The Impact of E-Commerce on the Labor Market

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1) In the abstract you must mention the main empirical findings

2) The literature review needs to be extended

3) The equations in the methodology section and in the results and discussion section need to be more clear.

4) The authors do not mention anywhere what Tables 4, 5 and 6 present.

5) The results and discussion section needs to be enhanced.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study aims to explore how e-commerce and related digital skills could determine the development of the labour market. The manuscript suggests that with an increase in e-commerce, a growth in the working possibilities will be present. In the same line, it is argued that the better the ICT skills, the better the human capital potential.

I find the proposition of the study interesting and useful for the e-commerce field. Nevertheless, in its current form, it overlooks several fundamental elements necessary for quality research. I consider that, in order for the article to show its actual value, it should be more meticulously elaborated.

My major concerns encompass the following:

• The study does not follow a precise theory to justify the objective and the proposed research models. It is necessary to support the variables selection and the proposed relationships through a theoretical approach, to explain the need to explore this objective.
• There is a need for a thorough literature review that would explain how was this context studied previously, so that it offers a steady foundation for the development of the research.
• The article does not present a clear flow of the content, and no evident connection is made of the theory with the models’ development.
• The application of the variables is not explicit, and no reasoning is given for creating the models.
• The study lacks an exhaustive conclusion, where the academic and managerial implications could emphasize the contribution of the research, and the limitations would offer lines for future investigation.

All my comments make me wonder, how this work contributes to e-commerce knowledge? What is the gap this research identifies, and how does it fulfil it?

The study needs to be built on a solid theoretical basis, and it has to emphasize the originality of the research.

I hope that my comments will be helpful for the authors to enhance the quality of the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you very much for the opportunity to review the paper titled “The impact of e-commerce on the labor market” The selected topic is intriguing, and the work can add value to the existing body of literature. However, certain flaws overshadow the paper’s potential significance. I offer some suggestions to the study’s author(s) in the following lines.

1. One of the most pressing challenges is the theoretical research gap. If other academics have not done anything, it does not imply a research gap; instead, our analysis identified a knowledge gap critical for manuscript submission to SCIE journals. Please provide a well-defined research gap. Furthermore, please explain why it is vital to include comprehensive poverty eradication in the theoretical contribution for the study area; hence, restructure the introduction. Typically, the framework will consist of the following elements: the significance of the issue, motivation (optional), research gap(s), aims, and possible contributions (optional). Lack of the research gap(s) reduced the paper’s value.
2. The literature should add and analyze more the previous research to make the research flow between “e-commerce” and “labor market.”
3. The biggest concern related to the data for empirical research is that it is out updated (2019); hence, it reduces the contribution of this research
4. There is no discussion, which needs to add to emphasize the novelty of this study.
5. The limitation and further research should be added
6. Moreover, the English on paper should still be weak. The authors should ask the help of a native English-speaking proofreader.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Although the authors have made significant modifications and improved the article, there are still issues that are not addressed, yet are essential for valuable scientific work.

For instance, there is no clear rationalisation of the variables selection and models creation.

The authors should try to explain the critical issues in the paper (not only in the answers to the reviewer), and those must be based on previous evidence supporting the authors’ suppositions.

Furthermore, it is not explained the gap that this research fulfils, how it contributes to the literature and what are the implications for the practice. The conclusion is too short, and it focuses merely on commenting on the results. It seems more like a discussion, rather than a conclusion. The results and discussion should be separated, so that the actual contribution can be identified.

On the whole, a more meticulous elaboration of all the mentioned elements is necessary, so that the article's relevancy can be observed.

Author Response

Thank you again for the opportunity to clarify the purpose of the paper. I hope the answers meet your expectations. We made all the suggested changes. I believe that the article has practical utility and highlights possible methods that can ensure the growth of human capital on the labor market in a digital economy. In the concluding paragraph, we present concrete examples of using the results of the article. I look forward to your decision.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your effort!