The Impact of User Benefits on Continuous Contribution Behavior Based on the Perspective of Stimulus–Organism–Response Theory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I would like to comment on your great efforts. The topic is timely and well-studied. However I have the following suggestions for you to revise/adjust before the manuscript can be consider for publication. 

1) Also the concept of Open Innovation was discussed it may need a bit more explanation and give some concrete examples such as website, portal, etc... whatever platform that the reader can take it as example when they read.

2) The theoretical len can be expand from past and current researches... one of the concepts the authors should include in their paper is the 'Collective Action' which is the term where people/community come together and put their effort together to help innovate or help each other to complete a beneficial action to complete the task. The author can either 1) create a new section under lit review on some concepts of Collective Actions (to foster Open Innovation) or 2) integrate the idea of collective action under 3.2 continuous contribution behaviour section. Some of the highly cited works on Collective actions are:

Leong, C. M. L., Pan, S. L., Ractham, P., & Kaewkitipong, L. (2015). ICT-enabled community empowerment in crisis response: Social media in Thailand flooding 2011. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 16(3), 1.  

Kaewkitipong, L., Chen, C. C., & Ractham, P. (2016). A community-based approach to sharing knowledge before, during, and after crisis events: A case study from Thailand. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 653-666.

3) the demographic of the sample should be explained abit further. Why they were chosen and which platform were from using? It need to be explain why they are relevant to the study?

4) Conclusion is rather short. Author should expand the conclusion a bit. Also, authors should include Limitation and Future Recommendation at the end of the paper.

Again. Great job! Good luck with the revision and hope you can improve your study with the aforementioned suggestions. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing this manuscript. I have provided a point-to-point response to your comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to improve the paper entitled The Impact of User Benefits on Continuous Contribution Behavior: Based on the Perspective of SOR Theory, with the objective of investigating the mechanism of user benefits on continuous contribution behavior in open innovation communities based on the stimulus-organism-response (S-O-R) theory, which creatively takes self-verification as a member of the organism (O).

Abstract - Objective stated, method informed, main results presented, relevance explained. Good.

1. Introduction. Line 68,please include the reference near the nominal citation: Additionally, Strauss et al. "[16] proposed ..., as done in lines 741 and 742.

The state of the art presented, aim stated, main results presented. Good.

2. Literature Review. Lines 159, 163,168, 176, 188, 201 to 203, 211: Please use the numbered system of reference.

Line 193: Please correct: "According to Zhu et al. "[43]"

3. Hypothesis. Line 296, please correct citation position.

Good structure of presenting the Hypotheses. Congratulations.

4. Research Methodology. Well structured.

5. Results. Well presented.

6. Discussion. Please correct line 779: "First of all, First, enterprises..."

7. Conclusions. Well structured. Limitations and future studies proposed.

Congratulations, very good work.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing this manuscript. I have provided a point-to-point response to your comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The findings and discussion need to be improved and more detail to justify the objectives of the research, as well as the hypothesis that has been developed. The discussion and conclusion should relate more strongly supported and arguments from theoretical and other relevant studies. 

Please check the grammar and arrangement of sentences, which there is too long sentences, with no essence. Rearrange it so it is more direct to what you want to highlight. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing this manuscript. I have provided a point-to-point response to your comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx