Demoethical Model of Sustainable Development of Society: A Roadmap towards Digital Transformation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

You have written a quality paper but you need to address some major errors to improve the standard of the paper. I explain my concerns in more detail below. I ask that the authors specifically address each of my comments in their responses.

1.     In the abstract section, the research method used in this study should be written. Also, the aim of the study should be written, too.

2.     If the Introduction section is divided into sub-sections, the subject can be understood more easily by the readers. Moreover, the purpose of the study should be clearly stated.

3.     The Materials and Methods section should be revised. The methodology of the study should be explained clearly and in detail.

4.     The results section should be revised. Findings should be supported by references. Because the authors said they are analyzing the related literature. However, only two references are used in this section. Moreover, the reader will understand more easily if the results section is divided into subsections according to the aims of the study.

5.     In the Discussion section, the author should focus on the study findings and discuss with the studies in the literature. Thus, the importance of the findings obtained in the study should be revealed.

 

6.     The conclusion section should be revised. Here, the most important finding obtained in the study should be stated and the benefits to the literature and stakeholders should be stated. In addition, the limitations of the study should be stated. In addition, suggestions should be made to future researchers by making use of the findings of the study.

Minor editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your attention to our article. We express our deep gratitude for the valuable comments, which allowed us to rethink some aspects of our article and express our position more clearly.

In the Abstract section, we have included information about the method and purpose of the study.

Section Introduction expanded.

Necessary information has been added in the Methodology section. Also added section Restrictions.

The results demonstrate a demoethic model. This section has been expanded to make the author's position clear. However, we have provided links to key literature for us in the Discussion section.

In the discussion section, we discuss the main points that emerged in the Outcome. This section has been expanded.

Section Conclusion revised. This section has been expanded.

All changes and additions are highlighted in blue.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

 Please include the following comments:

1)        Add to the abstract the methodology used.

2)        Taking into account the fact that the manuscript does not contain a “Literature review” chapter, it is necessary to precisely define the problem in the introduction. The introduction is confusing. A precisely formulated goal is missing here.

3)        r. 43: „competitiveness and productivity of industries and industries“???

4)        r. 53: „concept of δῆμος“ ???

5)        The section “Materials and Methods” is completely insufficiently processed. It is necessary to develop it.

6)        The section “Results” is also completely insufficiently processed. This section is not well structured and argued.

7)        The “Discussion” chapter does not have the character of a discussion.

8)        The conclusion chapter does not contain implications, limiting factors and directions for future research.

In conclusion, I state that the article is not well structured and argued.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your attention to our article. We express our deep gratitude for the valuable comments, which allowed us to rethink some aspects of our article and express our position more clearly.

In the Abstract section, we have included information about the method and purpose of the study.

Section Introduction expanded.

Necessary information has been added in the Methodology section. Also added section Restrictions.

The results demonstrate a demoethic model. This section has been expanded to make the author's position clear. However, we have provided links to key literature for us in the Discussion section.

In the discussion section, we discuss the main points that emerged in the Outcome. This section has been expanded.

Section Conclusion revised. This section has been expanded.

 

All changes and additions are highlighted in blue.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

It was with great pleasure that I reviewed your manuscript.

You talk about the involvement of universities in society and you are absolutely right.

A few considerations to make:

I would like to see the group's influence on adolescence develop a bit further.

Regarding the methods of education (lines 192 to 196), I would like to know where you stand, whether you agree or disagree. Would the options you are talking about be the right ones?

My Best Regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your attention to our article. We express our deep gratitude for the valuable comments, which allowed us to rethink some aspects of our article and express our position more clearly.

We have made significant changes to the article. One of the changes was the rationale for our position regarding teaching methods to avoid misunderstandings.

All changes and additions are highlighted in blue.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

While this paper attempts to make some conceptual breakthroughs and explorations, the limitations associated with it are evident:

First, the validity of the two core concepts of society 5.0 and industry 5.0 is questionable.The author's reference to these two concepts is rather claptrap.

Second, in terms of manuscript structure, it is not very reasonable.The authors put the main content in the discussion section, making the core of this paper less prominent

Third, the authors only make a theoretical discussion without any empirical data support, which lacks feasibility. It is suggested that the authors collect some data for an empirical study to test the proposed theory empirically.

Fourth, in terms of the overall thesis structure, this is clearly a theoretical paper, but the author has applied the structure of an empirical paper, which is incoherent. It is recommended that the authors adjust and reorganize the overall structure of the paper.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your attention to our article. We express our deep gratitude for the valuable comments, which allowed us to rethink some aspects of our article and express our position more clearly.

In the Abstract section, we have included information about the method and purpose of the study.

Section Introduction expanded.

Necessary information has been added in the Methodology section. Also added section Restrictions.

The results demonstrate a demoethic model. This section has been expanded to make the author's position clear. However, we have provided links to key literature for us in the Discussion section.

In the discussion section, we discuss the main points that emerged in the Outcome. This section has been expanded.

Section Conclusion revised. This section has been expanded.

The additions made to the article clarify our position on the relationship between the demoethic model and the 5.0 concept.

In the results section, we presented the model, this section is expanded. However, the concepts that are included in the model are discussed in detail by us in the Discussion section.

Indeed, our study is theoretical, but it includes the development and substantiation of the demoethic model. Empirical research is underway.

All changes and additions are highlighted in blue.

 

Reviewer 5 Report

I have recommended to the editor the acceptance of the study. It has been a privilege to review the paper and contribute to improving the document.

This paper on "Demoethical Model of Sustainable Development of Society: A roadmap towards digital transformation" is appropriate.

The "Introduction" section is appropriate, but if you insert an introductory paragraph explaining the contents and structure of the document would be helpful.

The "2. Materials and Methods" section would be more appropriately termed a "Methodological approach".

The "3. Results" section is appropriate, but would be more appropriately termed a "Proposal for a demoethical model to organise society's sustainable development activities".

The "4. Discussion" section and its four subsections are appropriate and well developed.

The section "5. Conclusions" is comprehensive and appropriate, although it would be much improved if the authors introduced a table with a summary or synthesis of the four elements that make up the proposed model. I also encourage the authors to incorporate some comments related to the limitations of the model.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your attention to our article. We express our deep gratitude for the valuable comments, which allowed us to rethink some aspects of our article and express our position more clearly.

In the Abstract section, we have included information about the method and purpose of the study.

Section Introduction expanded.

Necessary information has been added in the Methodology section. Also added section Restrictions.

The results demonstrate a demoethic model. This section has been expanded to make the author's position clear. However, we have provided links to key literature for us in the Discussion section.

In the discussion section, we discuss the main points that emerged in the Outcome. This section has been expanded.

Section Conclusion revised. This section has been expanded.

All changes and additions are highlighted in blue.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

Thank you for your corrections. You have written a quality paper but you need to address some minor errors to improve the standard of the paper:

1.     But again, the Conclusion section should be revised. It is too long. Here, the most important finding obtained in the study should be stated and the benefits to the literature and stakeholders should be stated. In addition, the limitations of the study should be stated. In addition, suggestions should be made to future researchers by making use of the findings of the study. 

I'm thinking that the quality of English is acceptable.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your comments. Your comments were valuable to us and we took them into consideration. We have carefully reviewed the "Conclusion" section of our study and have focused on highlighting the most significant conclusion. We have also made significant changes to strengthen our position and have expanded our list of references. Any additions or modifications are highlighted in blue. Additionally, we have clearly stated the limitations of our study in the Methods section.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

 I can state that all my comments were incorporated in an adequate way. I recommend omitting the "Limitations" heading in section 2.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your time and consideration.

We appreciate your comments on our work. Your comments were valuable to us and we took them into consideration. We have removed the bold font from the title of the Restrictions section so that it blends in with the rest of the text. Additionally, we have included more literature and highlighted all changes and additions in blue.

With best wishes, 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Although the author has tried to make changes and fill in some gaps, the quality of the full text, unfortunately, is not at a publishable level.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your time and consideration.

I appreciate your comments about our work. Your comments were valuable to us, and we took them into account.  We have made significant changes to our text, focusing on making our position clearer and more pronounced. All changes and additions are highlighted in blue.

With best wishes,