Digital Transformation and Social Inclusion in Public Services: A Qualitative Analysis of E-Government Adoption for Marginalized Communities in Sustainable Governance

Reviewer’s Comments

Response and Revisions Implemented

The authors should show a more detailed discussion about related works. I suggest the authors highlight drawbacks and gaps between this manuscript and existing studies, and point out how this work advances prior research.

We have expanded the Literature Review to provide a more detailed discussion on previous studies, highlighting key research gaps and the contributions of our work. We have also clearly articulated the advancements made by this study in addressing digital inclusion in e-government. This is reflected in Section 2.4 (Research Gap and Theoretical Framework).

I recommend adding a discussion section to the paper. This needs to be present, with a discussion of your main findings and comparisons with the literature.

A dedicated Discussion section has been added in Findings and Discussion (Section 4), which provides a detailed comparison between our findings and existing literature. This section also clarifies how our research builds on previous studies and contributes to theoretical and policy advancements.

There are some more recent and relevant works in the area of Digital Inclusive Finance. Please discuss some papers about Digital Inclusive Finance, such as:
1. How Does Digital Inclusive Finance Affect Agricultural Green Development? Evidence from Thirty Provinces in China
2. How Does Digital Inclusive Finance Affect Economic Resilience: Evidence from 285 Cities in China
3. The Influence of Social Capital on Farm Household's Borrowing Behavior in Rural China

We have incorporated these suggested references on Digital Inclusive Finance in Section 2.3 (Challenges of Digital Divide and Equity in E-Government). The discussion has been expanded to examine how Digital Inclusive Finance impacts social and economic inclusion, particularly in emerging economies.

The authors should show a figure about how to examine the key obstacles to digital inclusion in e-government and explore technology-driven and policy-based solutions.

We have added a conceptual diagram in Section 4.2 (Strategies to Improve Digital Inclusion in E-Government). The figure visually illustrates the key obstacles to digital inclusion, alongside policy-based and technology-driven solutions such as AI, blockchain, and cloud computing.

Reviewer’s Comments

Response and Revisions Implemented

One potential limitation is the reliance on a qualitative approach without a clear indication of how case studies were selected and analyzed. Strengthening the methodological framework by incorporating mixed-method approaches or a comparative analysis of digital inclusion policies across various socio-economic contexts would add depth and robustness to the findings.

We have clarified the case selection process in Section 3.2 (Case Selection and Participants) by providing a detailed justification for the inclusion of urban and rural areas with varying e-government adoption levels. Additionally, the methodology section now elaborates on data triangulation techniques to enhance research reliability. However, due to the scope of this study, a mixed-method approach is suggested as a future research direction in Section 5.3.2 (Future Research Directions).

While the discussion on emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, and cloud computing is valuable, it would benefit from a more detailed exploration of specific case examples where these technologies have successfully addressed digital inclusion challenges.

We have expanded the discussion in Section 4.2.3 (Public-Private and Community Partnerships for Inclusive Digital Ecosystems) to include specific real-world case examples of AI, blockchain, and cloud computing enhancing digital inclusion. Examples include Microsoft’s AI for Accessibility Program, Canada’s AI-driven virtual assistants for e-government, and Google’s partnership with Indonesia for digital literacy.

A critical perspective on the potential risks and unintended consequences of these technologies, such as data privacy concerns, algorithmic biases, or the digital divide created by uneven technological adoption, would also enhance the study’s comprehensiveness.

We have added a new section, "Risks and Challenges of Digital Inclusion Technologies" in Section 4 (Findings and Discussion) to critically examine data privacy issues, algorithmic biases, and unequal technological adoption. This section discusses regulatory safeguards and ethical AI principles to ensure responsible digital transformation.

Another area for improvement is the discussion on policy recommendations, which could be more concrete and actionable. Instead of general statements about public-private partnerships and digital literacy programs, the study could provide detailed examples of best practices from leading digital governance models, particularly in countries that have successfully integrated inclusive e-government strategies.

We have strengthened the Policy Implications section (Section 4.3) by including specific best practices from countries such as Estonia (e-Residency & Digital ID), Finland (Broadband for All), and South Korea (Digital New Deal).This enhances the practical applicability of our recommendations.

To further strengthen the theoretical foundation of the study, referencing Jan van Dijk’s work on digital divide theory would be essential. Van Dijk’s research provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the multi-dimensional nature of digital exclusion, moving beyond mere access issues to examine the social, motivational, and skills-related barriers that hinder digital participation.

We have incorporated Jan van Dijk’s Digital Divide Theoryin Section 2.4 (Research Gap and Theoretical Framework)to provide a more nuanced perspective on digital inclusion challenges. His work is now referenced in the discussion on motivational, material, skills, and usage barriers to e-government adoption.

Reviewer’s Comments

Response and Revisions Implemented

The article lacks a thorough contextualization within the existing theoretical and empirical literature related to digital inclusion and e-governance. The authors should integrate a more diverse set of references throughout the manuscript.

We have expanded the Literature Review (Section 2) to include a more comprehensive discussion of previous studies and incorporated additional references to strengthen the linkage between our findings and existing research. The discussion now highlights gaps in prior studies and clarifies how this research contributes to the literature on digital inclusion and e-government.

The research design and methodology sections should be more precisely articulated. The connection between the research questions and the data collection and analysis methods requires further elaboration.

We have revised the Methodology section (Section 3) to explicitly link research questions with the chosen data collection and analysis methods. The justification for case selection and qualitative approach has been clarified in Section 3.2 (Case Selection and Participants) to enhance transparency and reproducibility.

In discussing the findings, while identifying barriers to digital inclusion (lines 640-670) is commendable, the arguments presented lack balance and depth. More critical engagement with the data is required to present a well-rounded discussion.

We have expanded the discussion of findings in Section 4.1 (Digital Inclusion Challenges for Marginalized Communities) to include alternative perspectives on the effectiveness of proposed solutions. This revision ensures a more nuanced and balanced analysis of digital inclusion challenges and policy responses.

The presentation of results could be improved by ensuring they are systematically organized and delineated. Consider revising the layout on pages 2-3 and 15-17 to facilitate a more logical flow.

The structure of the results and discussion has been refined to ensure a clearer, more logical flow of arguments. We have reorganized Sections 4.1 and 4.2 to improve readability and strengthen the connection between findings and theoretical frameworks.

While the conclusions presented are relevant and timely, they are not sufficiently supported by robust evidence from the study or referenced literature.

We have strengthened the Conclusion section (Section 5) by providing a more comprehensive synthesis of key findings and integrating additional references to reinforce the study’s contributions. This revision ensures that the conclusions are more rigorously supported by empirical evidence and theoretical insights.

Reviewer’s Comments

Response and Revisions Implemented

The study focuses more on improvement strategies rather than influence pathways and influencing factors.

We acknowledge this observation. The research focus has been further clarified in Section 1.2 (Research Questions) to explicitly state the study’s emphasis on both identifying digital inclusion challenges and proposing improvement strategies. The discussion in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 has been refined to ensure a more balanced analysis between influence factors and proposed solutions.

The introduction mentions multiple aspects of the digital divide but lacks refinement in the variations across countries and specific statistics or cases.

We have expanded the Introduction (Section 1) by incorporating comparative data across countries and specific statistics on the digital divide’s manifestations. This ensures a more contextualized and evidence-based discussion of the issue.

The methodology section (3.1 Research Approach) does not clarify how the selected areas were judged to have implemented e-government initiatives while still facing challenges.

We have revised Section 3.2 (Case Selection and Participants) to clarify the criteria used for selecting study locations. The revision explains the presence of e-government initiatives in selected areas and the challenges they still face, ensuring greater methodological transparency.

Policy Implications for Sustainable Digital Governance (Section 4.3) does not align closely with the study's core focus. Feasibility of policy recommendations should be discussed.

We have revised Section 4.3 to ensure better alignment between the study’s findings and the proposed policy recommendations. The feasibility of these recommendations has been explicitly discussed, making them more actionable and contextually relevant.

The Contribution to Theory and Practice section should be moved to the end of Chapter 1 to enhance reader engagement.

We have retained this section in Chapter 5, as it is traditionally placed in the conclusion. However, we have added a brief mention of the study’s theoretical contributions in Section 1.3 (Significance of the Study) to engage readers early on.

Sections 5.1 and 5.2 duplicate content from Part 4; they should be simplified, focusing more on Limitations and Future Research Directions.

We have merged Sections 5.1 and 5.2 into a more concise summary of findings and implications, avoiding repetition. Additionally, we enhanced Section 5.3 (Limitations and Future Research Directions) to provide a stronger forward-looking perspective.

The number of references is excessive (186); it should be reduced to 50-100, ensuring that the study presents unique viewpoints rather than being overly literature-based.

The reference list has been carefully reviewed and reduced to 116, prioritizing the most relevant and high-impact sources while maintaining a strong

Reviewer Comment

Response and Revision

The authors should use a table to show a more detailed discussion about related works.

We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. To address this, we have added Table 1. Summary of Research Gaps and Contributions in Section 2.4 Research Gap and Theoretical Framework. This table systematically compares existing studies, highlights research gaps, and outlines how our study advances prior work.

I suggest the authors should highlight drawback and gaps between this manuscript and the existing studies, and point out the difference between this work with the existing studies, like how your work advances the existing studies?

The revised Table 1 explicitly outlines the existing focus, identified gaps, and our contribution in each research area. This ensures a clear distinction between our study and previous works. Additionally, new references have been incorporated to support the identified gaps and our proposed contributions.

Furthermore, the authors should add a figure to show their theoretical framework about digital transformation and social inclusion.

We have included Figure 1. Conceptual Framework for Digital Inclusion in E-Government Adoption in Section 3.1 Research Approach to visually represent the theoretical foundation of our study. This figure integrates Digital Divide Theory and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to provide a holistic understanding of digital transformation and social inclusion.

Reviewer Comment

Author Response & Revisions

1. The authors should highlight drawbacks and gaps between this manuscript and existing studies and point out the difference between this work and existing studies. How does this work advance the existing studies? Please show them in Table 1.

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have revised Table 1 to explicitly highlight the research gaps and how our study advances the existing literature. The table now clearly outlines the limitations of prior research, the identified gaps, and our contributions to filling these gaps. This revision ensures a clearer distinction between our study and previous works. (See Table 1 in Section 2.4).

2. You did NOT show your work in Table 1.

We acknowledge this oversight and have now updated Table 1 to explicitly include our study's contributions and how it differs from prior research. The revised table now provides a structured comparison of previous findings, research gaps, and how our study adds new insights.

3. Figure 1 is inaesthetic; you should adjust it.

Thank you for your comment. We have redesigned Figure 1 to improve its aesthetics while maintaining its conceptual clarity. The updated version ensures a more professional and visually appealing presentation while preserving the integrity of our proposed framework. (See Figure 1: Conceptual Framework for Digital Inclusion in E-Government Adoption).