Impact of E-Government Initiatives to Combat Corruption Mediating by Behavioral Intention: A Quantitative Analysis from Emerging Economies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper suffers from the following drawbacks.

First, how the data is collected is not clearly described. It is stated that “[the] sample data for this study was collected using the online questionnaires survey employing a 5-point Likert scale.” [lines 173-174] However, the paper did not discuss how the authors distributed the online questionnaire and how did they deal with the possible sampling issues.  These issues are especially important because the authors reported that 308 out of the 680 respondents are government officials.  It is important to understand how they could approach the government officials for filling out the questionnaire. It is also not clear when the survey was conducted, how the responses were collected, and what the response rate was. Without all the above-mentioned information, it is impossible to take the findings as seriously and do the subsequent analysis.

Second, the authors have not clearly described the exact questions that were asked in the survey. For instance, the paper just reported that “[r]espondents were asked to rate their opinion using the survey's transparency elements based on their attributes” (lines 210-2110) and that [r]espondents were requested to rate their opinion using the survey's elements based on their perception of government accountability in their country (lines 222-223).  How the questions were asked matters a lot to the reliability of the findings. Whether the questions were asked with sufficient clarity and in an appropriate way determines the quality of the survey.  Once again, without all the above-mentioned information, it is impossible to take the findings as seriously and do the subsequent analysis.

Third, the paper mentioned that they their hypothesis using simple linear regression analysis (line 260). However, they have not specified their regression models and presented the regression results in standard format.  It is impossible for the reader to assess whether the regression models are specified reasonable way and whether there are spurious results.

Furthermore, there are sentences with confusing meaning. Examples include but not limited to the following.

1. "Finally, the paper illuminates E-government succession on reducing corruption, which can pave the way for future research” (lines 22-23). I am wonder if “succession” should read “success”.

2. “As a result, corporate accountability is more considerate than discrete ones” (lines 130-131).  The paper suddenly mentions “corporate accountability” and contrast it with “discrete ones”, which is difficult to comprehend in the context of the discussion about government accountability.

 

Author Response

Impact of E-government initiatives to Combat Corruption Mediating by Behavioral Intention: A Quantitative Analysis from Emerging Economies

 

Response to Reviwer 1

 

First, how the data is collected is not clearly described. It is stated that “[the] sample data for this study was collected using the online questionnaires survey employing a 5-point Likert scale.” [lines 173-174] However, the paper did not discuss how the authors distributed the online questionnaire and how did they deal with the possible sampling issues.  These issues are especially important because the authors reported that 308 out of the 680 respondents are government officials.  It is important to understand how they could approach the government officials for filling out the questionnaire. It is also not clear when the survey was conducted, how the responses were collected, and what the response rate was. Without all the above-mentioned information, it is impossible to take the findings as seriously and do the subsequent analysis.

 

Response:

Dear Reviwer,

First of all, thank you very much for your kind comments which would be very helpful for this study to improve after revision with your kind suggestions. (Following paragraph is added in the Sampling and data collection section (from line 176 to

The sample data for this study was collected using an online survey questionnaire employing a five-point Likert scale. The online survey questionnaires were disseminated in different social media platforms (for instance, Facebook, Instagram,and twitter) to comprehend the perception of general public regarding impact of E-government on corruption eradication through behavioral intentions of inhabitants of the country between April and May 2022. Regarding sample data collected from 308 government officials, we sent emails to their official email IDs obtained from Government of Pakistan management website where emails of 949 officials are available (for Pakistan), and from ministry of public administration (for Bangladesh) where contact information including email IDs are available for 639 government officials. A polite reminder email was sent after two weeks of the first email. Out of total 1588 government official contact through emails, 308 officials responded and the response rate was 19.39% which found adequate in previous research (Wangrow et. al., 2019).

Furthermore, the study has used a cross-sectional research design to respond to the research questions. These practices can be found in the previous literature (Wang et. al., 2021). Likewise, with this research design, studies are thought to be subjected to common method biases. However, to address the issue of common method biases Harman’s one-factor test was employed. And the results obtained from running the test confirmed that there is no issue of common method biases in the study. Employing this technique to confirm the common method is a common practice (Wang et. al., 2021).

 

Second, the authors have not clearly described the exact questions that were asked in the survey. For instance, the paper just reported that “[r]espondents were asked to rate their opinion using the survey's transparency elements based on their attributes” (lines 210-2110) and that [r]espondents were requested to rate their opinion using the survey's elements based on their perception of government accountability in their country (lines 222-223).  How the questions were asked matters a lot to the reliability of the findings. Whether the questions were asked with sufficient clarity and in an appropriate way determines the quality of the survey.  Once again, without all the above-mentioned information, it is impossible to take the findings as seriously and do the subsequent analysis.

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for your kind comment and suggestion. As per your kind comment regarding questions asked in the survey, details of the questions are given in section 3.2 variables measurements. Transparency contains five questions (lines 226-233), Accountability has 5 questions (lines 238-244), behavioral intenion five questions (lines 249-256), and corruption reduction contains five questions (lines 260-268). All questions are given in details and they can be complied in a single survey questionnaire if recommended please.

The above mentioned questions were asked directly from citizens and government officials and the responses were collected and examined to test their reliability and validity. Constructs’ reliability and validity findings are provided in Table 3 where Chronbach’s Alpha and composite reliability are above 0.8 which is above minimum threshold. We argue that all the questions asked in our survey were very clear and understandable for the respondents to aswer according to their perception please.

Third, the paper mentioned that they their hypothesis using simple linear regression analysis (line 260). However, they have not specified their regression models and presented the regression results in standard format.  It is impossible for the reader to assess whether the regression models are specified reasonable way and whether there are spurious results.

 

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for highlighting very important issue and your kind suggestion. We used Multiple Linear regression as mentioned to test our hypotheses. We have included five models and presented them in the regression results in the standard format as suggested. The regression analysis can be seen on page 9 please.

 

Furthermore, there are sentences with confusing meaning. Examples include but not limited to the following.

"Finally, the paper illuminates E-government succession on reducing corruption, which can pave the way for future research” (lines 22-23). I am wonder if “succession” should read “success”.

Dear Reviewer: The word succession was used for success, hence, changed as recommended please.

2. “As a result, corporate accountability is more considerate than discrete ones” (lines 130-131).  The paper suddenly mentions “corporate accountability” and contrast it with “discrete ones”, which is difficult to comprehend in the context of the discussion about government accountability.

Dear Reviewer: Changed as recommended please. Previously, corporate accountability was meant as government accountability but due to confusion created for the readers, it is changed accordingly please.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

 Impact of E-government initiatives to Combat Corruption Mediating by Behavioral Intention: A Quantitative Analysis from Emerging Economies

 

1.     The organization of the research paper is missing at the end of the Introduction.

2.     The literature review of a few variables is too short. Need more elaboration.

3.     E-government is measured through transparency and accountability however, It is quite strange that the impact of E-government is checked on transparency and accountability. How can this be possible? An impact of a construct (e-government ) is checked on such sub-constructs (transparency and accountability ) that are used to measure the construct (e-government ). This seems to be a major flaw in this analysis.

4.      The result is not supported by previous work.

 

 

Author Response

Impact of E-government initiatives to Combat Corruption Mediating by Behavioral Intention: A Quantitative Analysis from Emerging Economies

 

Response to Reviwer 2

 

Response:

1. The organization of the research paper is missing at the end of the Introduction.

Dear Reviwer,

First of all, thank you very much for your kind comments which would be very helpful for this study to improve after revision with your kind suggestions. The organization of the research paper is added at the end of the introduction from Line 64 to Line 67 please.

 

2. The literature review of a few variables is too short. Need more elaboration.

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your kind comment. As per your valuable suggestion, further theory is added in the literature review section from Line 77-87 to line 95-105 please.

3. E-government is measured through transparency and accountability however, It is quite strange that the impact of E-government is checked on transparency and accountability. How can this be possible? An impact of a construct (e-government ) is checked on such sub-constructs (transparency and accountability ) that are used to measure the construct (e-government ). This seems to be a major flaw in this analysis.

 

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for highlighting this issue that we missed in real. The construct E-government is not only assessed by calculating the mean value of two sub-constructs (transsparency and accountability) but we calculated this contruct using five elements mentioned between line 255 and 266 adapted from previous literature and then added mean value of the mentioned two contstruct the assess the strength of our construct. The findings demonstrated that E-government has strong impact on all exogenous latent variables.

4. The result is not supported by previous work.

Dear Reviewer:

As per your valuable comment and kind suggestion, the support for results from previous studies are added in the manuscript between line 475 and 479 please.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

- abstract need background before research purpose

- Sobel test in some evidence not valid again to supporting decision of mediation (need some validation from recently research to grounded this)

- Finding in abstract not explain your result

- implication in abstract not clear

- not consistently eGovernment sometimes e-Government its look like not professional

- Introduction too short not show research phenomenon, research gap unclear

- Introduction need more data

- On the contrary, developing 52 countries have been ignored due to less implementation of e-government initiatives, and 53 relatively limited research is conducted on E-government implementation in emerging 54 economies like Jordan [18], Pakistan [19], and Bangladesh (why Jordan not inlude in your study, if not why you put in this section?)

- Need grand theory before hypothesis development

- spesific collecting data need explanation and technique analysis with formulation

- table need recreate for easy reading

- in discussion need comarison with recently research >2017

- some reference too old

- need comparison between country characteristics

-conclusion too confused and not answer all the research problems

-reduce your similarity

 

Author Response

Impact of E-government initiatives to Combat Corruption Mediating by Behavioral Intention: A Quantitative Analysis from Emerging Economies

 

Response to Reviwer 3

 

Response:

abstract need background before research purpose

Dear Reviwer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comment and kind recoomendation. Background is inncluded in introduction before research purpose between line 12 and 14.

Sobel test in some evidence not valid again to supporting decision of mediation (need some validation from recently research to grounded this)

Dear Reviwer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comment and kind recoomendation. The requied evidence from previous literature is added with reference between line 359 and 361.

Finding in abstract not explain your result

Dear Reviwer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comment and kind recoomendation. Details of results are added in abstract between line 22 and 25.

implication in abstract not clear

Dear Reviwer,

Short implications added between line 28 and 29

not consistently eGovernment sometimes e-Government its look like not professional

Dear Reviwer,

As per your kind recommendations, “E-government” is used consistently throughout the manuscript.

Introduction too short not show research phenomenon, research gap unclear, Introduction need more data

Dear Reviwer,

As per your kind recommendations, more relevant data with this study is added in introduction to make the clear picture and research gap in the first paragraph on introduction section from line 34 to line 47 please.

On the contrary, developing 52 countries have been ignored due to less implementation of e-government initiatives, and 53 relatively limited research is conducted on E-government implementation in emerging 54 economies like Jordan [18], Pakistan [19], and Bangladesh (why Jordan not inlude in your study, if not why you put in this section?)

Dear Reviwer,

As per your kind recommendations, Jordan is removed from the section. There was literature available regarding Jordan but the authors focused on two countries e.g., Pakistan and Bangladesh to investigate the hypothetical framework knowing the fact that there is willingness to implement E-government in both the countries. Thank you for your valuable comment.

Specific collecting data need explanation and technique analysis with formulation

Dear Reviwer,

Speicific data collection methods are explained and analysis techniques are given in section 3.1 Line 215 to 227.

table need recreate for easy reading

Dear Reviwer,

As per your kind recommendation, Table 2 is amended and created for easy reading please.

in discussion need comparison with recently research >2017 some reference too old

Dear Reviwer,

As per your kind recommendation, comparison with recent research is added in discussion between lines 493 and 497. The literature added consist of within last decade which may not be considered very old please.

need comparison between country characteristics

Dear Reviwer,

Both the countries e.g., Pakistan and Bangladesh were ONE country which were separated in 1971 into two independent countries, Bangladesh was separated from Pakistan. Overall characteristics of both countries are almost same but the characterstics of respondents from both countries are given in details in Table 2 please.

reduce your similarity

Dear Reviewer,

As per your kind recommendations, we have sent the manuscript for proofreading from a native speaking professional and similarities are reduced as much as possible.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

ok

Author Response

Thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

revision as requirement 

 

good enough

Author Response

Thank you very much

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf