The Success of Information Systems and Sustainable Information Society: Measuring the Implementation of a Village Financial System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the paper is undisputably up-to-date and should be of interest for the reader. It covers an ongoing and current topic. The paper is well-written and the study is well-designed. However, there are several points, which would allow the authors to improve the paper.

Instead of referring to "sustainable information society (SIS)", I would strongly recommend the authors to refer to the Society 5.0 concept (instead of Society 4.0 == Information Society you refer to), which seems to be more appropriate considering the context of this study. If you believe that SIS is more appropriate, then I would highly recommend to establish a brief discussion in the paper on the similarities and differences between SIS and Society 5.0. Please, refer to:

• Nikiforova, A. (2021). Smarter Open Government Data for Society 5.0: are your open data smart enough?. Sensors, 21(15), 5204.
• Sołtysik-Piorunkiewicz, A., & Zdonek, I. (2021). How Society 5.0 and Industry 4.0 Ideas Shape the Open Data Performance Expectancy. Sustainability, 13(2), 917.

"the Village Financial System (SISKEUDES)" needs reformulation. Putting the title in brackets typically refers to the abbreviation of the above-mentioned concept.

"the adoption of the Village Financial System (SISKEUDES)" require an external reference to allow the reader to get familiar with this system in more detail.

Given a limitations assigned to the study, the title of the paper should include a part referring to the area of application of the research, i.e. ":Indonesian case-study" or ":the use-case of Bali" or "the use-case of Sarbagita'.

"Second, the models by[13]; [12]and[10]have not included" requires "softer" formulation, by which I mean reformulation with the reference to these studies as a previous knowledge, e.g. "second, the models previously widely used in the literature, such as [10,12,13]..."

lines 103-108 " government websites are designed to 106offer a wide variety of service areas[29]; [30]; [31]and the acceptance of ICT by various 107members of society and by varying systems." also lack several recent studies such as, which also covers Trust (i.e. more complete model compared to those you refer to), and fits well as a complementary for further aspects discussed within Section 1:

• Lněnička, M., Nikiforova, A., Saxena, S., & Singh, P. (2022). Investigation into the adoption of open government data among students: the behavioural intention-based comparative analysis of three countries. Aslib Journal of Information Management.

Given the length and level of detail of the 1st Section, I would recommend to split it into two sections, where constructs of models such as UTAUT, TAM, TOE etc. are covered in a separate sections, e.g. "background" or "establishing of hypotheses" or "developing the model".

The introduction of hypothesis should be improved ensuring a logical and fluent flow of the text.

Please, revise all hypotheses to eliminate typos such as "has an affects", i.e. either "affects" or "has an effect". Although you have both correct versions, you have a combination of both as well.

"The measurement of re-217spondents' answers about their attitudes, opinions, and perceptions was conducted using 218a Likert scale." - please specify the type of Likert scale, i.e. how many points?

"The purposive 247sampling resulted in 36 village governments with a research sample of 104 respondents. "  - please provide an argumentation or proof that the sample size is appropriate and sufficient to make objective conclusion. Perhaps the use of appropriate sample calculations' techniques would be the best option.

Figure 1 is expected to be improved by complementing it with explanation of constructs. Currently, it will not be easy to understand for reader.

To sum up, the paper is well-written and sufficiently describe the well-designed study conducted. It is mostly of local impact, however the study design can be reused and adapted by international scholars. I think the paper will be improved after the above-mentioned comments will be satisfied.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: Instead of referring to "sustainable information society (SIS)", I would strongly recommend the authors to refer to the Society 5.0 concept (instead of Society 4.0 == Information Society you refer to), which seems to be more appropriate considering the context of this study. If you believe that SIS is more appropriate, then I would highly recommend to establish a brief discussion in the paper on the similarities and differences between SIS and Society 5.0. Please, refer to:

• Nikiforova, A. (2021). Smarter Open Government Data for Society 5.0: are your open data smart enough?. Sensors, 21(15), 5204.
• Sołtysik-Piorunkiewicz, A., & Zdonek, I. (2021). How Society 5.0 and Industry 4.0 Ideas Shape the Open Data Performance Expectancy. Sustainability, 13(2), 917.

Response 1:

Thank you for references as developing this article in the future. We realise that SIS is part of the industrial revolution 5.0. SISKEUDES as a tool to realize SIS, is a step to enter society 5.0, in terms of providing data that is open to the public. Openness of data at the village level is realized by reporting data transparently to the public to be used by the central government and other village officials in decision making, as well as increasing public trust [line 104-108].

 

Point 2: "the Village Financial System (SISKEUDES)" needs reformulation. Putting the title in brackets typically refers to the abbreviation of the above-mentioned concept.

Response 2:

Thanks for the suggestion the title revision. The title of the article is indeed made to attract readers to read the contents of the article. We also included SISKEUDES in the first sentence of the abstract to clarify the terms we use.

 

Point 3:

"the adoption of the Village Financial System (SISKEUDES)" require an external reference to allow the reader to get familiar with this system in more detail.

Response 3:

Implementation of SISKEUDES refers to Minister of Home Affairs Regulation number 20 of 2018 concerning village financial management. This is what underlies the online and offline-based or manual SISKEUDES application, given the ability of resources in the village. On 13 July 2015, the development of SISKEUDES was taken over by the Deputy for Supervision of Regional Financial Administration at the Central BPKP (Indonesia's National Government Internal Auditor) in Jakarta [59]. We explained it in line [239..]. For details of government website, here we attached link address fro content related to this issue. (http://www.bpkp.go.id/sakd/konten/2448/leaflet-simda-desa.bpkp).

 

Point 4:

Given a limitations assigned to the study, the title of the paper should include a part referring to the area of application of the research, i.e. ":Indonesian case-study" or ":the use-case of Bali" or "the use-case of Sarbagita'.

Response 4:

This study only focus on adoption of Village Financial System in the context of Indonesian case-study especially four regions/district of Bali Province which are: Denpasar, Badung, Gianyar, Tabanan (it calls Sarbagita). It is due to the importance of the Sarbagita area, which are known as part of a national strategic region whose territory and spatial planning are prioritized because, nationally speaking, they have a very important influence on state sovereignty, state defense and security, economy, social and cultural matters, and the environment, including areas that have been designated as world heritage sites.

[revision include in line 499..]

 

Point 5:

"Second, the models by[13]; [12]and[10]have not included" requires "softer" formulation, by which I mean reformulation with the reference to these studies as a previous knowledge, e.g. "second, the models previously widely used in the literature, such as [10,12,13]..."

Response 5:

Thank you for your suggestion, we revise for Lines [82-84]:

Second, the models previously widely used in the literature, such as [13]; [12] and [10] have not included trust in government and trust in technology nor the impact of successful ICT adoption in the process of realizing SIS in their research model.

 

Point 6:

lines 103-108 " government websites are designed to 106 offer a wide variety of service areas[29]; [30]; [31]and the acceptance of ICT by various 107 members of society and by varying systems." also lack several recent studies such as, which also covers Trust (i.e. more complete model compared to those you refer to), and fits well as a complementary for further aspects discussed within Section 1:

• Lněnička, M., Nikiforova, A., Saxena, S., & Singh, P. (2022). Investigation into the adoption of open government data among students: the behavioural intention-based comparative analysis of three countries. Aslib Journal of Information Management.

Response 6:

Thank you for the revision and input to references to strengthen the argument in the second research motivation. This has been answered in accordance with point 1.

 

Point 7:

Given the length and level of detail of the 1st Section, I would recommend to split it into two sections, where constructs of models such as UTAUT, TAM, TOE etc. are covered in a separate sections, e.g. "background" or "establishing of hypotheses" or "developing the model".

Response 7:

The Sustainability 2022 journal template curses the IMRAD model so that the background & establishing of hypotheses or developing the model is combined with indroduction. It is not possible to explain the development of models such as UTAUT, TAM and TOE. In addition, we not use UTAUT and TAM as a basic to developing the model. Study develops DeLone and McLean model, by adding a dimension of trust to the new model in the context of SIS.

 

Point 8: The introduction of hypothesis should be improved ensuring a logical and fluent flow of the text.

Response 8:

Thank you for your suggestion.

 

Point 9:

Please, revise all hypotheses to eliminate typos such as "has an affects", i.e. either "affects" or "has an effect". Although you have both correct versions, you have a combination of both as well.

Response 9:

Thank you for correction, we revise point 7 as follows.

H₁: System quality affects usage.

H₂: System quality has an effect on user satisfaction.

H₃: Information quality has an effect on usage.

H₄: Information quality has an effect on user satisfaction.

H₅: Service quality has an effect on usage.

H₆: Service quality has an effect on user satisfaction.

H₇: Trust in government affects usage.

H₈: Trust in the government has an effect on user satisfaction.

H₉: Trust in technology affects usage.

H₁₀: Trust in technology affects user satisfaction.

H₁₁: Usage affects net benefits

H₁₂: User satisfaction has an effect on net benefits

H₁₃: The perceived net benefits affect the sustainable information society

 

Point 10:

"The measurement of re-217spondents' answers about their attitudes, opinions, and perceptions was conducted using 218a Likert scale." - please specify the type of Likert scale, i.e. how many points?

Response 10:

For line [240], we revise the description as:

“The research data were collected using a questionnaire. The measurement of respondents' answers about their attitudes, opinions, and perceptions was conducted containing four-point Likert scale questions (1=strongly disagree, 2= disagree, 3= agree, 4= strongly agree)"

 

Point 11:

"The purposive 247sampling resulted in 36 village governments with a research sample of 104 respondents. "  - please provide an argumentation or proof that the sample size is appropriate and sufficient to make objective conclusion. Perhaps the use of appropriate sample calculations' techniques would be the best option.

Response 11:

The sub-district that receives the most village funds in the Sarbagita area. The purposive sampling resulted in 36 village governments. We select three of SISKEUDES users in each village, including the village secretary, head of financial affairs, and SISKEUDES operators. Number of research samples sent who were the questionnaire was 108 respondents, meanwhile the number of questionnaires processed was 94 respondents (Table.2). The 87,03% response rate is strong - and meets an acceptable standard because it delivered directly to the respondent, and Smart PLS modeling works well with a sample size of 50 to 100 respondents [59] {Lines 250-251}.

(note: there is a typo for the number of respondents, it should be 108respondents but we write 104 respondents).

 

Point 10:

Figure 1 is expected to be improved by complementing it with explanation of constructs. Currently, it will not be easy to understand for reader.

Response 10:

We replace figure 1 with a better one for quality and add explanation of each items/variables.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Firstly, I like to congratulate the authors for their study. It is rich and provides good reasons to implement IT systems in regard with financial activities in both rural and urban areas.

Secondly, I would like to bring into attention few small issues I observed while reading the article:

• Some small English corrections like the one on r56 – ‘it’ instead of ‘in’…
• Figure 1. is not very clear and is difficult to read (some figures are overlapping). I would suggest the authors to increase the font of the figures presented in it.
• In Table 3 the authors are using ‘Diploma 3’ in between High School and Bachelors… please explain what level of education is this.
• R428 contains a reference in a different style… please adjust.

Thirdly, I would like to suggest here, for the references, the ‘Smart Cities and Regional Development’ (SCRD) Journal (https://scrd.eu/index.php/scrd) along with so many other articles on the same topic from ‘Sustainability’ Journal and others from MDPI – I am pretty sure there are lots of authors and articles that deserves authors attention.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Point 1:

Some small English corrections like the one on r56 – ‘it’ instead of ‘in’…

Response 1:

Thank you for correction,we revisi for R56 as follow:

The Province of Bali began introducing SISKEUDES in 2016, and it began to be implemented by districts/municipalities in the province in 2017.

 

Point 2: Figure 1. is not very clear and is difficult to read (some figures are overlapping). I would suggest the authors to increase the font of the figures presented in it.

Response 2:

Thanks for the correction. This point has been answered in figure 1.

 

Point 3:

In Table 3 the authors are using ‘Diploma 3’ in between High School and Bachelors… please explain what level of education is this

Response 3:

Diploma 3 refers to vocational education, which is equal to the polytechnic academic executive. In Indonesia, vocational schools is characterized by the majority of activity of the practice as a translation of the underlying theory so that students become skilled learners prior to entering the workforce after graduation later on. Regarding this term, we need to change classification of last education as seen in Table 3:  

“diploma 3’ -à “associate” degree.

 

Point 4:

R428 contains a reference in a different style… please adjust.

Response 4:

Thank you for the correction for reference writing style, in line 434, we revise as follows

“Indicators of sustainable information society behavior [1], [75]  were adapted to….”

 

Point 5:

Thirdly, I would like to suggest here, for the references, the ‘Smart Cities and Regional Development’ (SCRD) Journal (https://scrd.eu/index.php/scrd) along with so many other articles on the same topic from ‘Sustainability’ Journal and others from MDPI – I am pretty sure there are lots of authors and articles that deserves authors attention

Response 5:

Thank you for insight for future research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript proposed a model based on the DeLone and McLean model and trust theory to examine the success of the adoption of a financial information system at the village government level named SISKEUDES. I read the article carefully for the review, and I found some difficulties in identifying precisely the real contribution and its practical utilization. As a result, the manuscript needs restructure to improve the presentation of this study. For example:

1. The abstract failed to present the detailed information of the standard abstract formatting: (e.g., introduction/context, aim/objectives, methodology, results, conclusion, and future work).
2. The introduction section is quite long and confusing. It could be rewritten to be much more succinct. It is not clear to the reader what knowledge gap, problem, or puzzle motivates the research and this manuscript. Where exactly is the gap that this paper will fill? What is the research question? What is the contribution of this paper? And what exactly the solutions reported in the existing literature couldn't offer? The proposed problems are sketchy and unclear.
3. This study needs to rewrite the introduction section and create new sections (e.g., the second section to summarize the related work, the third section for model development and hypotheses (need to discuss each hypothesis separately in a new subsection), add a figure to show the developed conceptual model.
4. The adopted methodology described in the manuscript needs more improvement. The main elements are missing in the materials and methods section, such as discussing and explaining the sampling technique adopted in this study and the unit of analysis. Also need to elaborate the target population justifies and the minimum sample size is required. Support all the arguments in the methodology subsections with appropriate and recent citations.
5. Add the list of Measurement items for all variables.
6. There are many incomplete sentences for example, on Page 2. L 69 “First, this research develops Information Systems 68 Success Models [12];[13]; [14] and [10]”.
7. . Author(s) needs to modify the discussion by answering the research questions and discussing the findings of each hypothesis separately.
8. Finally, the authors should consider elaborating their study's theoretical and practical implications, along with the study limitations and future research directions, since these sections are missing in this study.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

Point 1: The abstract failed to present the detailed information of the standard abstract formatting: (e.g., introduction/context, aim/objectives, methodology, results, conclusion, and future work).

Response 1:

Thank you for your correction. This research has presented an abstract that can describe the overall content and scope of the research. Referring to the MDPI template, our abstract includes:

Background: The purpose of this study is to advance the information society literature research by examining and developing the adoption of information systems within the Village Financial System (SISKEUDES) to improve the sustainable information society (SIS).; (2) Methods: The models include the DeLone and McLean model and trust theory, which involves eight variables, comprising system information quality, information quality, service quality, trust in government organizations, trust in technology, usage, user satisfaction, net benefits, and sustainable information society. A survey questionnaire was used, and data was collected from SISKEUDES users in Bali, Indonesia, which were statistically analyzed using PLS to understand the phenomena of IS adoption and sustainable information society.; (3) Results: The research findings reveal that system information quality, information quality, and trust in technology have a significant impact on usage and user satisfaction, whereas service quality and trust in government organizations do not have such an effect. The usage and user satisfaction variables have a significant effect on net benefits, and then have a significant effect on the sustainability of the SIS. Contribution: The usage and user satisfaction variables have a significant effect on net benefits, and then have a significant effect on the sustainability of the SIS. This study’s findings can provide e-government practitioners with deeper insights into how to overcome problems with user satisfaction and increase trust in mandatory e-government services in realizing SIS and the “smart village”.

We present results like this to explain that the success of SISKEUDES adoption is proxied from the variables of net benefits and sustainability of the SIS. The measurement of success refers to the DeLone and McLean model (1992, 2003) and the SIS model (Ziemba, 2018, 2019).

 

Point 2: The introduction section is quite long and confusing. It could be rewritten to be much more succinct. It is not clear to the reader what knowledge gap, problem, or puzzle motivates the research and this manuscript. Where exactly is the gap that this paper will fill? What is the research question? What is the contribution of this paper? And what exactly the solutions reported in the existing literature couldn't offer? The proposed problems are sketchy and unclear.

 

Response 2:

Research gaps, research questions, contributions are presented implicitly in research. First, this research develops Information Systems Success Models [12];[13]; [14] and [10]. …. Second, the models previously widely used in the literature….it could be seen in lines [67-85].

 

Point 3: This study needs to rewrite the introduction section and create new sections (e.g., the second section to summarize the related work, the third section for model development and hypotheses (need to discuss each hypothesis separately in a new subsection), add a figure to show the developed conceptual model.

Response 3:

Based on Sustainability’ article template for 2022, “the introduction consist of: reason why it is important; controversial and diverging hypotheses; and the main aim of the work and highlight the principal conclusions”.

 

Point 4: The adopted methodology described in the manuscript needs more improvement. The main elements are missing in the materials and methods section, such as discussing and explaining the sampling technique adopted in this study and the unit of analysis. Also need to elaborate the target population justifies and the minimum sample size is required. Support all the arguments in the methodology subsections with appropriate and recent citations.

Response 4:

The sub-district that receives the most village funds in the Sarbagita area. The purposive sampling resulted in 36 village governments. We select three of SISKEUDES users in each village, including the village secretary, head of financial affairs, and SISKEUDES operators. Number of research samples sent who were the questionnaire was 108 respondents, meanwhile the number of questionnaires processed was 94 respondents (Table.2). The 87,03% response rate is strong - and meets an acceptable standard because it delivered directly to the respondent, and Smart PLS modeling works well with a sample size of 50 to 100 respondents [61].

 

Point 5: Add the list of Measurement items for all variables.

Response 5:

“The research data were collected using a questionnaire. The measurement of respondents' answers about their attitudes, opinions, and perceptions was conducted containing four-point Likert scale questions (1=strongly disagree, 2= disagree, 3= agree, 4= strongly agree)".

 

Point 6: There are many incomplete sentences for example, on Page 2. L 69 “First, this research develops Information Systems Success Models such as [12];[13]; [14] and [10]”.

Response 6:

We have been revised as suggestion.

First, this research develops Information Systems Success Models such as [12];[13]; [14] and [10]”.

 

Point 7: Author(s) needs to modify the discussion by answering the research questions and discussing the findings of each hypothesis separately.

Response 7:

The research question is not presented explicitly, while it has appeared in the research motivation. Details of the RQ answers are presented in Table 5a as hypothesis test result.

 

Point 8: Finally, the authors should consider elaborating their study's theoretical and practical implications, along with the study limitations and future research directions, since these sections are missing in this study.

Response 8:

This study presented limitations and future research as part of conclusion. It can be seen in as follows.

 

Theoritical: The theoretical contribution focuses on the impact of the IS Success Model and its belief in enhancing a sustainable information society,….Therefore, the adoption of SISKEUDES is a solution that increases village financial accountability..

 

Limitation: This study only analyzes an adoption of Village Financial System in the context of Indonesian case-study….. In addition, the delivery of instruments directly ….

 

Future research: The development of further research could test …..the [12] model by adding this dimension ….

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Colleagues,

Thank you for contributing to the Sustainability issue. I understand that the question analyzed is important to you, however, I do not find that your issue is interesting for me as an international audience. I tried to contribute to your manuscript improvement:

1. Why De Lone and Mc Lean model was chosen? What were alternatives under consideration?
2. SISKEUDES needs a broader introduction. I think a special section must be created and if there is work about it that will be great to learn other authors opinions.
3. The introduction section requires re-making. The hypothesis needs to be moved to a separate section. The research aim is needed. 
4. Unclear why Bali and Indonesia were chosen and why it is important for the scientific world to learn about both cases.
5. I'm not sure that 104 respondents are a good sampling. Unclear what number of possible respondents in 36 village governments.
6. Who are the respondents? if these are officials, so how they can decide on user satisfaction?
7. The results section requires a connection with current literature. If the results confirm or not previous work done in the field. 
8. I recommend using in this work a few fresh works from Sustainability journal that improve theory: a) Mills, D., Pudney, S., Pevcin, P., & Dvorak, J. (2022). Evidence-Based Public Policy Decision-Making in Smart Cities: Does Extant Theory Support Achievement of City Sustainability Objectives?. Sustainability, 14(1), 3. b)Mills, D. E., Izadgoshasb, I., & Pudney, S. G. (2021). Smart city collaboration: A review and an agenda for establishing sustainable collaboration. Sustainability, 13(16), 9189.
9. The conclusions need to be rewritten as they can be just the same information as in discussion. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

 

Point 1: Why De Lone and Mc Lean model was chosen? What were alternatives under consideration?

Response 1:

The DeLone & McLean model is widely used to examine the successful adoption of information technology and accounting information systems. Several studies have attempted to develop this model in different contexts, but there is still an opportunity to use this model for the purpose of measuring the success of IS adoption in realizing SIS (Ziemba, 2019). In this study, the DeLone & McLean model combined with trust theory is also a new opportunity to increase transparency and public trust in the government.

 

Point 2: SISKEUDES needs a broader introduction. I think a special section must be created and if there is work about it that will be great to learn other authors opinions.

Response 2:

SISKEUDES was developed by representatives of BPKP from West Sulawesi Province and Mamasa District as a pilot project in order to improve the quality of village financial governance [10]. On 13 July 2015, the development of SISKEUDES was taken over by the Deputy for Supervision of Regional Financial Administration at the Central BPKP (Indonesia's National Government Internal Auditor) in Jakarta [59]. The use of SISKEUDES is intended for all village governments in Indonesia, including the Province of Bali. Implementation of SISKEUDES refers to Minister of Home Affairs Regulation number 20 of 2018  concerning village financial management. This is what underlies the online and offline-based or manual SISKEUDES application, given the ability of resources in the village. (http://www.bpkp.go.id/sakd/konten/2448/leaflet-simda-desa.bpkp).

 

Point 3: The introduction section requires re-making. The hypothesis needs to be moved to a separate section. The research aim is needed. 

Response 3:

Based on Sustainability’article template for 2022, “the introduction consist of: reason why it is important; controversial and diverging hypotheses; and the main aim of the work and highlight the principal conclusions”.

 

Point 4: Unclear why Bali and Indonesia were chosen and why it is important for the scientific world to learn about both cases.

Response 4:

This study only focus on adoption of Village Financial System in the context of Indonesian case-study especially four regions/district of Bali Province which are: Denpasar, Badung, Gianyar, Tabanan (it calls Sarbagita). It is due to the importance of the Sarbagita area, which are known as part of a national strategic region whose territory and spatial planning are prioritized because, nationally speaking, they have a very important influence on state sovereignty, state defense and security, economy, social and cultural matters, and the environment, including areas that have been designated as world heritage sites.

 

Point 5: I'm not sure that 104 respondents are a good sampling. Unclear what number of possible respondents in 36 village governments.

Response 5:

The sub-district that receives the most village funds in the Sarbagita area. The purposive sampling resulted in 36 village governments. We select three of SISKEUDES users in each village, including the village secretary, head of financial affairs, and SISKEUDES operators. Number of research samples sent who were the questionnaire was 108 respondents, meanwhile the number of questionnaires processed was 94 respondents (Table.2). The 87,03% response rate is strong - and meets an acceptable standard because it delivered directly to the respondent, and Smart PLS modeling works well with a sample size of 50 to 100 respondents [59] {Lines 250-251}.

 

Point 6: Who are the respondents? if these are officials, so how they can decide on user satisfaction?

Response 6:

As we explained above, respondents are village secretary, head of financial affairs, and SISKEUDES operators. This articles examines the usage of SISKEUDES for officials, whether SISKEUDES can support officials' performance in presenting financial reports and improving services to the public.

 

Point 7: The results section requires a connection with current literature. If the results confirm or not previous work done in the field. 

Response 7:

Thankyou for the response. In the discussion, the consistency of the results of this study with previous research and the interpretation of the respondents' answers on the questionnaires that have been sent has been presented.

 

Point 8: I recommend using in this work a few fresh works from Sustainability journal that improve theory:

1. a) Mills, D., Pudney, S., Pevcin, P., & Dvorak, J. (2022). Evidence-Based Public Policy Decision-Making in Smart Cities: Does Extant Theory Support Achievement of City Sustainability Objectives?. Sustainability, 14(1),
2. b)Mills, D. E., Izadgoshasb, I., & Pudney, S. G. (2021). Smart city collaboration: A review and an agenda for establishing sustainable collaboration. Sustainability, 13(16), 9189.

Response 8:

Thank you for the references for future research.

 

Point 9: The conclusions need to be rewritten as they can be just the same information as in discussion. 

Response 9:

This conclusion section summarizes the results and discussions by presenting them in a shorter way without changing the meaning, which means having the same information. In addition to providing answers to the problem formulation, this conclusion also adds limitations, theoretical and practical implications of the research, as well as opportunities for future research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have not satisfactorily addressed most of my concerns. For example

 1. The introduction section is still quite confusing. It is not clear to the reader what knowledge gap, problem, or puzzle motivates the research and this manuscript. Where exactly is the gap that this paper will fill? What is the research question? What is the contribution of this paper? And what exactly the solutions reported in the existing literature couldn't offer? The proposed problems are sketchy and unclear.

2. The main elements are missing in the materials and methods section, such as discussing and explaining the sampling technique adopted in this study and the unit of analysis. Also need to elaborate the target population justifies and the minimum sample size is required. Support all the arguments in the methodology subsection

3. Where are the list of measurement items for all variables?

4. The discussion section still shallow. Need to discuss the results into the meaning, importance and relevance of the results.

5.  The authors should consider elaborating their study's theoretical and practical implications, along with the study limitations and future research directions, as a new sub-sections under the conclusion section.

Author Response

Thank you for suggestions and improvements to this manuscript.

We don't mean to ignore the suggestions and reviews given, therefore on this occasion we have made significant changes to our article so that every important element in this article can be conveyed properly and clearly. As for the changes that we mean, including: adding section 2 to clarify the literature review and hypothesis development, positioning the research objectives clearly in the introduction, and clarifying the arguments for the adoption of the research model; added data collection processes and justification for sample selection. In the conclusion section we only explain the structure of the writing, where we summarize the results and discussions as answers and solutions to the research objectives.

Once again, thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your replies to me. However, I was asked that the changes will occur in the text and unfortunately you responded very, very slightly. 

All the best

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for suggestions and improvements to this manuscript. We don't mean to ignore the suggestions and reviews given, therefore on this occasion we have made significant changes to our article so that every important element in this article can be conveyed properly and clearly. As for the changes that we mean, including: adding section 2 to clarify the literature review and hypothesis development, positioning the research objectives clearly in the introduction, and clarifying the arguments for the adoption of the research model; added data collection processes and justification for sample selection. In the conclusion section we only explain the structure of the writing, where we summarize the results and discussions as answers and solutions to the research objectives.

Once again, thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript structure now is better than the last versions and easy to follow. However, to enhance the contents of this manuscript, the authors have to create a new table for the list of measurement items (Questionnaire) with their sources as an appendix. In addition, as mentioned earlier in the previous review, the structure of the conclusion section needs more improvement by creating a new subsection for the theoretical and practical implications, study limitations, and future research directions.

Author Response

Dear

Reviewer

Thank you for suggestions and improvements to this manuscript.

Sincerely,

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

accept

Author Response

Dear Reviwer

Thank you for suggestions and improvements to this manuscript. 

Sincerely,

 

Dodik Ariyanto

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf