Factors of the Adoption of O2O Service Platforms: Evidence from Small Businesses in Korea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Starting from this exploratory study on the factors affecting the adoption of O2O service platforms by small businesses, the sample has to be extent in order to revitalize the research in the field with a major impact.
Author Response
We would first like to state that we appreciate your thoughtful comments. We have endeavored to follow your advice.
Point 1: Starting from this exploratory study on the factors affecting the adoption of O2O service platforms by small businesses, the sample has to be extent in order to revitalize the research in the field with a major impact.
Response 1: We appreciate your thoughtful comments. However, this study has already been completed and it is practically difficult to collect more samples at this point. Therefore, we have already made the following comments in the limitations section of the study.
Third, this study analyzed the research model with a small sample size compared to the number of research variables. Future research needs to collect more data and analyze the research model.
Reviewer 2 Report
Investigating the factors influencing the adoption of O2O ser-2 vice platforms by small businesses in Korea.
First, we would like to thank the authors for their research.
It is a relevant current study and is well prepared, however, there is space to make some comments and positive criticisms:
Abstract:
- The research results were not emphasized in the abstract.
-
Introduction:
- There are inconsistencies in the citations throughout the text. Please follow the guidelines for authors indicated by the journal. For example, the magazine does not use
(e.g., Hsu & Lin 2020; 39 Yang et al. 2020; Moon & Armstrong 2020), lines: 20, 32,
-Line 109, First, not with a capital F. Correct, please.
-Work needs to improve English
Materials and methods:
- In line 385, it states that the items that measure experimentation were developed for this research. Was there a validation process for this construct?.
Results:
- line 416 citation not following the journal's standards.
Discussion:
-According
Conclusions:
They are in line with the objectives.
References
- It is advisable to correct following the rules of the journal
Author Response
Investigating the factors influencing the adoption of O2O ser-2 vice platforms by small businesses in Korea.
First, we would like to thank the authors for their research. It is a relevant current study and is well prepared, however, there is space to make some comments and positive criticisms:
We would first like to state that we appreciate your thoughtful comments. We have endeavored to follow your advice.
Point 1: Abstract:
- The research results were not emphasized in the abstract.
Response 1: We added the results of the study to the abstract as follows.
The results show that the technical characteristics of the TOE framework, namely relative advantage, compatibility, and trialability, and small business owners’ characteristics, namely innovativeness, risk-taking tendency, and IT knowledge, affect the adoption of O2O service plat-forms through perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. The environmental variables of the TOE framework, namely government support, digital environment change, and competitive pressure, affect the adoption of O2O service platforms through subjective norms. We identify practical implications for the adoption of O2O service platforms by small businesses.
Point 2: Introduction:
- There are inconsistencies in the citations throughout the text. Please follow the guidelines for authors indicated by the journal. For example, the magazine does not use
(e.g., Hsu & Lin 2020; 39 Yang et al. 2020; Moon & Armstrong 2020), lines: 20, 32,
Response 2: We have corrected all citations, including the one you pointed out.
-Line 109, First, not with a capital F. Correct, please.
Response 2: We have corrected
-Work needs to improve English
Response 2: This manuscript has already been edited by a professional company. In addition, the authors tried to minimize linguistic errors through multiple reviews during the revision process.
Point 3: Materials and methods:
- In line 385, it states that the items that measure experimentation were developed for this research. Was there a validation process for this construct?.
Response 3: We performed a validation process for the constructs through reliability and validity evaluation using the measurement model for the constructs developed through previous studies (see lines 409-429).
Point 4: Results:
- line 416 citation not following the journal's standards.
Response 4: Thank you for your careful review. We tried to meet the journal's standards throughout the manuscript. Also, the journal production team will help us.
Point 5: Conclusions:
They are in line with the objectives.
Response 5: Thank you for your favorable evaluation.
Point 6: References
- It is advisable to correct following the rules of the journal
Response 6: Thank you for your advice. The journal production team will help us.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
In this study, authors investigated and empirically analyzed the factors affecting the adoption of O2O service platforms in small businesses. It is an interesting study. However, there are some comments that should be considered:
(1) The Introduction section is too short. It should be further improved. The existing studies should be deeply analyzed and the motivations of this study should be given.
(2) Figure 1 should be described in detail.
(3) Some recent studies should be included: Bibliometric analysis for economy in COVID-19 pandemic; Determine OWA operator weights using kernel density estimation.
(4) The future research plan should be described.
Author Response
In this study, the authors investigated and empirically analyzed the factors affecting the adoption of O2O service platforms in small businesses. It is an interesting study. However, there are some comments that should be considered:
We would first like to state that we appreciate your thoughtful comments. We have endeavored to follow your advice.
Point 1: (1) The Introduction section is too short. It should be further improved. The existing studies should be deeply analyzed and the motivations of this study should be given.
Response 1: We agree with you. However, little is known about the research on the adoption of O2O service providers in organizations, which is the subject of our research. Therefore, it was not possible to sufficiently analyze previous related studies, and due to this, the introduction part is somewhat lacking. We ask for your understanding.
.. most of them have focused on the acceptance of O2O services from the customers’ point of view; little is known about small businesses that are O2O service providers.
Point 2: (2) Figure 1 should be described in detail.
Response 2: We added the following.
In conclusion, the research model posits that relative advantage, compatibility, trialability, innovativeness, risk-taking tendency, IT knowledge, and perceived ease of use affect perceived usefulness, government support, digital environment change, and competitive pressure affect subjective norms, and perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, the subjective norms affect Intention to adopt. Figure 1 presents the research model.
Point 3: (3) Some recent studies should be included: Bibliometric analysis for economy in COVID-19 pandemic; Determine OWA operator weights using kernel density estimation.
Response 3: This study is a typical empirical analysis of social science. Therefore, it is difficult to include them as references because they are different from the research topics you recommended. We ask for your understanding on this point.
Point 3: (4) The future research plan should be described.
Response 4: In general, social science research papers do not include research plans, and there are limitations to including them. We ask for your understanding on this point.
For reference, future research directions are as follows.
Future research directions based on the limitations of this study are as follows: First, other organizational factors, owner characteristics, and technical characteristics of the O2O platform (e.g., firm’s age, leadership style, and platform usage fee) can affect the adoption of O2O service platforms by small businesses. Future studies can identify variables other than those presented in this study and add them to the research model to develop a more predictive adoption model. Second, this study used the quantitative survey method for empirical analysis. Future studies can use in-depth interviews with small business owners alongside surveys for more comprehensive results and theoretical contributions. Third, this study analyzed the research model with a small sample size compared to the number of research variables. Future research needs to collect more data and analyze the research model. Finally, this study focused on O2O service platforms used in Korea. O2O service platforms are developed and operated in accordance with the country’s industries and characteristics. If research is conducted on O2O service platforms used in other countries, the results may differ from those of this study. Further research needs to be conducted on various O2O service platforms in different countries to expand the research findings.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 4 Report
I somewhat enjoyed reading the article entitled “Investigating the factors influencing the adoption of O2O service platforms by small businesses in Korea”. I applaud for authors’ efforts. However, I have some Major considerations, and I offer the following comments, hoping these will help the authors to improve their research.
1.Title “Investigating the factors influencing the adoption of O2O service platforms by small businesses in Korea” does reflect the essence of the article, but I suggest a little correction in order to reflect better the research, for example, “Factors of the adoption of O2O service platforms: Evidence from small businesses in Korea“ or similar.
2.Abstract and introduction. The abstract is good, but it contains no results of the research. I suggest add the main results. The abbreviation TAM used in keywords is not explained.
We need to have more reasons to research this scientific problem in the introduction: the role of small businesses (it’s possible to join with the section 2.2.) in economy, what are features of small businesses in Korea (turnover, assets or number of employees), deeper description of the scientific research level worldwide of this topic.
Research model in 46-48 rows is not the same like in abstract.
3. Structure. The structure of the article fulfills the requirements of this journal and scientific paper.
But in methodology section, I didn’t find the exact number of research population, time period when survey was made. Is this sample of 285 companies representative? How much small businesses are in Gwangju?
4.I doubt do we need explain so detailed in the scientific article what is O2O. Authors cite Korean agencies and present table 1 in order to explain what O2O is. I think they should find scientific sources instead of agencies (2.1. section) and table 1 just gives examples of O2O platforms and is created by agency, it repeats a little the content of the text. I don’t see the additional value of this table for author’s research, therefore, I suggest to delete it.
5.108 row. The sentence “Studies related to small businesses in Korea” needs to be based by concrete sources.
6. 2.3. section. TOE is described further, but is not listed in 138-141 rows and only TAM is described, but other theories are not. Why?
7. 2.4. section. 180-181 rows. Referencies should be listed in chronological order.
8. 346-348 rows. “This study uses …” – Are all listed theories were described earlier in theoretical background? I think, no, but it should be.
9. The half of the table 2 repeats the text in 372-374 rows. I suggest a compression or to continue writing the main information in the text.
10.Please, check is it really correct: figure 2, table 5 and 446 row. It is written “H12 and H14 were rejected”, but table 5 shows that all hypotheses are accepted with (+) sign and figure 2 shows that innovativeness and IT knowledge unsignificantly related with perceived usefulness, so H11 and H14?
11. And how this research topic is related with sustainability to be published in Sustainability journal?
Author Response
I somewhat enjoyed reading the article entitled “Investigating the factors influencing the adoption of O2O service platforms by small businesses in Korea”. I applaud for authors’ efforts. However, I have some Major considerations, and I offer the following comments, hoping these will help the authors to improve their research.
We would first like to state that we appreciate your thoughtful comments. We have endeavored to follow your advice.
Point 1: 1.Title “Investigating the factors influencing the adoption of O2O service platforms by small businesses in Korea” does reflect the essence of the article, but I suggest a little correction in order to reflect better the research, for example, “Factors of the adoption of O2O service platforms: Evidence from small businesses in Korea“ or similar.
Response 1: on your advice, we have changed the title.
Factors of the adoption of O2O service platforms: Evidence from small businesses in Korea
Point 2: 2. Abstract and introduction. The abstract is good, but it contains no results of the research. I suggest add the main results.
Response 2: We added the results of the study to the abstract as follows.
The results show that the technical characteristics of the TOE framework, namely relative advantage, compatibility, and trialability, and small business owners’ characteristics, namely innovativeness, risk-taking tendency, and IT knowledge, affect the adoption of O2O service plat-forms through perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. The environmental variables of the TOE framework, namely government support, digital environment change, and competitive pressure, affect the adoption of O2O service platforms through subjective norms. We identify practical implications for the adoption of O2O service platforms by small businesses.
The abbreviation TAM used in keywords is not explained.
We have added the TAM's full name to the abstract.
We need to have more reasons to research this scientific problem in the introduction: the role of small businesses (it’s possible to join with the section 2.2.) in economy, what are features of small businesses in Korea (turnover, assets or number of employees), deeper description of the scientific research level worldwide of this topic.
Since small businesses are the subject of this study, we consider it desirable to organize the characteristics including the role of small businesses into a separate section as it is now. It is also practically impossible to collect features of small businesses in Korea (turnover, assets or number of employees).We ask for your understanding.
Research model in 46-48 rows is not the same like in abstract.
Although the sentences below have some differences, they are logically correct.
We developed a research model that combines the technology acceptance model, an individual-level theory of IT acceptance, and the technology-organization-environment (TOE) framework.
To this end, we propose and empirically analyze a research model that combines the individual-level technology acceptance model (TAM; Davis 1989), the organization-al-level technology-organization-environment (TOE) framework (Tornatzky & Fleisher 1990), and the characteristics of small business owners.
Point 3: 3. Structure. The structure of the article fulfills the requirements of this journal and scientific paper. But in methodology section, I didn’t find the exact number of research population, time period when survey was made. Is this sample of 285 companies representative? How much small businesses are in Gwangju?
Response 3: In social science research, it is realistically difficult to estimate the research population and calculate the number of small businesses in Gwangju. We ask for your understanding.
Point 4: 4.I doubt do we need explain so detailed in the scientific article what is O2O. Authors cite Korean agencies and present table 1 in order to explain what O2O is. I think they should find scientific sources instead of agencies (2.1. section) and table 1 just gives examples of O2O platforms and is created by agency, it repeats a little the content of the text. I don’t see the additional value of this table for author’s research, therefore, I suggest to delete it.
Response 4: I agree with you. We removed Table 1.
Point 5: 5.108 row. The sentence “Studies related to small businesses in Korea” needs to be based by concrete sources.
Response 5: have cited the following references:
According to studies related to small businesses in Korea (e.g, Park 2000; Bin & Park 2010; Small and Medium Business Institute 2019),
Point 6: 6. 2.3. section. TOE is described further, but is not listed in 138-141 rows and only TAM is described, but other theories are not. Why?
Response 6: TOE is a theory of information systems adoption at the organizational level and TAM is an Individual-level technology acceptance theory. Therefore, the TOE is not listed in 138-141 rows.
The theory of information systems adoption at the organizational level has been almost exclusively used by the TOE framework proposed by Tornatzky and Fleisher (1990).
..
Individual-level technology acceptance theories that have been used in IT and information systems research include Davis’ (1989) TAM, Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) Theory of Rea-soned Action (TRA), Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior, Rogers’ (2003) Diffusion of Innovations (DOI) theory, and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) by Venkatesh et al. (2003).
Point 7: 7. 2.4. section. 180-181 rows. References should be listed in chronological order.
Response 7: Thank you for your careful review. We have corrected all citations, including the one you pointed out.
Point 8: 8. 346-348 rows. “This study uses …” – Are all listed theories were described earlier in theoretical background? I think, no, but it should be.
Response 8: Thank you for your careful review. We have corrected all citations, including the one you pointed out.
Point 9: 9. The half of the table 2 repeats the text in 372-374 rows. I suggest a compression or to continue writing the main information in the text.
Response 9: We have deleted the text in 372-374 rows.
Point 10: 10. Please, check is it really correct: figure 2, table 5 and 446 row. It is written “H12 and H14 were rejected”, but table 5 shows that all hypotheses are accepted with (+) sign and figure 2 shows that innovativeness and IT knowledge unsignificantly related with perceived usefulness, so H11 and H14?
Response 10: Thank you for your detailed review. There were errors in describing the results. We corrected the errors as follows.
Small business owners’ risk-taking tendency had a significant effect on perceived useful-ness, and IT knowledge had a significant effect on perceived ease of use. However, Innovativeness and IT knowledge had no effect on perceived usefulness. Therefore, H12 and H13 were supported, but H12 and H14 were rejected.
For reference, the (+) sign means the positive effect of the hypothesis and the (-) sign means the negative effect of the hypothesis. All hypotheses were set to positive influence.
- And how this research topic is related with sustainability to be published in Sustainability journal?
Response 11: This study is related to the business sustainability of small businesses.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
1. Changed title of the article is not shown in the last version of the paper.
2. According research subject (small businesses), first, I mean, isn't there a law or other document in Korea that clearly defines what kind of companies are considered small (in terms of turnover, asset size, number of employees, etc.).
And second, you don't need to calculate the number of small businesses in Gwangju by yourselves. Isn't there a statistics agency or something similar in Korea that presents the numbers of small and large businesses, their created added value, employed people, etc? In the article, you should show general population, sample size, margin of error. If no, then to write so.
3. 446 row. Therefore, H12 and H13 were supported, but H12 and H14 were rejected.- was written. But H12 can not be rejected and supported at the same time! Something is wrong here.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer Comments
We thank you once again for your thoughtful and detailed review.
Point 1: 1.Changed title of the article is not shown in the last version of the paper.
Response 1: We had an error in the process of uploading the revised manuscript. We modified the title as below and checked the uploaded manuscript file several times.
Factors of the adoption of O2O service platforms: Evidence from small businesses in Korea
Point 2. 2.According research subject (small businesses), first, I mean, isn't there a law or other document in Korea that clearly defines what kind of companies are considered small (in terms of turnover, asset size, number of employees, etc.).
Response 2: We added the following sentences to the 4.1. Data collection section.
According to the Korean Enforcement Decree of the Special Measures Act for Small Business and Small Businesses, a small business means a business with less than 10 full-time workers regardless of business type. Therefore, the subject of the study was set as a business with less than 10 employees.
And second, you don't need to calculate the number of small businesses in Gwangju by yourselves. Isn't there a statistics agency or something similar in Korea that presents the numbers of small and large businesses, their created added value, employed people, etc? In the article, you should show general population, sample size, margin of error. If no, then to write so.
Response 2: We added the following sentences to the 4.1. Data collection section.
In addition, based on statistics from the Ministry of SMEs and Startups in Korea in 2019, the size of the research population is expected to be around 2.77 million.
Point 3. 3. 446 row. Therefore, H12 and H13 were supported, but H12 and H14 were rejected.- was written. But H12 can not be rejected and supported at the same time! Something is wrong here.
Response 3: We are very grateful for your careful review. We modified the error as below and checked several times.
Therefore, H12 and H13 were supported, but H11 and H14 were rejected.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
