Determinants of Farmer Participation and Development of Shallot Farming in Search of Effective Farm Management Practices: Evidence Grounded in Structural Equation Modeling Results

POINT-BY-POINT RESPONSES TO THE COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS

REVIEWER#1

A. The REVIEWER#1’S COMMENTS/ SUGGESTIONS

RESPONSES

Position in the pdf Manuscripts*

A GRATITUDE EXPRESSION

We are grateful for your important suggestions for our manuscript. Your feedback is invaluable, and it has helped us enhance the quality and clarity of the article. Your comments have provided insightful and valuable viewpoints, enhancing this work and providing key insights for future research development. We have comprehensively examined the research article and applied considerable revisions to the manuscript in accordance with the comments/suggestions offered by REVIEWER#1

REVIEWER#1’S STATEMENTS:

1)     The authors implemented an interesting and relevant study that provides new scientific ideas for the evaluation of agricultural and rural development policy. The research process is coherent and well-designed, and the authors have presented in detail the methods used and the results achieved.

OUR RESPONSES:

The remarks that you made suggesting that our research is interesting and relevant, providing new scientific ideas for the evaluation of agricultural and rural development programs, are very much appreciated and we are very grateful for them. The research procedure is logical and well-designed, and the authors have provided a detailed presentation of the practices that were utilized and the outcomes that were accomplished. We are going to be more motivated to accomplish more in the future as a result of your statements and recognition. Again, I am extremely grateful to you.

2)     I also have some questions, comments, and suggestions for the authors to improve the manuscript:

OUR RESPONSES:

We are quite grateful for the questions, comments, and recommendations that you have provided to the authors in order to enhance the manuscript. With great joy, we welcome all of that. We have provided a detailed response to each and every one of the questions, comments, and suggestions that were brought up below.

#1. I recommend that the authors define what they mean by "effective management practices" as defined in theory and why this is relevant to the production of shallots. Does it mean farm management or public decision-making? Are there no such practices in other agricultural activities?

Yes. Executed. Thanks a lot for your recommendation. We have already defined the phrase "effective management practices." Please refer to the definition in the last-two paragraph of the introduction section, as shown below (the dark-grey sentences):

Please go to Page 3, Lines  118-126

#2. In the last paragraph of section 1 I would recommend defining the structure of the article.

Yes. Done. Thank you very much for your recommendation. We already explained the article's structure in the last sentence of the last paragraph of the introduction section, as shown below:

Please go to Page 3, Lines  126-131

#3. The authors give a detailed justification for the choice of factors, but I think it is not clear to the reader:

Many, many thanks for the feedback you provided. We are open to receiving any and all constructive criticism that will help us enhance the quality of the manuscript.

N/A

§  Why the measures implemented by public authorities were not included as a factor in the study. The authors provide information in the article on government policy in the field of agriculture and rural development and they investigate the involvement of farmers.

We greatly appreciate the recommendation you provided. Your recommendation highlights the significance of incorporating "the measures implemented by public authorities" into the model. However, adding this factor to the current study's model will be challenging for two reasons: 1) The timeframe provided was limited to 1–10 days. We cannot, of course, regress the model within the given timeframe. 2) Adding one factor will contribute to the overall change in the manuscript. Regardless, we will retain your suggestion for future research. Thanks a lot for a fantastic idea.

N/A

§  Why did the authors not include important indicators such as farm income and profit when assessing economic factors?

Again, thank you very much for this excellent idea to include farm income and profit. Yes, you are correct. From the model that we examined, we did not include it in the latent variable, but we included it as one of the indicator variables for the Latent Variable of Shallot Farming Development with the name "Y2.4. Shallot Revenue Increase.” Please refer to Table 1.

Please go to Page 9, Lines  420-421

§  I would propose that this be explained in the text.

Please accept our apologies, we are unable to determine which one should be explained in the manuscript. As a result, we do not have any responses to offer at this time.

N/A

#[4]. In the comments, it was written #3.

The authors measure impact with variables such as farmer involvement in planning, monitoring, and evaluation. It is not clear for which entity the farmers are planning indicators, whether it is indicators for the farm, the agricultural sector, or some other entity.

Thank you a lot for this comment. In this study, we measured farmer participation in planning, executing, monitoring, and evaluating on a 5-point Likert scale (5-PLS). For example, in measuring farmer participation in shallot farming development (for the farm), we provided a statement like this: “The farmer participates in the planning stage of shallot farming development." The farmer's response will then fall into one of the 5-PLS categories, such as "agree." This method will be applicable for monitoring, executing, evaluating and evaluating.

N/A

#[5]. In the comments, it was written #4.

The experience of the respondents has a strong influence on the evaluation of the phenomena. In the analysis of the survey data, all respondents were taken as homogeneous. Why were only respondents involved in shallots producer organizations selected? Did this not influence the results of the study? Could this be mentioned as a limitation of the study?

Yes, you are exactly right. "The respondents' experience" in managing their shallot farming is a crucial indicator that has significantly influenced the evaluation of farmer participation and the development of shallot farming. We missed this important variable. Therefore, we concur with your insightful suggestion to include this variable as a study limitation. We have included the limitations of the study at the end of the section, right after the conclusions and recommendations section, as shown below:

Please go to Page 25, Lines  1039-1048

POINT-BY-POINT RESPONSES TO THE COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS

REVIEWER#2

A. The REVIEWER#1’S COMMENTS/ SUGGESTIONS

RESPONSES

Position in the pdf Manuscripts*

A GRATITUDE EXPRESSION

We appreciate your important suggestions for our manuscript. Your feedback is invaluable and has helped us improve the article's quality and clarity. Your comments have provided insightful and helpful perspectives, improving this study and providing important suggestions for future research improvement. We thoroughly reviewed the study article and made significant adjustments to the manuscript in response to REVIEWER#2's comments and suggestions.

§  Overall, the research proposed is interesting and topical. Using SEM methodology, the authors identified significance of six latent variables, constructed from observed variables, which were assessed though a survey instrument distributed to 150 farmers.

Thank you very much for expressing your appreciation for the manuscript and stating that the research is interesting and topical. We are going to be more inspired to accomplish more in the future as a direct result of the statements and acknow-ledgment that you have provided. I would like to express my gratitude to you once more.

N/A

§  One of my concerns is related to the fact that SEM analysis requires large datasets given its depen-dency on correlation. I wonder if 150 datapoints were enough, considering potential - although not mentioned in the paper - missing data or non-linearity.

Yes. You are correct in questioning the research sample size. As far as we know, in the beginning of the development of the SEM method as a statistical analysis in the social sciences, we learned that we needed a large sample to employ it. In the subsequent evolution of the SEM, along with the development of statistical software for the SEM, such as AMOS and Smart-PLS, we have come to understand that a large sample size for the SEM application does not pose any significant challenges. We can perform SEM analysis with a small sample size. For instance, we could run Smart-PLS with a sample size of less than 100. In our case, using AMOS software, a sample size of 150 respondents is considered medium (100–200). Please refer to Memon et al. (2020), reference No. 112. Additionally, we have included your concern as a limitation of the study, as outlined below:

Please go to Page 25, Lines  1039-1048

§  Some premises are strange such as the proposition of conflicting objectives (i.e. "negotiations") bet-ween communities' expectations and government desires. What are government desires if not to serve their communities? This is no longer dis-cussed in the conclusion which in fact points out that Political System of Farming Community is the most relevant latent variable. Also concerning this variable, it takes different names throughout the paper, please keep consistency (i.e., Political System of Farming Community, Farming Com-munity Political Systesm, System of Political Peasant Society).

§ Please accept my sincere gratitude for your comments in this point. Regarding the sentences that are marked with a red line, we are obligated to acknowledge that our comprehension of them is restricted. As a result, we are unable to extend any responses at this time.

§ Next, you accurately pointed out that the names of the variables were inconsistent. Thank you very much for remind-ing us of this point. In response, we have already made con-sistent improvements. For example, please refer to the green sentences in the entire manuscript, as shown below for an example:

N/A

Please go to Page 18, Lines  734-740

§  In fact, the model is first described in relation to the Peasant Society and then suddenly variable names are changed, replacing Peasant Society by farming communities", or so it seems. Please keep variable names consistent so one can follow the model description.

Yes. You are exactly right. Thanks a lof for your remarks. As we said above, we have already made consistent improvements. For example, please refer to the green sentences in the entire manuscript, as shown below.

Please go to Page 10, Lines  425-428

§  Another strong assumption is made on line 126 that extensive land contours indicate a steeper slope. A correlation in one specific study does not imply causation. Does this assumption affect the model?

Thanks a lot for your constructive criticism. Yes, your point that “a correlation in one specific study does not imply causation” is exactly correct. The statement “extensive land contours indicate a steeper slope” was the result of a study. As you pointed out, this statement does not necessarily imply causation. However, we need to write such a statement in advance to describe it as a previous research result, which we will confirm if our research supports it.

N/A

Some specific editorial comments:

#1.  I imagine the intention was to create a catchy title, but I personally find "Determinants deter-mining" a poor choice of words. Other similar cases are seen throughout the paper. for exam-ple, on line 77 "farmers participate in the parti-cipation process". 

§ Yes, you accurately pointed out that our purpose in utilizing the term "determinants determining" was to craft a captivating title that would pique readers' interest, with the expectation that they would delve deeper into our article should it be published. On the other hand, your assertion that the word choice was poor may be valid, given that none of the authors are native English speakers. Anyway, if it meets grammatical standards, please allow us to use the phrase "determinants determining".

§ Next, in the case of the sentence "farmers participate in the participation process", we have already improved it, as pre-sented below:

N/A

Please go to Page 2, Lines  75-77

#2. The acronym MDG appears first without its full form on page 1.

Yes. Thanks a lot for your comments. We have already added its full form, “Millennium Development Goals," as shown below:

Please go to Page 1, Lines  52-53

#3. There are several gaps in the text, please review formatting.

Yes. We have already improved them. Please re-assess the re-vised manuscript provided.

#4. Check for and delete repetitions such as lines 53 and 56.

Yes. We have already deleted it. Please re-assess the revised manuscript provide, as shown below:

Please go to Page 1-2, Lines  53-56

#5. there is no need to keep repeating "LV (Latent variable)"

Yes, we acknowledge that repeating the "LV" (latent variable) is somewhat unnecessary. Nonetheless, we accomplished it. This is because it is more straightforward for us to write "the LV of the socio-cultural system of peasant society" rather than "the variable of the socio-cultural system of peasant society." Whenever we discuss a specific variable, for instance, "the socio-cultural system of peasant society," we should incorporate the term "variable," or LV, to distinguish it from the standard sentence.

N/A

#6. some references are missing 

Yes. We have already improved the references and added some new references. Please re-assess the revised manuscript pro-vided.

N/A

POINT-BY-POINT RESPONSES TO THE COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS

REVIEWER#3

A. The REVIEWER#3’S COMMENTS/ SUGGESTIONS

RESPONSES

Position in the pdf Manuscripts*

A GRATITUDE EXPRESSION

We value your insightful comments on our manuscript. We have greatly benefited from your input, which has helped us make the post clearer and better. Your insightful and beneficial comments have improved this study and made significant recommendations for further research advancement. In response, we carefully examined the study paper and revised the manuscript in light of the recommendations and remarks provided by REVIEWER #3.

#1. Please add more latest journals

Your suggestion here is very appreciated. Yes. We have added 16 latest journals related to the topics of participation and shallot farming. Please refer to the blue-references in the references section of the manuscript, as shown below:

We have also added some additional references (yellow-references) in response to the suggestions made by other reviewers, as indicated below:

Please go to Page 26, Lines 1095-1100.

Please go to Page 27, Lines 1135-1141.

#2. Please provide further explanation on ‘The Conceptual Framework of the Research’.

We would like to express my gratitude for your ideas regarding this matter. Yes. We have already executed. We added the definition and function of a conceptual framework to scientific research. Please refer to the dark-brown-highlighted sentences on page 7 and yellow references.

Please go to Page 7, Lines 325-338.

#3. Please supplement and explain the academic significance and contribution of this research.

Thank you very much for your advice. We agree that the academic relevance and contribution of a research should be openly stated. In response, we have already explained the research's significance and contribution to the advancement of shallot farming. Please refer to the light-green-sentences in the final paragraph of the introduction section, as shown below:

Please go to Page 2, Lines 110-118.

POINT-BY-POINT RESPONSES TO THE COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS

REVIEWER#4

A. The REVIEWER#3’S COMMENTS/ SUGGESTIONS

RESPONSES

Position in the pdf Manuscripts*

A GRATITUDE EXPRESSION

Thank you for providing us with such informative feedback on our manuscript. We have profited tremendously from your contribution, which has assisted us in making the post more understandable and even better. It is because of your informative and helpful remarks that this study has been enhanced, and you have offered vital recommendations for the improvement of research in the future. As a response, we conducted a thorough review of the research article and made modifications to the text in light of the comments and suggestions that were supplied by REVIEWER #4.

#1. The topic is interesting, the authors have made an interesting assessment, which is attractive to relevant researcher. The subject of “Determi-nants Determining the Farmer Participation and the Development of Shallot Farming in Search of Effective Farm Management Practices” fits in the general scope of sustainability. Just, I suggest some modifications to further improve the quality of the article.

§ We greatly appreciate your positive feedback on the manuscript, particularly about the interesting issue and the authors' insightful assessment. Your comment about the title aligning with the broader scope of sustainability is also noted. Your comments and acknowledgment have directly inspired us to achieve more in the future. We would like to reiterate my appreciation to you.

§ We would like to express our appreciation for the questions, comments, and suggestions that you have offered to the authors in order to improve the manuscript. All of that is something that we are very happy to have.

N/A

N/A

#2. Abstract: The sentence meaning is repeated in the abstract (for example, Lines 27 to 31,”positive and significant influence on farmer participation” and “promote farmer participa-tion” actually means the same thing), yet the research findings or conclusions are not clear and specific enough.

§ Thanks a lot for your comment on this point. You are right by saying “the sentence meaning is repeated in the abstract." We have improved it by adding the word “laten variable." Here is the improvement statement: “on the latent variable of farmer participation. Therefore, the improvements in the physical aspects of land, the economic framework, and the political structure of agricultural communities could promote farmer participation." The first-yellow “farmer participantion” is the variable name, and the second-green “farmer participantion” is a general phrase. So, please re-assess the sentences in the abstract section on the revised manuscript.

N/A

#3. Introduction and Literature Review: The intro-duction should focus on the topic of the essay: the Farmer Participation and the Development of Shallot Farming in Search of Effective Farm Management Practices.The current writing is too scattered and does not highlight and get straight to the point.

§ Thank you for your constructive criticism at this time. We have updated the introduction section, particularly the final paragraph. Please review the improved sentences/paragraphs in the paper.

§ Yes. You are essentially correct when you say that the literature review lacks focus and doesn't provide a clear and concise explanation. As you are already aware, the literature review comprises eight latent variables. So we have to strike a balance among them in our explanation. We avoid focusing solely on two latent variables: farmer participation and shallot farming development. Perhaps we're not understanding your point correctly.

N/A

N/A

#4. The literature review does not explain why the review is carried out from the following 6 aspects, and the content is lengthy, and it is suggested that it can be merged and streamlined appropriately. In parallel with the previous six parts, section 2.7 is not only a literature review, but also the establishment of the conceptual framework of this paper, and the content is confused. Part 2.7 mentions that there are six latent variables, but there are actually eight in total (X and Y)

§ We want to express my gratitude for the statement you made regarding this matter. There is no particular rationale behind our decision to select the six exogenous latent variables (EXLVs). What we know is that our literature review served as the basis for the selection of the six EXLVs.

§ Within our second response, we address your issue regarding "the lengthy content of the EXLVs (and the other two latent variables)" that you made. This was done as a result of the fact that each latent variable was composed of four indicator variables. We made an effort to include each indicator variable into the latent variable that corresponded to it.

§ Thank you for your comment on Section 2.7. Yes, Section 2.7 refers to "the conceptual framework of the study." We incorporated it inside the literature review section because the conceptual framework is based on the review's conclusions.

§ Yes. You are exactly right. There are eight latent variables in total. We already improved it, as shown below:

N/A

N/A

N/A

Please go to Page 7, Lines  338-339

#5. The measurement unit of the observed variables in Table 1 are all 5-point Likert Scale, but the specific measurement unit division standard is not explained

Thank you very much for your criticism at this point. However, we regret to inform you that we do not understand the meaning of "the specific measurement unit division standard." As a result, we have no idea how to respond.

N/A

#6. Research Method: The research site map is not legible or standardized (it lacks basic map elements such as scale and compass). The description of Part 3.2 is very detailed. You are advised to simplify it and only explain the key steps

§  Yes. You are correct in stating that the research site map is not legible or standardized (it lacks basic map elements such as scale and compass). We respond that the purpose of including a map without a scale and compass in the manuscript is to illustrate to the readers the location of the research site on a global map. By observing the map, the reader can visualize the research we conducted. It is completely different from an architect's point of view.

§  Thank you so much for your guidance at this point. Yes, it is possible that the description in sub-section 3.2 is fairly detailed. After carefully evaluating the sentences in that sub-section, we discovered that we might perhaps remove some of them, as shown below, while keeping others intact. The deleted sentences no longer appear in the revised manuscript.

In the revised manuscript, the deleted sentences will appear as follow:

These sentences have already deleted in revised manuscript.

Please go to Page 3, Lines 132-139

#7. It is suggested to make it clear in the data col-lection section, whether the sample size of res-pondents is 1500 or 150? How is the question-naire designed?

Yes. Executed. Thank you for your insightful suggestions. We've already checked it extensively. We later realized that you were totally correct. We made a mistake by providing an imprecise sample size. The sample size for this study was 150 respondents. The revision is displayed below:

Please go to Page 3, Lines 517-524.

#8. Results and Discussions: The annotations in Figures 4 and 5 are not clear and standardized.

Yes. Done. We have already enlarged Figures 4 and 5 to make them accessible to everyone. We hope this action will make the figures clear. Please re-assess the figures.

N/A

#9. “The results of Structural Equation Modeling test presented in Table 7” should be analyzed in the results section, not in the discussion section. It is suggested that the discussion section should conduct in-depth and comparative discussion on the key contents according to the results. It would be better if the authors can supplement the subtitle of research contributions, and recommendations of future studies.

§  I am quite grateful for your recommendation. We adhere to the standards for authors, which include including sections on both the results and the discussions in this particular instance. Taking this into consideration, we separated the results and the discussions into their own sections. What we understand from the guideline, we discuss the result of Table 7 in the discussion section. It is possible that our comprehension of this issue is lacking. If such is the case, please accept our heartfelt apologies.

§ Yes, we already created a specific section “limitattion of the study” just after the conclusions and recommendation section, where we suggest two recommendations of future studies. Please re-assess the new section in the revised manuscript, as shown below:

N/A

Please go to Page 25, Lines  1039-1048

#10. Conclusions and Recommendations: It is sug-gested that express the conclusions with serial numbers “Recommendations” need to be put into the discussion section.

Your advice is greatly appreciated. Yes, we have updated the format of the conclusion and recommendations section. As you can see, we have divided the section into two sub-sections: research conclusions and relevant recommendations. We drew conclusions and made suggestions based on a paper by Luo et al. (2024) published in Sustainability. In this article, the sugges-tions/ recommendations to be put in just after the conclusions, as presented below:

For the detail, please visit it in https://doi.org/10.3390/su16073094

N/A

Please go to Page 24, Lines  996-1002

#11. In addition, It is suggested to supplement the standard article chapter title and sub-title in order to better understand the logical relation-ship of the article content(For example, at the end of 4.1, the sequence number of 13 impor-tant points conflicts with the level 1 heading sequence number).

It is with deep regret that we have to say that we do not fully comprehend this suggestion. Accordingly, we are unsure of how we should respond to this suggestion because of this.

N/A

#12. It is best to indent the first line of a paragraph according to the writing rules.

Yes. Thank you for the suggestion. The first line of each para-graph has already been indented, as shown below for an example.

Please go to Page 1, Lines  42-46

#13. The number of references in the article seems excessive.

Certainly, you are correct. The amount of references that are included in the manuscript is excessive, despite the fact that we added some of them in response to the recommendations made by the other reviewers. Now, we have 140 references.

Please go to references section on Page 26-32.

POINT-BY-POINT RESPONSES TO THE COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS

REVIEWER#2

A. The REVIEWER#2’S COMMENTS/ SUGGESTIONS

RESPONSES

Position in the pdf Manuscripts*

ROUND 2: Comments and Suggestions for Authors: Thank you for addressing my comments.

OUR THANKFUL EXPRESSIONS

We appreciate your valuable recommendations for our manuscript. Your feedback is vital, and it has helped us enhance the article's quality and clarity. Your comments gave interesting and helpful viewpoints, which improved this study and made crucial recommendations for future research. We carefully evaluated the study article and made significant changes to the paper in accordance to REVIEWER#2's criticisms and suggestions.

POINT-BY-POINT RESPONSES TO THE COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS

REVIEWER#3

A. The REVIEWER#3’S COMMENTS/ SUGGESTIONS

RESPONSES

Position in the pdf Manuscripts

OUR THANKFUL EXPRESSION

We are grateful for the valuable recommendations you have provided for our manuscript in the first and second rounds. You have provided us with vital feedback, which has assisted us in enhancing the quality and clarity of the content. By sharing viewpoints that are both informative and useful, your comments have contributed to the enhancement of this study and have made vital suggestions for the improvement of future research.

Q#1.  Figure 3. The Research Process and Design is a very good design supplement, but I recommend that researchers further supplement steps 1 and 4 of this figure in detail. In addition, I suggest that ‘Figure 3’ can be described in more words.

The thoughts and recommendations that you provided are very much appreciated. In order to provide a more comprehensive explanation of Figure 3, we have, in fact, already included a few additional words. Please refer to the red lines in the section of 3.3. Research Process and Design, as presented below:

Please go to Page 10, Lines 437-441

POINT-BY-POINT RESPONSES TO THE COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS

REVIEWER#4

A. The REVIEWER#4’S COMMENTS/ SUGGESTIONS

RESPONSES

Position in the pdf Manuscripts

OUR THANKFUL EXPRESSIONS

We appreciate your important suggestions for our manuscript in Round 1 and 2. Your feedback is invaluable and has helped us improve the article's quality and clarity. Your comments have provided insightful and helpful perspectives, improving this study and providing important suggestions for future research improvement. We thoroughly reviewed the study article and made significant adjustments to the manuscript in response to REVIEWER#4's comments and suggestions.

Q#1.  Introduction and Literature Review: The literature review does not explain why the review is carried out from the following 6 aspects (2.1--2.6), it is suggested to add a paragraph of explanation. Part 2.1-2.6 mentions that there are six latent variables (2.1-2.6), but in this study there were eight Latent Variables (LV) in total (X and Y) according to the author (part 2.7, Lines 339-340). In parallel with the previous six parts, section 2.7 is not only a literature review, but also the establishment of the conceptual framework of this paper, and the content is confused. It is suggested that this section can be placed in the Research Methods section.

The measurement unit of the observed variables in Table 1 are all 5-point Likert Scale, but the specific measurement unit division standard is not explained, for example, from 1 to 5, which value represents high Land Suitability and which value indicates low land suitability.

§  Many thanks for the suggestions that you provided. To answer your question, yes, we have already included a paragraph at the beginning of the section on the literature review to explain the six exogenous latent variables we expected to would have an effect on the farmer participation and shallot farming development. The following sentences, which are highlighted in yellow, are for your reference:

§ Thanks a lot for remembering us at this point. We urgently need to include this information in Table 1. Yes, we have added a description of the specific measurement unit division standard that you recommended explaining. Please refer to the green sentences in the last line of Table 1, as presented below:

Please go to Page 3, Lines 132-141.

Please go to Table 1 on Page 9.

Q#2.   Research Method: The research site map is not legible or standardized (it lacks basic map elements such as scale and compass).

We are very appreciative of your suggestion to change the research site map. Yes, EXECUTED. Now, the map performs better than before, as shown below. Thanks a lot again for your suggestion.

Please go to Figure 2 on Page 8.

Q#3. In addition, it is suggested to supplement the standard article chapter title and sub-title in order to better understand the logical relation-ship of the article content. At the end of 4.1, the sequence number of “13 important points” conflicts with the level 1 heading se-quence number, it is recommended to change the serial number to (1) - (13).

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Yes, DONE. We have already changed the serial number to (1) – (13), as depicted in green sentences below:

Please go to Page 21-22, Lines 795-827.

Q#4. The number of references in the article seems excessive. It is recommended to simplify the number of references.

Thanks a lot for your recommendation. We have already simplified the number of references. Now we have 126 references in total, as shown below. To accommodate a reviewer's suggestion to add more relevant references in the first round, we simply deleted 14 references. So having 126 references is now somewhat of a win-win solution for us.

Please go to the last page of 32.

POINT-BY-POINT RESPONSES TO THE COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS

REVIEWER#3

A. The REVIEWER#3’S COMMENTS/ SUGGESTIONS

RESPONSES

Position in the pdf Manuscripts

OUR APPRECIATIVE STATEMENT

The helpful comments you made throughout the first three rounds of reviewing the manuscript are greatly appreciated. Your insightful comments have helped us polish the piece and make it easier to understand. Your comments have improved this study and provided important recommendations for future research by offering informed and practical opinions.

Q#1. Please add some latest literature on the use of Smart PLS software in Chapter 3.

For all the helpful feedback you've provided from Round 1-3, we are really grateful. Five recent publications on Smart PLS software have been included in Chapter 3. Citations in Chapter 3 are highlighted in yellow and lined up in red. You may also refer to references section to see the literatures included, as presented below:

Please go to Page 9-10, Lines 419-433

Please go to Page 31, Lines 1327-1340