Proposing a Framework for the Digital Transformation Maturity of Electronic Sports Businesses in Developing Countries
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author(s),
Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. I agree that this is an important and pertinent topic. There are a few areas where I would encourage the authors to give further thought, as follows:
· Table 1 is not needed and write the explanation related to the table in one paragraph.
· What were the criteria for selecting experts?
· You need a discussion section. The discussion challenges your findings and determines the degree of compatibility with previous research.
· The discussion section needs to highlight what is new in your findings and what we can learn from a study conducted in this interesting and understudied context. Whilst the introduction sets the stage for the study by justifying the relevance of the study, the discussion is the most important section as it is in the discussion that it is all brought together, and the authors illustrates how and why the study findings advance the literature. Therefore, the discussion needs to illustrate the new insights—the contributions—in a clear and compelling manner. In other words, illustrate what we know now that we did not know before or, in effect, to clearly illustrate the contribution of the study to the different bodies of literature. Furthermore, what are the future research directions based on this new framework?
· Theoretical Contributions: Addressing all the points mentioned above will lead to a more in-depth presentation of your data which has a clearer theoretical contribution. What is the theoretical contributions?
Best of luck with the further development of the paper.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Referees
With respect, we have received valuable feedback from the esteemed referees, and our research group has taken the following actions to revise the article:
“The table (1) in the Methodology section has been removed and its related information has been presented in a paragraph.”
“A more precise and comprehensive explanation of the criteria for selecting experts has been provided.”
“Two new sections named Theoretical Contribution and Implications- Practical Implications have been added to the Discussion and Conclusion section.”
“The referencing system has been revised to conform to the journal's format requirements.”
“Grammatical issues in sentences approved by the referees have been addressed and corrected.”
“Based on the request of the esteemed referee: "You use the terms esports, e-sports, eSports and electronic sport business - there are some differences, please explain and use the terms properly." Therefore, we have replaced the incorrect terms used in certain sections with the correct term "electronic sport business" consistently throughout the article.”
“As per the request of the esteemed referee (Please read the information from rows 141 to 149 - number are not clear. There is in total 91 article in 2020, and most of the studies used a quantitative approach - 123?? more than half are published in USA (147)?), we have only reflected the information provided in the relevant reference. However, to avoid confusion, we have removed the numbers inside the parentheses.”
“In response to the request of the esteemed referee (Can you tell us if the companies in your sample have gone through digital transformation process of some kind or are they already established as digital companies?), our research group respectfully answers as follows: "The companies in our sample have gone through some level of digital transformation process, but none of them can be considered fully established as digital companies. Some companies were more advanced in their digital transformation journey than others, but all of them had room for further improvement and development.”
“In response to the last question of the esteemed referee (On page 14, you discuss the levels of digital maturity. I am not sure how you arrived at these levels (novices, enthusiasts, conservatives, and leaders). You state that "based on their score," but you do not explain what that is based on?), I must say that in this study, a digital transformation maturity model has been developed with 10 dimensions and 51 indicators. For each indicator, 100 points are considered, and based on the qualitative assessment of businesses that score less than 1275 points, they are considered novices, businesses that score between 1275 to 2550 points are considered digital enthusiasts, businesses that score between 2551 to 3826 points are considered digital conservatives, and finally, businesses that score higher than 3826 points are considered digital leaders.”
I hope these changes lead to an improvement in the quality of the article and achieving the desired outcome from the perspective of esteemed reviewers. Thank you for your time and attention.
Respectfully,
[Research group]
Reviewer 2 Report
Frankly speaking, the present study intends to propose a framework for the digital transformation maturity of electronic sports business in developing countries by the methods of thematic analysis, and then some meaningful and valuable findings have been concluded in final, which would be highly imperative and practicable for the developing countries to properly administrate and operate the electronic business for this digital marketing all over the world in coming days. Given that, I’m sure that this paper could be accepted for publishing in this journal, but before that several detailed aspects listed as follows should be rectified and revised by the authors at first. Thank you!
1. Line 10-15, the redundant contents about research background could be further refined and shorted.
2. All citations with references in the text are not according to the corresponding norms and standards of the present journal, and likewise, the references listed at the end of this paper have the same mistakes. So these issues should be seriously and strictly resolved and corrected by the authors.
3. The first-level title “4. Findings” can be changed to “4. Results”.
4. The cross-page phenomena for some too long tables are allowable in the text, but as for those short tables, it is necessary to display them only in one page.
5. Except for the first letter in the title of tables and figures can be used by the capital, the others could be presented by the lower-case form.
6. The conclusions are too long and redundant, so this section should be refined and shorted, and be showed with the main findings rather than many detailed contents.
7. Line 624-627, namely “7. Recommendations for future research”, these contents can be integrated into the section of “6. Limitations”.
Moderate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Referees
With respect, we have received valuable feedback from the esteemed referees, and our research group has taken the following actions to revise the article:
“The table (1) in the Methodology section has been removed and its related information has been presented in a paragraph.”
“A more precise and comprehensive explanation of the criteria for selecting experts has been provided.”
“Two new sections named Theoretical Contribution and Implications- Practical Implications have been added to the Discussion and Conclusion section.”
“The referencing system has been revised to conform to the journal's format requirements.”
“Grammatical issues in sentences approved by the referees have been addressed and corrected.”
“Based on the request of the esteemed referee: "You use the terms esports, e-sports, eSports and electronic sport business - there are some differences, please explain and use the terms properly." Therefore, we have replaced the incorrect terms used in certain sections with the correct term "electronic sport business" consistently throughout the article.”
“As per the request of the esteemed referee (Please read the information from rows 141 to 149 - number are not clear. There is in total 91 article in 2020, and most of the studies used a quantitative approach - 123?? more than half are published in USA (147)?), we have only reflected the information provided in the relevant reference. However, to avoid confusion, we have removed the numbers inside the parentheses.”
“In response to the request of the esteemed referee (Can you tell us if the companies in your sample have gone through digital transformation process of some kind or are they already established as digital companies?), our research group respectfully answers as follows: "The companies in our sample have gone through some level of digital transformation process, but none of them can be considered fully established as digital companies. Some companies were more advanced in their digital transformation journey than others, but all of them had room for further improvement and development.”
“In response to the last question of the esteemed referee (On page 14, you discuss the levels of digital maturity. I am not sure how you arrived at these levels (novices, enthusiasts, conservatives, and leaders). You state that "based on their score," but you do not explain what that is based on?), I must say that in this study, a digital transformation maturity model has been developed with 10 dimensions and 51 indicators. For each indicator, 100 points are considered, and based on the qualitative assessment of businesses that score less than 1275 points, they are considered novices, businesses that score between 1275 to 2550 points are considered digital enthusiasts, businesses that score between 2551 to 3826 points are considered digital conservatives, and finally, businesses that score higher than 3826 points are considered digital leaders.”
I hope these changes lead to an improvement in the quality of the article and achieving the desired outcome from the perspective of esteemed reviewers. Thank you for your time and attention.
Respectfully,
[Research group]
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
thank you for giving me the opportunity to read your paper entitled "Proposing Framework for the Digital Transformation Maturity of Electronic Sports Businesses in Developing Countries". It is a very interesting paper which could greatly contribute to future development of (electronic) sports business.
However, I have detected some issues which you should further address.
1. If I am not mistaking, reference system for Sustainability journal is different (references must be numbered in order of appearance in square brackets) so please change that. Also, there are some mistakes in referencing. For example, on page 2 row 75 you say Kairon et al. have .... - after Kairon et al. in the brackets there should be a year, and this reference is missing in the reference list. Similarly, on page 2 row 80 you say Brown believes... - it should be Brown and Brown (2019) believe.
2. There are some grammar problems with the following sentences:
- page 3 row 123: instead of digitalization it should say digitization
- page 3 row 141: "...convergence function of them in a strategic direction"
- page 4 row 183: "...what enablers the maturity of digital transformation..."
3. You use the terms esports, e-sports, eSports and electronic sport business - there are some differences, please explain and use the terms properly.
4. Please read the information from rows 141 to 149 - number are not clear. There is in total 91 article in 2020, and most of the studies used a quantitative approach - 123?? more than half are published in USA (147)?
5. Can you tell us if the companies in your sample have gone through digital transformation process of some kind or are they already established as digital companies?
6. On page 14 you discuss the levels of digital maturity. I am not clear as to how you came to these levels (beginners, enthusiasts, conservatives and leaders)? You state that it is "according to their score" but do not explain on what?
If I am not mistaking, reference system for Sustainability journal is different (references must be numbered in order of appearance in square brackets).
Author Response
Dear Editors and Referees
With respect, we have received valuable feedback from the esteemed referees, and our research group has taken the following actions to revise the article:
“The table (1) in the Methodology section has been removed and its related information has been presented in a paragraph.”
“A more precise and comprehensive explanation of the criteria for selecting experts has been provided.”
“Two new sections named Theoretical Contribution and Implications- Practical Implications have been added to the Discussion and Conclusion section.”
“The referencing system has been revised to conform to the journal's format requirements.”
“Grammatical issues in sentences approved by the referees have been addressed and corrected.”
“Based on the request of the esteemed referee: "You use the terms esports, e-sports, eSports and electronic sport business - there are some differences, please explain and use the terms properly." Therefore, we have replaced the incorrect terms used in certain sections with the correct term "electronic sport business" consistently throughout the article.”
“As per the request of the esteemed referee (Please read the information from rows 141 to 149 - number are not clear. There is in total 91 article in 2020, and most of the studies used a quantitative approach - 123?? more than half are published in USA (147)?), we have only reflected the information provided in the relevant reference. However, to avoid confusion, we have removed the numbers inside the parentheses.”
“In response to the request of the esteemed referee (Can you tell us if the companies in your sample have gone through digital transformation process of some kind or are they already established as digital companies?), our research group respectfully answers as follows: "The companies in our sample have gone through some level of digital transformation process, but none of them can be considered fully established as digital companies. Some companies were more advanced in their digital transformation journey than others, but all of them had room for further improvement and development.”
“In response to the last question of the esteemed referee (On page 14, you discuss the levels of digital maturity. I am not sure how you arrived at these levels (novices, enthusiasts, conservatives, and leaders). You state that "based on their score," but you do not explain what that is based on?), I must say that in this study, a digital transformation maturity model has been developed with 10 dimensions and 51 indicators. For each indicator, 100 points are considered, and based on the qualitative assessment of businesses that score less than 1275 points, they are considered novices, businesses that score between 1275 to 2550 points are considered digital enthusiasts, businesses that score between 2551 to 3826 points are considered digital conservatives, and finally, businesses that score higher than 3826 points are considered digital leaders.”
I hope these changes lead to an improvement in the quality of the article and achieving the desired outcome from the perspective of esteemed reviewers. Thank you for your time and attention.
Respectfully,
[Research group]
