Unveiling the adoption of metaverse technology in Bangkok metropolitan areas: A UTAUT2 perspective with social media marketing and consumer engagement

Chaloempon Sritong; Weerachon Sawangproh; Teerapong Teangsompong

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0304496

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 1, 2024
6 May 2024 Decision Letter - Sudarsan Jayasingh, Editor PONE-D-24-12973Unveiling the Adoption of Metaverse Technology in Thailand: A UTAUT2 Perspective with Social Media Marketing and Consumer EngagementPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Teangsompong, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Present the justification for the sample size of 403. Need to present theoretical and empirical arguments for the formulation of hypothesis. Limitation and future direction of research need to be added. Flow of the presentation can be improved Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 20 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Sudarsan Jayasingh, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Introduction • in introduction section should be better outlined the main approaches in the existing literature. Moreover, considering the above, the research problem should be outlined. • In the end of the introduction should be included a paragraph describing the rest of the paper. Research methodology. • Before Figure 1 should be an introductory paragraph. Moreover, each figure and table must be referred within the text before its insertion. • It is not enough to represent the research hypotheses in the research model (Figure 1). They should be formulated and presented theoretical and empirical arguments for their formulation. • The research population must de identified, with inclusion and exclusion criteria. Also the sampling procedure must be described. • There is no point that Questionnaire design and research subject and The scale used for the study be different sections. Also, there are repeated ideas in those sections. They should be revised in merged. • It is not clear the meaning of Concentrate on laptop and Concentrate on smartphone in Table 1 • In the methodological section should be included a section describing data analysis methods employed in the paper Measurement models in partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) • In Table 2 it is not clear which are the values for indicator loadings. Conclusions • the limitations and directions for future research should be provided in conclusions section. Additional observations: • The supplementary material including research scales are not available for review. Reviewer #2: The submitted manuscript explores adopting metaverse technology for social media marketing in Thailand, employing the UTAUT2 framework. Although the topic is timely and the paper is well-written, several comments can be made as follows: 1. The manuscript does not introduce a novel theoretical model, relying on the widely used UTAUT2 framework without significant modifications or innovative theoretical contributions. The addition of age, experience, and gender as moderating factors is not sufficiently justified or explained, leading to questions about the theoretical underpinnings and the rationale for their inclusion in the study. 2. The study's limited sample size of 403 internet users in Bangkok and surrounding areas is not adequately explained, raising concerns about the findings' reliability and statistical power. As a result, the paper's title, which suggests that the study's results can be generalized to the overall adoption of the internet in Thailand, may not be accurate. 3. Conducting this study solely through an online survey may pose some issues. It may introduce sample bias and not accurately represent the entire population of internet users in Thailand. The online format of the survey may attract more tech-savvy or digitally aware respondents, thus leading to skewed results and making it difficult to apply the findings to the broader population. 4. The manuscript lacks clarity on how the findings can be generalized to other populations or settings, which limits its impact and relevance beyond the specific demographic studied. If the study focuses solely on Thai marketing, the authors did not elaborate on how the findings are particularly relevant to the Thai audience in terms of marketing. This is a missed opportunity to contextualize the implications of metaverse technology within Thailand's unique cultural and economic landscape. 5. I am also concerned about the respondents' understanding of the metaverse concept. It is possible that they may not comprehend its definition, which could ultimately affect the accuracy and reliability of the study's findings. Since this concept is central to the study, any lack of clarity could significantly impact the interpretation of data and its conclusions. 6. The manuscript contains a large number of tables that could potentially overwhelm the reader and disrupt the flow of the research findings. The extensive use of tables may also suggest that the data has been compartmentalized excessively, making it harder to understand the study's key insights and conclusions. Therefore, I suggest that the authors revise or condense the tables in the paper. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304496.r001
Revision 1
11 May 2024 Author Response Subject: Response to Decision on Manuscript PONE-D-24-12973 Dear Dr. Jayasingh, Thank you for considering our manuscript, titled "Unveiling the Adoption of Metaverse Technology in Thailand: A UTAUT2 Perspective with Social Media Marketing and Consumer Engagement," for publication in PLOS ONE [PONE-D-24-12973]. We appreciate the opportunity to revise and resubmit our work. We acknowledge the valuable feedback provided by the academic editor and reviewers and are committed to addressing the points raised during the review process. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript to ensure it meets PLOS ONE's publication criteria and enhances its clarity and scientific rigor. Specifically, we have addressed the following points raised: 1. Justification for Sample Size 2. Formulation of Hypotheses 3. Limitations and Future Directions 4. Improvement of Presentation Flow We have submitted the revised manuscript, along with a detailed rebuttal letter addressing each point raised by the academic editor and reviewers. Additionally, we have provided marked-up and unmarked versions of the revised manuscript, as per the journal's requirements. We have also ensured that the manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements and included the full ethics statement in the 'Methods' section, as requested. Thank you once again for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We are committed to delivering a high-quality manuscript that contributes meaningfully to the scholarly discourse on metaverse technology adoption. Sincerely, Teerapong Teangsompong, PhD Corresponding Author Program in Business Administration Mahidol University Kanchanaburi Campus Responses to reviewers Reviewer #1: Introduction 1. In the introduction section, it would be beneficial to better outline the main approaches in the existing literature. Additionally, the research problem should be clearly outlined. Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We enhanced the introduction section to provide a clearer outline of the main approaches in the existing literature and ensure that the research problem is clearly defined in the revised version [lines 90-98, highlighted in red] 2. In the end of the introduction, it is recommended to include a paragraph describing the rest of the paper. Response: We appreciate this feedback. In fact, we mentioned the rest of the paper in the original version. To make it clearer, we adjusted a paragraph at the end of the introduction to provide an overview of the paper's structure [lines 108-112, highlighted in red]. Research Methodology 3. Before Figure 1, an introductory paragraph should be included. Additionally, each figure and table must be referred to within the text before its insertion. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have included an introductory paragraph before Figure 1 and ensured that each figure and table is referred to within the text before its insertion in the revised manuscript [lines 272-279, highlighted in red]. 4. It is suggested to provide formulated research hypotheses in the research model (Figure 1), along with presenting theoretical and empirical arguments for their formulation. Response: We agree with this suggestion. We have formulated research hypotheses in the research model (Figure 1) and presented theoretical and empirical arguments for their formulation [lines 284-362, highlighted in red]. 5. The research population must be identified, with inclusion and exclusion criteria. Also, the sampling procedure must be described. Response: Thank you for highlighting this. We have clearly identified the research population, including the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and described the sampling procedure in detail in the "Data collection" section [lines 418-425, highlighted in red]. 6. There is a suggestion to merge the sections on Questionnaire design and research subject, and the scale used for the study, as there are repeated ideas in those sections. Response: Response: We have revised and merged the sections on questionnaire design, research subject, and the scale used for the study to eliminate repetition and improve clarity in the section "Questionnaire design, research subject, and rating scales used" [lines 378-405]. 7. It is noted that the meaning of "Concentrate on laptop" and "Concentrate on smartphone" in Table 1 is not clear. Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We will clarify the meaning of "Concentrate on laptop" and "Concentrate on smartphone" in Table 1 for better understanding by changing those two terms to "Metaverse use through a notebook computer" and "Metaverse use through a smartphone". Additionally, we have moved Table 1 to S1 Table as suggested by reviewer 2. 8. In the methodological section, a section describing the data analysis methods employed in the paper should be included. Response: We appreciate this suggestion. We have adjusted a section in the methodological section describing the data analysis methods employed in the paper [see the "Data analysis" section]. Measurement models in partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) 9. In Table 2, it is not clear which are the values for indicator loadings. Response: Thank you for noting this. We ensure clarity in Table 2 by specifying the values for indicator loadings as the 'bootstrap mean, β' mentioned in the text [line 475]. Conclusions 10. The limitations and directions for future research should be provided in the conclusions section. Response: We agree with this suggestion. We have included a section in the conclusions discussing the study's limitations and suggesting future research directions [lines 876-880, highlighted in red] Additional observations: 11. The supplementary material, including research scales, are not available for review. Response: We apologize for this oversight. We have ensured that the supplementary material, including research scales, is made available for review. Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have made the necessary revisions to address the points raised in your review. If you have any further suggestions or concerns, please feel free to let us know. #Reviewer 2 1. The manuscript does not introduce a novel theoretical model, relying on the widely used UTAUT2 framework without significant modifications or innovative theoretical contributions. The addition of age, experience, and gender as moderating factors is not sufficiently justified or explained, leading to questions about the theoretical underpinnings and the rationale for their inclusion in the study. Response: The manuscript indeed utilizes the widely recognized UTAUT2 framework without introducing a novel theoretical model. However, it does extend the framework to the specific context of the metaverse, which is emerging as a transformative digital realm. This adaptation is significant given the nascent nature of metaverse research and its relevance to contemporary society. Regarding the addition of age, experience, and gender as moderating factors, while their inclusion may not have been sufficiently justified or explained in the manuscript, it is essential to recognize that these demographic variables can significantly impact individuals' behavioral intentions towards technology adoption. As such, their consideration aligns with the broader objective of understanding the complexities of metaverse technology usage among diverse user groups. Overall, while the manuscript could provide more comprehensive justification for the inclusion of these moderating factors, its contribution lies in applying and extending established frameworks to the emerging metaverse landscape. This not only enhances theoretical understanding but also offers valuable insights for marketers and practitioners navigating this evolving digital environment. 2. The study's limited sample size of 403 internet users in Bangkok and surrounding areas is not adequately explained, raising concerns about the findings' reliability and statistical power. As a result, the paper's title, which suggests that the study's results can be generalized to the overall adoption of the internet in Thailand, may not be accurate. Response: We understand your concern regarding the sample size. In the revised manuscript, we have provided a clearer justification for the sample size of 403 participants. According to the literature search, 403 responses are deemed sufficient. Additionally, we have added two references to address your concern in the revised manuscript. We also acknowledge its limitations in terms of generalizability beyond the specified geographical area. Therefore, we have slightly changed the manuscript title from "Unveiling the Adoption of Metaverse Technology in Thailand: A UTAUT2 Perspective with Social Media Marketing and Consumer Engagement" to "Unveiling the adoption of metaverse technology in Bangkok metropolitan areas: a UTAUT2 perspective with social media marketing and consumer engagement". 3. Conducting this study solely through an online survey may pose some issues. It may introduce sample bias and not accurately represent the entire population of internet users in Thailand. The online format of the survey may attract more tech-savvy or digitally aware respondents, thus leading to skewed results and making it difficult to apply the findings to the broader population. Response: We acknowledge your point and understand the potential limitations associated with conducting an online survey, including the possibility of sample bias. In the revised manuscript, we have discussed these limitations more explicitly and explored potential strategies to mitigate them [lines 876-880, highlighted in red]. Additionally, we have adjusted the article title to be more specific, "Unveiling the Adoption of Metaverse Technology in Bangkok Metropolitan Areas: A UTAUT2 Perspective with Social Media Marketing and Consumer Engagement," by removing "Thailand" to avoid overrepresenting our sample. 4. The manuscript lacks clarity on how the findings can be generalized to other populations or settings, which limits its impact and relevance beyond the specific demographic studied. If the study focuses solely on Thai marketing, the authors did not elaborate on how the findings are particularly relevant to the Thai audience in terms of marketing. This is a missed opportunity to contextualize the implications of metaverse technology within Thailand's unique cultural and economic landscape. Response: Thank you for highlighting this. In the revised manuscript, we have provided additional context to clarify how our findings can be generalized by focusing on Thai marketing in Bangkok metropolitan areas only. Additionally, we have changed the article title as mentioned in comment 3. 5. I am also concerned about the respondents' understanding of the metaverse concept. It is possible that they may not comprehend its definition, which could ultimately affect the accuracy and reliability of the study's findings. Since this concept is central to the study, any lack of clarity could significantly impact the interpretation of data and its conclusions. Response: We understand your concern. We are confident that we have addressed this issue by clearly defining the metaverse concept and related activities in the screening questions of the questionnaire. We ensured that respondents' understanding is adequately assessed. For further details, please refer to the sections "Questionnaire Design, Research Subject, and Rating Scales Used" and "Supplementary Data. 6. The manuscript contains a large number of tables that could potentially overwhelm the reader and disrupt the flow of the research findings. The extensive use of tables may also suggest that the data has been compartmentalized excessively, making it harder to understand the study's key insights and conclusions. Therefore, I suggest that the authors revise or condense the tables in the paper. Response: We appreciate your feedback regarding the tables. In the revised manuscript, we have carefully reviewed and considered the necessity of each table to ensure that they enhance, rather than detract from, the clarity and flow of the research findings. Following your suggestion, we have moved some tables to supplementary tables. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304496.r002
14 May 2024 Decision Letter - Sudarsan Jayasingh, Editor Unveiling the Adoption of Metaverse Technology in Bangkok Metropolitan Areas: A UTAUT2 Perspective with Social Media Marketing and Consumer Engagement PONE-D-24-12973R1 Dear Dr. Teangsompong, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Sudarsan Jayasingh, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304496.r003
Formally Accepted
29 May 2024 Acceptance Letter - Sudarsan Jayasingh, Editor PONE-D-24-12973R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Teangsompong, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Sudarsan Jayasingh Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304496.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .