Digital Divide of Resource-Based (Oil and Gas) and Service-Dominated Regions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is interesting and somewhat novel. I have some concerns.
1. The introduction appears shallow and fail to clearly state the objective of the study and the justification for the study.
2. The justification for using secondary data should be clearly highlighted
3. I miss practical contributions/implications of the study
Author Response
Thank you for your comments to the paper; they helped us improve the material.
We have made significant amendments to the paper.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic of the paper is relevant and current.
The abstract has all the fundamental parts for understanding the study, from its framework and methodology. However, it is suggested to the author(s) to add at the end of the abstract a paragraph with the main conclusions.
The introduction is clear as to the importance of the study. However, it is suggested to the author(s) to add one or two paragraphs with the general and specific objects of the investigation, and the research question.
The literature review is very generalist, it is suggested to the authors to deepen the literature review on the variables under study and what are the sources for the elaboration of the variable model. In the literature review, it is also important to present different models that could meet the objectives of the study and why they do not choose these models.
At the end of the literature review, the author(s) is suggested to develop a conceptual model with the variables under study. Furthermore, it is suggested to the self(s) the formulation of research questions or hypotheses.
In section 3. Materials and Methods, it is suggested to the author(s) to describe in detail the entire chronology of how the variables were obtained and also to present those that were not considered. After line 141, it is suggested that the author(s) describe and present numerical results on the assumptions or premises that allow the application of the statistical method.
In sections 4, it would be interesting for the results to be oriented towards the verification of hypotheses.
Between lines 345 and 351, the author(s) write about variables that have not been studied (open resources, open innovation and implementation of national strategy!), and that it is not known how they relate to the variables studied.
There is no section 5, the numbering passes to number 6.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments to the paper; they helped us improve the material.
We have made significant amendments to the paper.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper's composition is coherent; the structure is logical and meets the goal of the paper. The title "Digital Divide of Resource-Based (Oil and Gas) and Service Dominated Regions in Kazakhstan (Results of Factor and Comparative Analysis)" puts well the paper's objective; it is clear and expresses the issue being assessed very well. The abstract is formulated adequately along with the true picture of the paper. All the tools and methods the author uses are reasonable and well described and adequately fit the problem being assessed to give the reliable results. Conclusions are related to the results presented before reflecting the assessed issue at a professional level. All the tables are complete and understandable. Authors use enough calculations, and tables featuring a great deal of data being processed hence adding a higher added value to the paper. However major revision would suffice to get the manuscript published in the journal. It is recommended that the authors make a relatively major revision, and the specific amendments to the text are as follows:
- In Introduction to underline the added value, novelty, purpose along with the brief methodology and data sources being used and ways of application of the research results would be recommended.
- The goal explicitly stated within the Introduction clearly expressing the main problem and purpose of the paper and author's intention being assessed and discussed within the paper along with its clear and unambiguous formulation are required to be proposed. Please specify in the Introduction section the main question addressed by the research, its potential to be used in action and added value and the research gap along with the way it can be filled in by your research output. Please specify the originality and relevance of the topic in the field of Industry 4.0 and world and national economies and industry.
- Regarding the methodology a hypothesis statement would be appreciated; especially setting and proving the hypothesis estimation.
- It would be beneficial for the findings and outcomes to be clearer whether the main tables could be supported by figures/charts.
- The Discussion is recommended to be set aside from the section Results and Conclusion. Some kind of polemic discourse comparing the research outcomes with the literature overview part would be beneficial to be involved in Discussion.
- I recommend adding to the Conclusion section authors’ further research directions within this explored issue along with a brief research limitation.
- In Conclusion section there could be provided some recommendations for practice based on the research outcomes as well as a final statement reflecting the assessed issue along with the way how the research results could be implemented in the practice bringing up any benefits and added value. The final research statements in Conclusion should be more supported by your evidence and arguments from your own research findings.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments to the paper; they helped us improve the material.
We have made significant amendments to the paper.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
1. The author should explain more clearly what this study questions are, how other previous research differs from this study questions, what kind of research goals this study intends to achieve, and what the contributions of this study to theoretical and practice are.
2. the author should draw his hypothetical model.
3. The variables need to be defined with more convincing details to convey the intended meaning properly.
3. The paper should provide some theoretical basis for hypotheses.
4. The correct number of samples needs to be clarified. Also, specifying the time frame for data collection could help the readers better understand the context.
5. The study's implications for researchers and practitioners must be discussed.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments to the paper; they helped us improve the material.
We have made significant amendments to the paper.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors made significant improvements in the paper in which in this version presents all the parts present the quality required for its publication.
Author Response
We would like to thank you and express our appreciation for thorough reading of our paper, your valuable comments and recommendations, thanks to which we did not only achieve high quality work, but also got an opportunity to introduce significant adjustments to our research.
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised paper titled “Digital Divide of Resource-Based (Oil and Gas) and Service Dominated Regions in Kazakhstan (Results of Factor and Comparative Analysis)“ intended to be published in JOItmC meets all the requirements for professional scientific journal. All the significant comments, recommendations and remarks of reviewers have been incorporated into the manuscript in a proper way giving the paper higher added value and professional features.
Author Response
We would like to thank you and express our appreciation for thorough reading of our paper, your valuable comments and recommendations, thanks to which we did not only achieve high quality work, but also got an opportunity to introduce significant adjustments to our research.
