Training in Digital Skills—The Perspective of Workers in Public Sector
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I find the article interesting and timely, responding to the special issue rationale. It has a logical structure and the results are presented in a clear, transparent manner. I'd like to see more clearly stated the limitations of the study, e.g. the small pool of respondents. A more consistent number of respondents (possibly corroborated with one-two focus groups) would strengthen the demonstration. Also, I feel the need of a clear outline of Conclusions to the study.
Minor editing is necessary.
Author Response
Report 1:
I find the article interesting and timely, responding to the special issue rationale. It has a logical structure and the results are presented in a clear, transparent manner.
Answer: We want to thank the reviewer for their effort in evaluating our manuscript. The points addressed by the reviewer allowed us to improve our work considerably. We highlighted the changes in the revised manuscript using blue-colored text.
I'd like to see more clearly stated the limitations of the study, e.g. the small pool of respondents. A more consistent number of respondents (possibly corroborated with one-two focus groups) would strengthen the demonstration.
Answer: The idea of complementing the questionnaire data with information obtained from focus groups was included in the last section as a suggestion for future research. With regard to the number of respondents, 573 is a significant number, including when compared to other investigations that are based on questionnaire collection. For example, and considering the universe of public sector workers, Alvarenga et al. (2020) present information on 54 workers and Krpálek et al. (2021) on 245 workers (both articles from Sustainability).
Also, I feel the need of a clear outline of Conclusions to the study.
Answer: In fact, the last section of the paper (named “Discussion”) includes the usual components of the conclusion section. In the first version of the article, we followed the journal instructions for authors that states: “Discussion: Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible and limitations of the work highlighted. Future research directions may also be mentioned. Conclusions: This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex.” (in https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructionshttps://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions). Following the reviewer’ s suggestion, in this revised version, we renamed this last section as “Discussion and Conclusions”.
The whole text was reviewed aiming to improve the quality of English language. Minor grammar mistakes were corrected, as well as some sentences’ structure.
Reviewer 2 Report
The results of digital transformation in the public sector are problematic in most European countries due to the insufficient digital literacy of workers in this sector, and it is considered that this handicap correlates with a demonstrably lower willingness to eliminate this problem among the individuals affected. Your contribution to this discussion is valuable in that it is accurately supported by a sufficiently large research sample and a well-executed statistical evaluation of reliability. The statement of fact is completely provable, it is the dissemination of a scientific grant, and the level of the article corresponds to this. I did not find any professional errors or imperfections in the article that would entitle me to recommend it for rejection or for any modifications. I thank the authors for sharing the exact data and I am convinced that they will resonate positively in the professional community, we also encounter this problem and your approaches are inspiring for us.
Author Response
Report 2
The results of digital transformation in the public sector are problematic in most European countries due to the insufficient digital literacy of workers in this sector, and it is considered that this handicap correlates with a demonstrably lower willingness to eliminate this problem among the individuals affected. Your contribution to this discussion is valuable in that it is accurately supported by a sufficiently large research sample and a well-executed statistical evaluation of reliability. The statement of fact is completely provable, it is the dissemination of a scientific grant, and the level of the article corresponds to this. I did not find any professional errors or imperfections in the article that would entitle me to recommend it for rejection or for any modifications. I thank the authors for sharing the exact data and I am convinced that they will resonate positively in the professional community, we also encounter this problem and your approaches are inspiring for us.
Answer: We are very thankful to the reviewer for their valuable and kind feedback, which enhanced the paper and strengthened its relevance and perceptibility.
Reviewer 3 Report
Article
Training in Digital Skills – The Perspective of Workers in Public Sector
Article is well written and interesting.
Abstract need revision with some quantitative results.
Some more studies are required in the introduction section to further highlight the importance of this study.
Javid, M. A., Abdullah, M., Ali, N., Shah, S. A. H., Joyklad, P., Hussain, Q., & Chaiyasarn, K. (2022). Extracting travelers’ preferences toward electric vehicles using the theory of planned behavior in Lahore, Pakistan. Sustainability, 14(3), 1909.
Namazi, E., Mohamad, H., Jorat, M. E., & Hajihassani, M. (2011). Investigation on the effects of twin tunnel excavations beneath a road underpass. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 16(1), 1-8.
Othman, I., Majid, R., Mohamad, H., Shafiq, N., & Napiah, M. (2018). Variety of accident causes in construction industry. In MATEC Web of Conferences (Vol. 203, p. 02006). EDP Sciences.
Figure 1 text is not readable.
Section 3 could be further subdivided into subsections.
Table 1 more inforamation is required for the selected variables.
Figure 2 data is overlaping and unreadable.
Line 465. Comparing the two groups of workers, we conclude that the digital training group perceives a higher value from all the potential benefits of training than the other group.
Please provide propoer reasons for the observed phenomenon.
Authors must summarized results in more systematic way with reference to the previous studies.
Very important, conclusions section is missing.
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Report 3
Article: Training in Digital Skills – The Perspective of Workers in Public Sector
Article is well written and interesting.
Answer: We want to thank the reviewer for their effort in evaluating our manuscript. The points addressed by the reviewer allowed us to improve our work considerably. We highlighted the changes in the revised manuscript using blue-colored text.
Abstract need revision with some quantitative results.
Answer: The abstract was changed following the reviewer's suggestion.
Some more studies are required in the introduction section to further highlight the importance of this study.
Answer: two references were added to the article that we believe have highlighted the importance of this study.
Figure 1 text is not readable.
Answer: Figure 1 was changed following the reviewer's suggestion.
Section 3 could be further subdivided into subsections.
Answer: Three subsections were included in section 3.
Table 1 more information is required for the selected variables.
Answer: Information on the variables was included in Table 1.
Figure 2 data is overlapping and unreadable.
Answer: Figure 2 was changed following the reviewer's suggestion.
Line 465. Comparing the two groups of workers, we conclude that the digital training group perceives a higher value from all the potential benefits of training than the other group. Please provide proper reasons for the observed phenomenon.
Answer: We have included a possible explanation for this relationship in the text (line 505-511).
Authors must summarize results in more systematic way with reference to the previous studies.
Answer: A new table was inserted in the manuscript (Table 3), which summarizes results concerning the validation or not of the established research hypotheses, pointing to related literature.
Very important, conclusions section is missing.
Answer: In fact, the last section of the paper (named “Discussion”) includes the usual components of the conclusion section. In the first version of the article, we followed the journal instructions for authors that states: “Discussion: Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible and limitations of the work highlighted. Future research directions may also be mentioned. Conclusions: This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex.” (in https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions). Following the reviewer’ s suggestion, in this revised version, we renamed this last section as “Discussion and Conclusions”.
The whole text was reviewed aiming to improve the quality of English language. Minor grammar mistakes were corrected, as well as some sentences’ structure.
Reviewer 4 Report
The review comments are listed as follows.
1. What are the meanings of the "(p.3)" in line 121 and the “(p.9)” in line 248? If they are literature citations, the citation format looks weird.
2. Some abbreviations should have their full corresponding texts when they appear in the manuscript first.
3. Figure 1 is too small/blur to present its content clearly.
4. The titles of column 2 and column 3 in Table are easy to confuse; it had better for the authors revise them.
5. The data present format in Table 1 is easy to confuse; it had better for the author revise the data present format.
6. The "Training sessions (number)" row's column 2 in Table 1 shows the mean value is larger the standard deviation; it looks weird. The authors should check the data again.
7. The authors should have a table to list the definitions of symbols in the equation 1 and equation 2.
8. Some data shown in Figure 2 is overlapped; the authors should revise the data in Figure 2. Also, it had better has a subtitle for each sub-figure in Figure 2.
9. Line 400, “(=1if female,” should be “(=1 if female,”.
10. The authors should depend on the four different groups to explore study results shown in Figure 2 further.
11. Why do not the authors present the data of complete sample in Figure 3?
12. Line 501, “according to Table (2)” should be “according to Table 2”.
13. The authors mentioned “the finance sub-sector in columns (1) and (2)”; the authors should describe which table.
14. Some data shown in Figure 3 is overlapped; the authors should revise the data in Figure 3.
15. The authors should explain how they get the study result, "72% of the public sector workers that answered our questionnaire had not participated in training in the digital field in the last two years." mentioned in lines 533-535.
16. The arrange of the manuscript looks weird; usually, a study article should have a conclusion section.
The authors might ask a professional English editor to revise the manuscript.
Author Response
Report 4
We want to thank the reviewer for their effort in evaluating our manuscript. The points addressed by the reviewer allowed us to improve our work considerably. We highlighted the changes in the revised manuscript using blue-colored text.
- What are the meanings of the "(p.3)" in line 121 and the “(p.9)” in line 248? If they are literature citations, the citation format looks weird.
Answer: We followed the journal instructions for authors: “In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. For embedded citations in the text with pagination, use both parentheses and brackets to indicate the reference number and page numbers; for example [5] (p. 10). or [6] (pp. 101–105).” (in https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions)
- Some abbreviations should have their full corresponding texts when they appear in the manuscript first.
Answer: The abbreviations used in the manuscript are now identified.
- Figure 1 is too small/blur to present its content clearly.
Answer: Figure 1 was changed following the reviewer's suggestion.
- The titles of column 2 and column 3 in Table are easy to confuse; it had better for the authors revise them.
Answer: Titles were changed and we hope that they are now easier to understand.
- The data present format in Table 1 is easy to confuse; it had better for the author revise the data present format.
Answer: Information on data was included in Table 1 (additional column included).
- The "Training sessions (number)" row's column 2 in Table 1 shows the mean value is larger the standard deviation; it looks weird. The authors should check the data again.
Answer: The high value of the standard deviation is due to an outlier (a worker with significant higher number of training sessions than other workers). This information was included in the text in a note. However, we notice that this variable (training sessions) is descriptive and the outlier has no effect on the results (for example, in equations 1 and 2, the dependent variables are the incidence of training and not the intensity of it).
- The authors should have a table to list the definitions of symbols in the equation 1 and equation 2.
Answer: Information on the symbols presented in equations 1 and 2 was included in the manuscript.
- Some data shown in Figure 2 is overlapped; the authors should revise the data in Figure 2. Also, it had better has a subtitle for each sub-figure in Figure 2.
Answer: Figure 2 was changed following the reviewer's suggestion and data was revised.
- Line 400, “(=1if female,” should be “(=1 if female,”.
Answer: The text was changed following the reviewer's suggestion.
- The authors should depend on the four different groups to explore study results shown in Figure 2 further.
Answer: we changed section 3.1 following the reviewer's instructions.
- Why do not the authors present the data of complete sample in Figure 3?
Answer: Because only workers that had participated in training were asked about the benefits perceived from their training participation.
- Line 501, “according to Table (2)” should be “according to Table 2”.
Answer: The text was changed following the reviewer's suggestion.
- The authors mentioned “the finance sub-sector in columns (1) and (2)”; the authors should describe which table.
Answer: The text was changed following the reviewer's suggestion.
- Some data shown in Figure 3 is overlapped; the authors should revise the data in Figure 3.
Answer: Figure 3 was changed following the reviewer's suggestion and data was revised.
- The authors should explain how they get the study result, "72% of the public sector workers that answered our questionnaire had not participated in training in the digital field in the last two years." mentioned in lines 533-535.
Answer: The explanation related with this result is now included in section 2.2.
- The arrange of the manuscript looks weird; usually, a study article should have a conclusion section.
Answer: In fact, the last section of the paper (named “Discussion”) includes the usual components of the conclusion section. In the first version of the article, we followed the journal instructions for authors that states: “Discussion: Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible and limitations of the work highlighted. Future research directions may also be mentioned. Conclusions: This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex.” (in https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions). Following the reviewer’ s suggestion, in this revised version, we renamed this last section as “Discussion and Conclusions”.
The whole text was reviewed aiming to improve the quality of English language. Minor grammar mistakes were corrected, as well as some sentences’ structure.
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
None
None
