Can HPWS Promote Digital Innovation? E-Learning as Mediator and Supportive Organisational Culture as Moderator
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
All hypotheses are relevant to the paper title. However, there are some points need to be improved.
1. The first hypothesis does not answer the paper title. It does not explicitly states about the promotion, just link.
2. The second and third hypotheses are about the role of e-learning and supportive organizational culture on the mediated moderation. The paper title should more clearly reflects this issue.
3. This paper lacks the mathematical models or equations that are used in the study. Please provide them in the improvement version.
4. Are there any variables that should be considered, e.g. those related to control variables? In case your mathematical models do not include them, please justify your proposed model why not including the control variables.
Author Response
Can HPWS Promote Digital Innovation? E-learning as mediator and Supportive Organizational Culture as moderator
Letter to Reviewers
Dear Reviewers,
We would like to kindly thank you for your evaluation and for the constructive and copious suggestions which have helped us to improve the draft significantly. All your comments and suggestions have been taken into account in the revised paper, as described in the following table.
|
Reviewer 1 |
|
|
Comments |
Responses |
|
All hypotheses are relevant to the paper title. However, there are some points need to be improved. The first hypothesis does not answer the paper title. It does not explicitly state about the promotion, just link. 2.The second and third hypotheses are about the role of e-learning and supportive organizational culture on the mediated moderation. The paper title should more clearly reflects this issue.
3.Are there any variables that should be considered e.g. those related to control variables? In case your mathematical models do not include them, please justify your proposed model why not including the control variables. |
Thank you for appreciation.
Your suggestion has been incorporated. You can check the highlighted section.
The paper title is revised.
Yes, we used control variables in this research model i.e. age, experience, firm size and education of employees which could enhance the validity and reliability of the research model. |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
All hypotheses should be rephrased to show whether the relationships between the dependent and independent variables is "significantly" or "positively" associated.
In theoretical framework, hypothesis 3 is feeding into hypothesis 1? Proper labelling is required for your readers to follow the sequence of your hypotheses. I refer you to the following article for both my comments "Weerakkody, V., Irani, Z., Kapoor, K., Sivarajah, U., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2017). Open data and its usability: an empirical view from the Citizen’s perspective. Information Systems Frontiers, 19, 285-300."
Your sampling strategy (in your methodology section, Line 202) that was used to identify your final respondents is nor clear. Which sampling strategy were you using?
Section 4.4 Hypothesis Testing (Line 266): Specify the criteria used to test your hypotheses (i.e. either accept or reject). This is very important for your reader and it seems an assumption was made that readers know.
There is no in-text citing of reference (5). Pagoropoulos, A., Pigosso, D. C., & McAloone, T. C. (2017). The emergent role of digital technologies in the Circular 421 Economy: A review. Procedia cirp, 64, 19-24; and reference (40). Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in mul-503 tiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 2008, 40, 879–891.
Your conclusion is too brief - add more detail on your findings.
I have no issues with the Quality of English used.
Author Response
Can HPWS Promote Digital Innovation? E-learning as mediator and Supportive Organizational Culture as moderator
Letter to Reviewers
Dear Reviewers,
We would like to kindly thank you for your evaluation and for the constructive and copious suggestions which have helped us to improve the draft significantly. All your comments and suggestions have been taken into account in the revised paper, as described in the following table.
|
Reviewer 2 |
|
|
Comments |
Responses |
|
All hypotheses should be rephrased to show whether the relationships between the dependent and Suggestions for independent variables is “significantly” or “positively” associated.
In theoretical framework, hypothesis 3 is feeding into hypothesis 1? Proper labelling is required for your readers to follow the sequence of your hypotheses. I refer you to the following article for both my comments "Weerakkody, V. Irani, z Kapoor, K Sivarajah, U. & Dwivedi Y K. (2017). Open data and Its usability: an empirical view from the Citizen’s perspective Information Systems Frontiers,19.285300." Your sampling strategy (in your methodology section Line 202) that was used to identify your final respondents is nor clear Which sampling strategy were you using?
Section 4.4 Hypothesis Testing (Line266): Specify the criteria used to test your hypotheses (i.e. either accept or reject). This is very important for your reader and it seems an assumption was made that readers know. There is no in-text citing of reference (5). Pagoropoulos A Pigosso D.C，& McAloone TC. (2017). The emergent role of digital technologies in the Circular 421 Economy : A review Procedia cirp, 64, 19-24 and reference (40). Preacher, K.J. : Hayes .A. F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in mul-503 tiple mediator models Behav. Res. Methods 2008. 40879-891. Your conclusion is too brief-add more detail on your findings. |
All hypotheses are enriched, rephrased and rewritten. You can check the highligted section.
Your suggestion has been incorporated.
Thanks for suggesting interesting article.
In methodology, confusion about sampling strategy is cleared, you can check the highlighted section.
Your suggestion has been incorporated.
These references are now cited in study text.
Your suggestion has been incorporated. |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments to author/s
Dear Author/s, below are some of my comments which you may consider to work on:
The article might hold potential, but I will suggest few instructions in order to follow the discussion and to check the accuracy and the validity of the discussion. It might need to have improvement with great care to avoid gaps in arguments and duplication in discussion.
Abstract is nicely developed and it mirrors the study properly.
Introduction:It is clear that the author/s distinctly define its rationale. However, the author/s should be specific by narrowing it down to the focus of the study. Make sure that the flow of research is smooth and organize. For instance, clearly explain the research objectives, specifically not in one line.
Try to explain more regarding contributive factors to digital innovation which author/s mentioned in line 37 and connect it with circular economy. Because I think that is one of the innovative aspects of this study and it should be explained in a comprehensive way that how it connects. Further, I noticed few open-ended statements which needs proper citation, e.g., line numbers 66-70, provide valid references to the mentioned lines.
Literature:There is acceptable acknowledgement of the subject literature, but it would add more value if there at the start of the paper already a clear indication of the literature that has already explored the different factors of digital innovation and HPWS.Then the literature dealing with facets that is of specific relevance to the scope of this paper. These issues might be addressed - but it is very hard to follow.Try to explain.
Further, strictly follow the journal format and try to go through Instructions for author/s.
Data and methodology section seems fine to me. The sources are clearly explained. I will only suggest that design your methodology in line with your hypothesis, like, H1 results should be explored first and so on.
Results should be in accordance with the research questions which is supposed to be presented in the literature part. For instance, present the results for research question 1 first, followed by research question 2 and so on. This is to easily see the alignment of your research questions and results.
Further, I feel that the results should be more enriched with proper citations.
Discussion: The discussion is presented well. However, since you have to mention the goals of your study in the introduction part, you may consider mentioning if each of those goals has been achieved. Further, the author/s needs to explain current study contribution to policy implications which will enhance the importance of the study and will be of interest to readers also.
Best of Luck!
Author Response
Can HPWS Promote Digital Innovation? E-learning as mediator and Supportive Organizational Culture as moderator
Letter to Reviewers
Dear Reviewers,
We would like to kindly thank you for your evaluation and for the constructive and copious suggestions which have helped us to improve the draft significantly. All your comments and suggestions have been taken into account in the revised paper, as described in the following table.
|
Reviewer 3 |
|
|
Comments |
Responses |
|
Comments to author/s Dear Author/s, below are some of my comments which you may consider to work on: The article might hold potential, but I will suggest few instructions in order to follow the discussion and to check the accuracy and the validity of the discussion. It might need to have improvement with great care to avoid gaps in arguments and duplication in discussion.
Abstract is nicely developed and it mirrors the study properly.
Introduction: It is clear that the author/s distinctly define its rationale. However, the author/s should be specific by narrowing it down to the focus of the study. Make sure that the flow of research is smooth and organize. For instance, clearly explain the research objectives, specifically not in one line. Try to explain more regarding contributive factors to digital innovation which author/s mentioned in line 37 and connect it with circular economy. Because I think that is one of the innovative aspects of this study and it should be explained in a comprehensive way that how it connects. Further, I noticed few open-ended statements which needs proper citation, e.g., line numbers 66-70, provide valid references to the mentioned lines. Literature: There is acceptable acknowledgement of the subject literature, but it would add more value if there at the start of the paper already a clear indication of the literature that has already explored the different factors of digital innovation and HPWS. Then the literature dealing with facets that is of specific relevance to the scope of this paper. These issues might be addressed - but it is very hard to follow. Try to explain.
Further, strictly follow the journal format and try to go through Instructions for author/s.
Data and methodology section seems fine to me. The sources are clearly explained. I will only suggest that design your methodology in line with your hypothesis, like, H1 results should be explored first and so on.
Results should be in accordance with the research questions which is supposed to be presented in the literature part. For instance, present the results for research question 1 first, followed by research question 2 and so on. This is to easily see the alignment of your research questions and results. Further, I feel that the results should be more enriched with proper citations. Discussion: The discussion is presented well. However, since you have to mention the goals of your study in the introduction part, you may consider mentioning if each of those goals has been achieved. Further, the author/s needs to explain current study contribution to policy implications which will enhance the importance of the study and will be of interest to readers also.
Best of Luck!
|
Ok.
Thanks for appreciation.
Your suggestion has been incorporated. You can check the highlighted section.
Your suggestion has been integrated. You can check the highlighted section in introduction.
Your all suggestions has been incorporated. You can check the highlighted section in inroduction.
Your suggestion has been incorporated.
Your suggestion has been incorporated. You can check the highlighted section.
Your suggestion has been incorporated. You can check the highlighted section.
Your suggestion has been incorporated. You can check the highlighted section.
Thank you. |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This version is fine.
