Getting in the Flow Together: The Role of Social Presence, Perceived Enjoyment and Concentration on Sustainable Use Intention of Mobile Social Network Game
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
This is an interesting manuscript that focuses on the factors affecting the sustainable use intention of Mobile Social Network Games.
Globally, the manuscript is well structured and addresses several and important aspects concerning the core subjects of the manuscript.
I would just like to mention the following improvements:
- In chapters 1 and 2 there are a set of concepts and ideas that are referred to repeatedly. I recommend a rereading and rewriting it in order to minimize this situation;
- I also recommend the full title in point 2.1 - Mobile Social Network Games;
- Review the citation (Ghani and Deshpande 1994) on page 5.
Well done.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for your time and comments that helped improve our article. We have carefully considered your comments and recommendations and used them to improve the quality of the paper. The response to your advices are below.
Below we address each of your comments in italics in turn and explain our responses. Other changes were also reflected in the manuscript. Paragraphs or sentences with major changes made to the original paper were shown in colors other than black.
Once again, authors appreciate you for your careful and fruitful comments directions for revision. Please be kind to read below.
Point 1: In chapters 1 and 2 there are a set of concepts and ideas that are referred to repeatedly. I recommend a rereading and rewriting it in order to minimize this situation;
Response:
-We have re-arranged the structure of the introduction section.
-In addition, some of the introduction has been re-phrased to emphasize the importance of the present study in connection to previous research trends.
-In chapter 1 and 2 in the original manuscript, some overlaps has been mostly removed or changed, and replaced with the important content related to the paper subject.
-You can check our response for your advice on the introduction section (from 1st paragraph, p. 2. to p. 3) in this revised version.
Point 2. I also recommend the full title in point 2.1 - Mobile Social Network Games;
Response:
-We followed your advice and changed MSNGs to Mobile Social Network Games. Thank you.
-You can check our response for this advice at subtitle 2.1, p. 3.
Point 3. Review the citation (Ghani and Deshpande 1994) on page 50
Response:
-We feel sorry for this obvious mistake and appreciate for this comment. We corrected following your advice. Thank you.
We really appreciate your big positive and kind review on our manuscript. It is also our pleasure if you read once again the revised manuscript, which has been significantly revised.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- There exists some confusion in the usage of abbreviations. For example, authors have explained the abbreviation of MSNG in the first sentence while this sentence lacks the explanation of SNS. Apart from this, the authors use the abbreviation of SNG (p. 2) without providing any explanation of the particular abbreviation. It is recommended to explain the abbreviation the first time it is used.
- Measurement items of sustainable use intention construct lack one relevant component, i. e. sustainability. It is unclear how the measurement items SUI1 and SUI2 are related to responsibility. There exists no doubt that these items show use intention, but do really visiting apps as much as possible and continuous playing reflect sustainability? Nor the authors, neither the reference [4] do not provide the answer to this question.
- The sentence „The average age of the respondents was 26.5 and 55.7% were male“ (p. 8) is unclear. The proportion of males does not match with the previous sentence and Table 3 that have stated that 53.6% of respondents were male.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for your time and comments that helped improve our article. We have carefully considered your comments and recommendations and used them to improve the quality of the paper. The response to your advices are below.
Below we address each of your comments in italics in turn and explain our responses. Other changes were also reflected in the manuscript. Paragraphs or sentences with major changes made to the original paper were shown in colors other than black.
Once again, authors appreciate you for your careful and fruitful comments directions for revision. Please be kind to read below.
Point 1. There exists some confusion in the usage of abbreviations. For example, authors have explained the abbreviation of MSNG in the first sentence while this sentence lacks the explanation of SNS. Apart from this, the authors use the abbreviation of SNG (p. 2) without providing any explanation of the particular abbreviation. It is recommended to explain the abbreviation the first time it is used.
Response:
-We corrected following your advice. Thank you.
-When we had to use abbreviations in the sentence, we explained them first and then used abbreviations.
-Please check this points on the introduction section (line 2 and 4, 1st paragraph), and the section 2.1 (line 5, 1st paragraph) in the revised version.
Point 2. Measurement items of sustainable use intention construct lack one relevant component, i. e. sustainability. It is unclear how the measurement items SUI1 and SUI2 are related to responsibility. There exists no doubt that these items show use intention, but do really visiting apps as much as possible and continuous playing reflect sustainability? Nor the authors, neither the reference [4] do not provide the answer to this question.
Response:
-The authors fully agree with your advice that the measurement items used in this study do not clearly measure the sustainable use intention. But the measurement items of sustainable use intention in this study were taken from previous studies that measured continuous use intention. A number of studies have used measurement items of continuous use intention to measure sustainable use intention (Mattia et al., 2019; Hossain and Kim, 2018; Lin et al., 2019; Si et al., 2020). In addition, some studies consider sustainable use intention similar to continuous use intention.
-Relevant references were added for further study. We also included the source of information related to the items of variables, including the sustainable use intention in the revised manuscript and paragraphs are re-written as follows.
-Please check at lines 4-11, 1st paragraph, 4.1. Data Collection and Measures on this revised version.
-Social presence was measured with five items adopted form [6]. Perceived enjoyment was measured with three items from [4, 25]. Concentration was measured with three items used by [46]. Attitude was measured with three items adopted from [4]. MSNG is a game service area characterized by the sustainable use of the social network service. From the view of the principle of maintenance, we consider the sustainable use intention to be similar to continuous use intention in this study. Therefore, sustainable use intention adopted continuous use intention, and it was measured with two items from [4, 62, 63]. All measurement items can be found in Table 2.
Point 3. The sentence „The average age of the respondents was 26.5 and 55.7% were male“ (p. 8) is unclear. The proportion of males does not match with the previous sentence and Table 3 that have stated that 53.6% of respondents were male.
Response:
- We corrected this throughout the paper. That’s our big mistake. Thank you very much.
We really appreciate your big positive and kind review on our manuscript. It is also our pleasure if you read once again the revised manuscript, which has been significantly revised.
Reviewer 3 Report
Although, the paper is interesting but authors must elaborate the gap in the research work how it differs than the latest study in this area and also to mention in the Abstract and Introduction.
The article is very interesting. The authors did the effort when it comes to literature review and its presentation, however, the gap in the literature to be fullfilled by the research conducted in the article is not well highlighted and therefore there is no justification for the need for research in the field in the introduction part.
The paper does not provide practical implications and economic meaning of the empirical analyses, as well as the events.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for your time and comments that helped improve our article. We have carefully considered your comments and recommendations and used them to improve the quality of the paper. The response to your advices are below.
Below we address each of your comments in italics in turn and explain our responses. Other changes were also reflected in the manuscript. Paragraphs or sentences with major changes made to the original paper were shown in colors other than black.
Once again, authors appreciate you for your careful and fruitful comments directions for revision. Please be kind to read below.
Point 1. Although, the paper is interesting but authors must elaborate the gap in the research work how it differs than the latest study in this area and also to mention in the Abstract and Introduction.
Response:
-We have re-arranged the structure of the abstract and introduction.
-We have noted the result of this study at abstract section. In addition, some of the introduction has been re-phrased to emphasize the importance of the present study in connection to previous research trends. Introduction in the original manuscript has been mostly removed or shortened, and replaced with the important content related to the paper subject. The introduction section now is more concise than the original one.
-We state this point on the abstract section (line 1-4 from the bottom, p. 1) and throughout the introduction section in the revised version.
Point 2. The article is very interesting. The authors did the effort when it comes to literature review and its presentation, however, the gap in the literature to be fullfilled by the research conducted in the article is not well highlighted and therefore there is no justification for the need for research in the field in the introduction part.
Response:
-Thank you for this comment.
-We deleted some paragraph after your comment. The introduction and the literature review sections were revised significantly. We think the revised paper is more concise and is now strong in propositions.
-We state this point on the introduction section in the revised version.
-We greatly appreciate if you carefully read the revised manuscript once again.
Point 3. The paper does not provide practical implications and economic meaning of the empirical analyses, as well as the events
Response:
-We discussed practical implications of research findings. We re-written our manuscript relating to this comment in 5.1. Theoretical and practical implications. Some of the implication section has been re-phased to emphasize the implications for companies and practitioners.
-Some of the revised portions is shown below, and please check it (the 3-5 paragraphs in the subsection 5.1. Theoretical and practical implications) in the revised version.
The social network game companies and developers can frame the practical implications from this study. First, understanding the user’s social presence factor has become crucial to the success of MSNGs. The users sustainable using the MSNGs not only because the MSNGs provides a social presence but also because it increases flow on games. The game developers need a better understanding concerning the level of social presence and its influence on user flow in MSNGs. And they should establish user flow in SNG by ensuring that their services are based on users' social presence. Second until now, most mobile games are free, but as MSNG enters the mainstream market, game developers will soon monetize applications [14]. It is essential to capture user intention and provide the game service based on sustainable use intention. Game developers should put significant resources into establishing user concentration as well as developing and delivering enjoyable games. This study recommends that MSNGs designers to develop applications that encourage the SNG members to use such a platform continuously. In conclusion, as users take MSNGs as a new way of enjoying and communicating with others through SNG, and as companies provide users with a platform, SNG could evolve into very effective application. To ensure their sustainable behavior, however, The MSNGs providers should focus on efforts to improve the level of sustainable use intention by enhancing the social presence and level of flow.
We really appreciate your big positive and kind review on our manuscript. It is also our pleasure if you read once again the revised manuscript, which has been significantly revised.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
