Social Cognitive Theory to Assess the Intention to Participate in the Facebook Metaverse by Citizens in Peru during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “Social Cognitive Theory to Assess the Intention to participate 2 in the Facebook Metaverse by citizens in Peru during the 3 COVID-19 pandemic”. I have provided few comments which need to be addressed before publication.
Introduction section
1. Introduction section is not well-written.
2. The need of the study and the problem statement need to be added in this section.
3. First 2 paragraphs are explaining metaverse and in third paragraphs the author(s) introduce the given study variables. However, they need to explain the relevance and importance of these variables first and then also highlight the gap of the study.
4. As the title is explaining Covid-19 pandemic, however, introduction section completely ignore this. Add relevance how pandemic is relevant to this study.
Literature review
1. Hypotheses and literature review sections are usually backed by previous studies; however I am unable to see any references in section 3.1.1.
2. Is there any mediating relationship of self-efficacy? In order to strengthen the theoretical model, I advise author(s) to add mediating role of self-efficacy in the study.
3. All of the hypotheses sections need to be improved and need more recent references.
4. Add Mediating role of self-efficacy.
Method and results
1. What type of non-probability sampling design was used in this study?
2. Why this study used PLS-SEM method?
3. Author(s) have explained mediating role in method section, however, it is completely overlooked in literature review and introduction section.
4. In table 2 values of ave and discriminant validity are very confusing and hard to understand. Correct the table.
5. Add self-efficacy as mediator in literature review section.
6. No need to rewrite hypotheses statement in result section
7. Rewrite ‘test of hypotheses section’.
Discussions and limitations sections
1. Going through the whole paper, the longest section of the paper is ‘references’. As there are 143 references, author (s) need to delete irrelevant references.
2. Author(s) have used the COVID-19 in the paper’s title and abstract section, however, relevance of the study with respect to COVID-19 is completely overlooked.
3. Discuss how pandemic is relevant to your study? Otherwise remove it from your manuscript, as it is irrelevant.
4. If Peru has limited access to interest then how this study is relevant and how this study will help practitioners.
Paper needs to be carefully proofread as there are a lot of typos and grammatical errors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Through the perspective of the social cognitive theory, this study aims to validate and apply an instrument to assess the relationship between institutional support, technological literacy, and self-efficacy of participating over the intention to participate in the Facebook Metaverse. The idea of the research is novel and is based up-to-date literature. The structure of the manuscript is coherent and clear. All methodological elements appear in the text. The article is carefully prepared
One remark: There is a small typo in the title of the first reference ("anxiety"): Joshua, J. (2017). Information Bodies: Computational Anxiety in Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash. Interdisciplinary Literary Studies, 19(1), 17-47. However, a primary source could be better (Neal Stephenson's work from 90s).
I recommend the publication after considering the remark above.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The overall manuscript starts off rather sloppy but gets better near the end. There are a few issues that can be addressed throughout your manuscript. These issues are up for improvement. First of all, you need to aim for more coherence in the introduction. Presenting factual information (e.g., from previous research) one after the other is detrimental for coherence. Repeat information if necessary, or work with signaling words to guide the reader through your work. Moreover, your work contains redundant information (i.e., things can be written more concisely/to the point). I addition, I noticed that the instrument you used evokes many questions. In particular, there is confusion about the items you use for the scale “technological literacy”. This is the case because you do not introduce this concept sufficiently in your introduction.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In title, abstract, introduction, literature review and discussion sections, Authors have repeatedly used 'social cognitive theory'. However, I didn't find any information regarding this theory in whole manuscript. What is this theory? Why you have used it? and what is the role of this theory with your study's variables?
In the revised version manuscript's introduction section has improved but there is too much information regarding mateverse etc., however, authors completely ignore the main theory, which they have included in the title.
Improve introduction section and explain what is the focus of your study?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I am surprised that the items in Table 1 are revised just like that. These revised items aren't the ones you presented to your participants during the data collection. If you want scientific rigor, you need to recollect your data for factor analysis with the revised phrasing. Please insert a footnote stating that you revised the items for scientific communication purposes (for the journal) and that you did not present this version to your participants.
In addition, there are still inconsistencies in your reference list. Please go over this section again (this might mean you need to go over my previous reviewer comments).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
For an empirical type study 136 number of references are not justified.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
