2015) and as outlined in section 3.3.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The article considers a topical research topic related to analyzing the links between the formed concepts of digital literacy and digital readiness.
2. The the author   conducted a statistical study and characterized the identified links.
Nevertheless,  there are some shortcomings  that should be pointed out and corrected :

1. The essential characteristics of Figure 1 should be clarified. What theoretical basis does this model describe? What is its novelty or practical significance? If the author wanted to reflect the relationship of hypotheses, hypothesis (H6) is only related to hypothesis (H1), but in fact it is not true in the functioning of top management team.
2. The role of the control unit in this model is also not clear.
3. All tables and figures require more detailed description.
4. Figure 2, reflecting the structural model,  does not provide detailed conclusions or descriptions of  structural components having the importance on the functioning of the whole system.  What  do  the dotted lines mean ?
5. The lack of clear descriptions of the individual blocks of the presented figures and the lack of a unified approach to describing the functioning of the built models, makes it difficult to perform the evaluation of the synthesis.
6. The study  requires improvement in terms of a more detailed description of the tabular data and figures.

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your valuable time and effort in validating my manuscript “Building Micro-Foundations for Digital Transformation: A Moderated Mediation Model of the Interplay between Digital Literacy and Digital Transformation” and I am grateful for the valuable suggestions provided in revising the paper. The changes are marked in red color in the manuscript.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• The article considers a topical research topic related to analyzing the links between the formed concepts of digital literacy and digital readiness.

Reply: Thank you for recognizing the relevance of our research topic, which focuses on analyzing the connections between digital literacy and digital readiness. We believe exploring these links is crucial in understanding the evolving landscape of digital skills and preparedness in today's society.

• The author conducted a statistical study and characterized the identified links. Nevertheless, there are some shortcomings that should be pointed out and corrected:
• The essential characteristics of Figure 1 should be clarified. What theoretical basis does this model describe? What is its novelty or practical significance? If the author wanted to reflect the relationship of hypotheses, hypothesis (H6) is only related to hypothesis (H1), but in fact it is not true in the functioning of top management team.

Reply: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding Figure 1 and the clarification of its essential characteristics. We acknowledge the importance of providing clear explanations for the theoretical basis of our model and its novelty or practical significance. We will revise the manuscript to elaborate on the theoretical foundations underlying Figure 1 and emphasize its novelty and practical implications.

• The role of the control unit in this model is also not clear.

Reply: Thank you for your observation regarding the clarity of the role of the control unit in our model. We acknowledge the importance of providing a clear explanation of the control unit's role within the framework. In our revised manuscript, we will provide a detailed clarification of the control unit's function and its significance within the broader context of our model. By addressing this concern, we aim to enhance the overall coherence and understanding of our research framework. We appreciate your valuable feedback and are committed to improving the clarity and effectiveness of our manuscript.

• All tables and figures require more detailed description.

Correction: We thank and agree with the reviewer, more details were provided for all figures and tables captions.

• Figure 2, reflecting the structural model, does not provide detailed conclusions or descriptions of structural components having the importance on the functioning of the whole system. What do the dotted lines mean?

Correction: We thank the reviewer, and more details were provided of these structural components in the figure caption, elucidating the significance of dotted lines and their implications for the functioning of the overall system.

• The lack of clear descriptions of the individual blocks of the presented figures and the lack of a unified approach to describing the functioning of the built models, makes it difficult to perform the evaluation of the synthesis.

Correction: We thank the reviewer for their valuable input, and we are committed to addressing these concerns to enhance the quality and coherence of our research presentation.

• The study requires improvement in terms of a more detailed description of the tabular data and figures.

Correction: We thank the reviewer for highlighting this area for improvement, and we are committed to addressing this feedback to enhance the overall quality of our study.

Reviewer 3 Report

This article is analysing the relationship between digital literacy, digital readiness and digital transformation of top management teamčs in medium and large sized firms in Turkey. The authors conducted a field survey and analysed the data based on proposed methods.

The study is well reaserched and supported by up-to-date articles. The structure and the flow of this research has a logic flow.

The main hypothesis' outcomes with a direct effect are somehow obvious, but the authors add variables with an indirect effect, that bring another dimension to this type of study.

Contributions, implications and study limitations are listed in detail.

Comment to consider:

Line 649 and 651: Figure 4 and Figure 5 need re-adjustment within the text. They don't fit properly.

The article is very long as it includes in-depth literature review. It might not be needed, but the authors nicely connect their findings with previous studies.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your valuable time and effort in validating my manuscript “Building Micro-Foundations for Digital Transformation: A Moderated Mediation Model of the Interplay between Digital Literacy and Digital Transformation” and I am grateful for the valuable suggestions provided in revising the paper. The changes are marked in red color in the manuscript.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

• This article is analysing the relationship between digital literacy, digital readiness and digital transformation of top management teams in medium and large sized firms in Turkey. The authors conducted a field survey and analysed the data based on proposed methods.

Reply: Thank you for highlighting the focus of our article, which analyses the relationship between digital literacy, digital readiness, and digital transformation of top management teams in medium and large-sized firms in Turkey. We appreciate your recognition of our use of a field survey to gather data and our analysis methods.

• The study is well researched and supported by up-to-date articles. The structure and the flow of this research has a logic flow.

Reply: Thank you for your positive assessment of our study. We are pleased you find our research well-researched and supported by up-to-date articles. We also appreciate your recognition of the logical flow and structure of our research. Your feedback reaffirms our commitment to maintaining the quality and clarity of our research.

• The main hypothesis' outcomes with a direct effect are somehow obvious, but the authors add variables with an indirect effect, that bring another dimension to this type of study.

Correction: We appreciate the reviewer's insightful observation regarding the main hypothesis outcomes and the additional variables with indirect effects introduced in our study.

• Contributions, implications and study limitations are listed in detail.

Reply: Thank you for acknowledging the thoroughness with which we have addressed the contributions, implications, and limitations of our study. We believe that clearly outlining these aspects is essential for providing a comprehensive understanding of the significance and scope of our research.

• Comment to consider:
• Line 649 and 651: Figure 4 and Figure 5 need re-adjustment within the text. They don't fit properly.

Correction: We thank the reviewer for bringing this to our attention, and we are committed to implementing the necessary adjustments to enhance the overall presentation of our study during the production process after the paper will be accepted.

• The article is very long as it includes in-depth literature review. It might not be needed, but the authors nicely connect their findings with previous studies.

Reply: Thank you for your feedback regarding the length of our article and the depth of the literature review. We understand your concern and appreciate your recognition of our efforts to connect our findings with previous studies. We will carefully review the literature review section to ensure that it provides the necessary background and context for our study without being overly lengthy. We value your feedback and are committed to enhancing the readability and clarity of our manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

The theme develops a very interesting combination between the resource-based view and the dynamic capability theory with the topics digital transformation, organizational resilience, competitiveness, and the integration of sustainability. It highlights the synergistic role of managerial digital literacy in promoting digital transformation through the mediation role of digital readiness and the moderation role of the top management team.

Presents fluid and well-designed writing. The literature review is adequate and reflects the main keywords of the text.

The methodology is in line with the research objectives and presents very interesting and original results.

The only situation that is less successful is in terms of form.

The presentation of the tables goes outside the useful margins of the sheet, in my opinion they should be oriented horizontally.

Excellent job

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your valuable time and effort in validating my manuscript “Building Micro-Foundations for Digital Transformation: A Moderated Mediation Model of the Interplay between Digital Literacy and Digital Transformation” and I am grateful for the valuable suggestions provided in revising the paper. The changes are marked in red color in the manuscript.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• The theme develops a very interesting combination between the resource-based view and the dynamic capability theory with the topics digital transformation, organizational resilience, competitiveness, and the integration of sustainability. It highlights the synergistic role of managerial digital literacy in promoting digital transformation through the mediation role of digital readiness and the moderation role of the top management team.

Reply: Thank you for recognizing the novel combination of the resource-based view and dynamic capability theory in our study, along with the themes of digital transformation, organizational resilience, competitiveness, and sustainability. We are pleased that you find our approach interesting and valuable. Our study aims to highlight the synergistic role of managerial digital literacy in promoting digital transformation, with digital readiness mediating this relationship and the top management team moderating it. We believe that by integrating these concepts, we can provide a complete understanding of the factors influencing digital transformation in organizations. Your feedback encourages us to continue exploring these important themes and their implications for managerial practices.

• Presents fluid and well-designed writing. The literature review is adequate and reflects the main keywords of the text.

Reply: Thank you for your positive feedback regarding the writing quality and design of our manuscript. We are glad to hear that you find our writing fluid and well-designed. Your feedback affirms that our efforts to present a thorough and relevant literature review have been successful. We appreciate your acknowledgment and will continue to strive for excellence in our writing and presentation.

• The methodology is in line with the research objectives and presents very interesting and original results.

Correction: We appreciate the reviewer's positive assessment of our methodology and the originality of the results generated in our study.

• The only situation that is less successful is in terms of form.

Correction: We thank the reviewer for highlighting this aspect, and we are committed to making the necessary improvements to enhance the overall form of our study.

• The presentation of the tables goes outside the useful margins of the sheet, in my opinion they should be oriented horizontally.

Correction: We thank the reviewer for bringing this to our attention, and we are committed to making the necessary adjustments to improve the presentation of tables in our study during the production process when the paper will be accepted for publication.

Excellent job

Reviewer 5 Report

The article addresses an important topic. Before accepting, the following should be ensured:

The authors have mentioned that "This construct comprised five dimensions, namely information literacy, interaction and collaboration, digital content creation, safety, and problem-solving, with a total of 18 items."  They need to include the sources of all five constructs and 18 items.

They should also include how they carry out the mail survey, the follow-up, and how long have been taken to complete the survey, etc. 

English could be improved 

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your valuable time and effort in validating my manuscript “Building Micro-Foundations for Digital Transformation: A Moderated Mediation Model of the Interplay between Digital Literacy and Digital Transformation” and I am grateful for the valuable suggestions provided in revising the paper. The changes are marked in red color in the manuscript.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses an important topic. Before accepting, the following should be ensured:

• The authors have mentioned that "This construct comprised five dimensions, namely information literacy, interaction and collaboration, digital content creation, safety, and problem-solving, with a total of 18 items."  They need to include the sources of all five constructs and 18 items.

Correction: We appreciate the reviewer's attention to detail and acknowledge the importance of providing clear references for the constructs and items used in our study. The measurement of digital literacy, a fundamental construct in our research, was executed using a multi-dimensional approach, as detailed in Appendix A.

• They should also include how they carry out the mail survey, the follow-up, and how long have been taken to complete the survey, etc. 

Correction: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's insightful feedback. Thank you for highlighting the importance of including details about the mail survey methodology, follow-up procedures, and the timeline for survey completion. We have taken your suggestions into account and have provided additional information in the data collection process section of our manuscript.