Determinants of the Land Registration Information System Operational Success: Empirical Evidence from Ethiopia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for this well-written and interesting paper. I enjoyed reading it and applaud the thorough research design and considered presentation. I have very few comments, but please take note of the following:
- While the overall language is good and very readable, I have noted a few instances where the meaning of sentences is either lost in translation or could be improved. Please see the attached commented pdf.
- There seems to be some inconsistency in numbering - see my comments on page 6.
- Importantly, the variable SYAU is undefined (which is part of the numbering confusion mentioned above). This is an important omission that must be rectified.
- A suggestion only: in sections 3.2 - 3.4 there are several statistical indicators and scores given. Although you have mentioned what these refer to (Cronback alpha, AVE, etc.) it might be useful to include further explanation of what these scores indicate and/or provide formulae of how they are calculated. This is only a suggestion because I am aware that this could become a lengthy and involved process that might detract from the main purpose of the paper. My concern is that the scores appear with no derivation and the reader is expected to trust the authors' word that they have followed due diligence in their calculations. However, I also acknowledge that I am rusty when it comes to statistics, and perhaps the presentation is adequate for a readership that is uptodate with their statistical analysis.
Overall, I am impressed with the paper and the good work you have done.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Many thanks for your detailed and invaluable comments and clear guidance, very much appreciated. This is really helped us to enhance the quality of the manuscript. Indeed, we have tried to address all the markup comments in the paper and the general comments as well. RE#1. language and wordy sentences much more improved now. RE#2. inconsistency in numbering resolved. Re#3. the variable SYAU is defined and citation added. RE#4. it might be useful to include further explanation of what the statistical scores indicate and/or provide formulae of how they are calculated- Regarding the statistical indicators, scores and discussions, as dear reviewer well noted that adding more derivative formula will detract a reader. If we add the equations readers will loose focus. But the good thing is the structural equation model is a recent but a well established statistical approach which gives researchers the potential to assess or evaluate multivariate research questions in the field of social science and the land administration domain particularly is quite complex and married with numerous underlying variables which is difficult to measure with the traditional econometric models. Therefore, against this back drop we opted to convey the meaning of the scores to the subject under discussion.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This study investigated the factors that influence the acceptance and actual usage of the national rural land administration information system as a proxy predictor for its operational success in Ethiopia. This manuscript addresses an interesting topic and the findings are well presented; however, it needs further enrichment and improvement. I believe this manuscript could be considered for publication after addressing the comments.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Many thanks for your detailed and invaluable comments and clear guidance, very much appreciated. This is really helped us to enhance the quality of the manuscript. Indeed, we have tried to address all the specific comments in the paper and the general comments as well. Attached the response matrix and feedback on adjustment made for your kind consideration.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the revised paper. The paper has been improved significantly in comparison to the previous version. However, I believe some issues need revision and clarification.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Many thanks again for your useful comments and guidance, very much appreciated. We hereby resubmit the revised manuscript based on the second round of comments and guidance. Hope you will find it that your comments are carefully addressed.
Best Wishes, Shewakena on behalf of the authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
