Smart Homes as Catalysts for Sustainable Consumption: A Digital Economy Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of this paper is interesting, the paper is very well structured and the results are presented clearly. The study employs an extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2) model, and then integrates factors like convenience, health and well-being, environmental impact to assess the determinants influencing the adoption of smart home technologies. Obviously, this work is the result of extensive and exhaustive research and it contains a review of studies for quite a long period and quite a lot of topics. The fact that literature list contains 119 papers is really astonishing.  All that ensures us that a lot of effort has been made.

There are four tables and two graphical figures in the text. Tables are quite long, but eventhough clear. Table 4 presents in quite a good way comparison of tested hypotheses in the given paper and 11 more papers.

The conclusions are consistent with the rest of the paper. The conclusion part is not very long, but it gives the most important things - what are the trends and what are the limitations of the research. It is a valuable thing here that the authors are aware of all the limitations and that they intend to solve them in their future work.

The overall impression of this paper is very nice!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your positive feedback on our manuscript. We are pleased that you found the topic interesting, the structure well-organized, and the results clearly presented.

We appreciate your recognition of our extensive research, the comprehensive literature review, and the clarity of our tables and figures. Your acknowledgment of our efforts is highly gratifying.

Thank you for your encouraging words.

Best regards,

The Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a fairly interesting study and the author's writing is relatively standard. I see that the author is submitting to the Special Issue on "Sustainable Consumption in the Digital Economy," which is a good fit. I would like to offer a few suggestions to help the author improve:

First, UTAUT2 in the abstract should be capitalized.

Second, the introduction is too long, with some repetitive statements. I suggest compressing it appropriately. For example, there is no need to write about the history of smart homes.

Third, the last paragraph of the introduction could consider summarizing the research contributions.

Fourth, Figure 1 should be redrawn using software like Word or Visio.

Fifth, data collection should be more specific, such as what kind of platform SurveyMonkey is and how you screened for suitable people to fill out the survey?

Sixth, the format of Table 2 should be optimized.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for Your valuable feedback on our manuscript.

In response to your suggestions, we have made the following changes:

• UTAUT2 in the abstract has been capitalized.
• The introduction has been compressed by removing repetitive statements and the history of smart homes.
• We have added a summary of the research contributions in the last paragraph of the introduction.
• Figure 1 has been redrawn using appropriate software.
• The section on data collection has been expanded to include details about the SurveyMonkey platform and the screening process for survey participants.
• The format of Table 2 has been optimized for better readability.
• Figure 2 has been removed as it was deemed unnecessary for the revised manuscript.
• We hope these changes meet your expectations and enhance the quality of our article.

Best regards,

The Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors approach an interesting subject related to the intention of the adoption of smart home technologies. However, there are several issues which, in my opinion, authors should necessarily address.

(1) The abstract needs to be improved. In the first sentence in the abstract, it is necessary for the authors to add a sentence to describe the problem or motivation to focus on this topic. The second sentence should provide the literature gap. In the third sentence, the authors should describe research process, and then provide the empirical findings. Finally, the significance of the finding should be offered.

(2) The introduction needs significant improvement. I think the authors confused the introduction and literature review. In the introduction you need to connect the state of the art to your paper goals. Authors should demonstrate identified gaps in the current scientific literature and relate them to the goals of their article. They should also reason both the novelty and the relevance of the article goals. Later in the article, the authors put forward hypotheses, which is consistent with the art of writing scientific articles. However, the introduction lacks the research questions these hypotheses answer. Therefore, it is necessary to present them. Answering research questions should become the goal of the article. I suggest that you show your research questions right after presenting your research gap. Then you should write a few sentences about the methods that were used to answer the research questions (survey - as a data collection method and structural equation modeling - as an analytical method). Then you should present the scope of the article (description of what is in each section).

(3) The Literature Review. Unfortunately, this section does not exist. You absolutely need to add the section “Literature Review”. It should consist of two subsections: 1) description of the subject of research: smart homes, and 2) development of research hypotheses. Lines 37 to 161 could be in subsection one (there is a good description of what smart homes are). Lines 170 to 381 could be in subsection two (the authors derived their hypotheses correctly however, they mislabeled hypothesis H13). This structure of the literature review is typical of articles using structural equation modeling as the main analytical method.

(4) The Materials and Methods section should better describe the steps in the analytical procedure. I suggest four subsections: 1) Test Model, 2) The Research Process, 3) Questionnaire Structure, 4) Research Sample.

Include Figure 1 in the Test Model subsection. However, please correct Figure 1 as its current form is unacceptable. Figure 1 cannot be generated by Smart PLS. Use the text boxes and arrows available in MS Word. Draw the constructs as ellipses (Safety and Security, Performance Expectancy, etc.)  and above the arrows label the hypotheses (H1a-H13) derived in the Hypothesis development subsection. Do not introduce rectangles as observable variables in this model.

In the Research Process subsection describe in more detail the procedures of the measurement model (explanation of validity and reliability measures along with their required threshold values for factor loadings, AVE, CR, Cronbach's alpha). Describe how you understand discriminant analysis and the criteria used there). Then describe the procedures of the structural model and hypotheses testing (describe how you performed bootstrapping). Describe how you understand path analysis, R squared, f squared.

In the Questionnaire Structure subsection present your questionnaire.  Prepare a table showing the names of the constructs and observable variables - questions in your questionnaire (Appendix A is an excellent material for constructing such a table). The presentation of a questionnaire is absolutely required in articles based on structural equation modeling. This way, the reader can check what questions you used to measure the constructs. The proposed table will also supplement Figure 1.

In the Research Sample subsection, you can include line 391-408. However, add tables or drawings visualizing the structure of the research sample. Write in which country the research was conducted.

(5) In the Results section, stick to the division into measurement model and structural model (for now, you have everything in one subsection). Separate individual tables with text explaining how you interpret the results (presenting the tables one after the other is not an elegant solution). Table 2 does not fit on the page (consider entering numbers in the rows (for constructs) and using these numbers in the columns, this way you will fit on the page). The p-value column is missing in Table 3. Please complete this. In the Path column you use abbreviations that can also be added to table 1 (construct name abbreviations). The table with the R squared values ​​is missing.

 

(6) You wrote a nice discussion of the results. However, in addition to comparison with the literature, add more comments regarding the socio-economic issue of interpretation of your results. In your opinion, what social, economic, and political conditions (in the country where the respondents come from) influenced the research results? Do you think this had an impact on certain hypotheses being supported and others rejected?

 

(7) Conclusions. This section should be divided into three subsections. Please write a brief conclusion (describe if you answered research question and how many of your hypotheses were supported). Then create subsection “Theoretical and practical implications” (describe in more details what implications of your research you see for theory and practice). Create a last subsection "Limitations and directions for future research” (describe what limitations you see in your research and what advice you would give to those who would like to continue your research).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have made the following changes in response to your suggestions:

1. Abstract: We have improved the abstract by adding a sentence to describe the problem and motivation, detailing the literature gap, outlining the research process, presenting empirical findings, and highlighting the significance of the results.
2. Introduction: We have significantly revised the introduction to distinguish it from the literature review, connecting the state of the art to our paper's goals. We identified gaps in the current literature, related them to our article's goals, and added research questions that our hypotheses address.
3. Literature Review: We added a new "Literature Review" section with two subsections: a description of smart homes and the development of research hypotheses, reorganizing relevant content from the original introduction.
4. Materials and Methods: This section has been reorganized into four subsections: Test Model, Research Process, Questionnaire Structure, and Research Sample. Figure 1 has been redrawn. We detailed the validity and reliability measures.
5. Results: We separated the results into measurement and structural model sections, providing interpretive text between tables. We optimized the format of the tables for better readability, including the missing p-value column.
6. Discussion: We expanded the discussion to include comments on the socio-economic implications of our results, considering the influence of social, economic, and political conditions on the research findings.
7. Conclusions: We divided the conclusion section into three subsections: a brief conclusion summarizing the research questions and hypotheses, theoretical and practical implications, and limitations and directions for future research.
8. Figure 2 has been removed as it was deemed unnecessary for the revised manuscript.

We hope these revisions meet Your expectations and improve the quality of our manuscript.

Once again, we sincerely thank You for your exceptionally thorough and thoughtful review.

Best regards

The Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I would like to thank the Authors for carefully correcting the article in accordance with my comments. Good job. Congratulations!