PONE-D-24-32042Factors influencing the adoption of e-government by female university studentsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Valencia-Arias,

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.

==============================

We note that one or more reviewers has recommended that you cite specific previously published works. As always, we recommend that you please review and evaluate the requested works to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. It is not a requirement to cite these works. We appreciate your attention to this request.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 24 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,

Mingming Li

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. For studies reporting research involving human participants, PLOS ONE requires authors to confirm that this specific study was reviewed and approved by an institutional review board (ethics committee) before the study began. Please provide the specific name of the ethics committee/IRB that approved your study, or explain why you did not seek approval in this case.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

[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: Partly

**********

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: Yes

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: Thank you for submitting your paper to PLOS ONE. This is a well-written paper that covers an interesting and timely topic. However, to ensure the quality and impact of this work, a set of corrections must be made before it can be considered for publication:

Research Problematization and Contributions: The research problem and contributions need to be presented in a clearer and more concise manner. Clearly articulating the gap in the literature that your study addresses and the unique contributions your research makes will enhance the paper's overall impact.

Hypotheses Development: The proposed hypotheses should be strengthened and must be theoretically supported. Consider providing a more robust rationale for each hypothesis, drawing on relevant theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence.

Literature Review and Theoretical Foundation: The literature review can be significantly strengthened by incorporating recent and relevant literature. This includes, but is not limited to, the following sources:

"Navigating the Roadmap to Meta-Governance Adoption" (DOI: 10.1108/GKMC-02-2024-0105)

"The Government Metaverse: Charting the Coordinates of Citizen Acceptance" (DOI: 10.1016/j.tele.2024.102109)

Retesting the TAM Model: The paper attempts to retest the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), which has been extensively tested in numerous studies. As per the recommendations of Venkatesh, the retesting of TAM and UTAUT in marginally different contexts does not add substantial value to the ongoing discussion on technology adoption. It is recommended that you either justify the retesting in this context more convincingly or consider exploring a different or modified model that offers novel insights.

Discussion Section: The paper must include a detailed discussion section that elaborates on the main findings. This should be followed by a thorough exploration of both the theoretical and practical implications of your research. Doing so will help to contextualize your results within the broader field and provide clear guidance for future research and practice.

Conclusion and Research Limitations: The paper should conclude with a strong conclusion that summarizes the key findings. Additionally, it is important to address the limitations of your study and propose directions for future research. This will not only demonstrate the rigor of your work but also guide others in the field.

Reviewer #2: 1. It would be good to include the recent development of e-government by including the citations from 2023 to 2024. Why it is important to conduct a study of e-government? What is the research gap, motivation of study and contribution of this study? Why actual use and intention to use are included concurrently in this study?

2. The determinants are perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitude and subjective norm. In introduction, include why these variables are selected and what are the differences of this study compared to other study? Why perceived behavioral control is not included in this study?

3. For research model and hypotheses, include the recent review of the literature such as in year 2023 and 2024 for each of the variable/construct. Further discuss the underpinning theories of the research framework. For H7, write more about the perceived connectedness and its relation to perceived ease of use.

4. H7. Perceived connectedness of smart home services has a positive effect on the perceived ease of use of the services. Suppose this hypothesis is H6? The proposed research framework in Figure 2 does not show this hypothesis. Please confirm if this hypothesis is tested in this study.

5. There are two H7. Please confirm if H7. Subjective norm has a positive influence on female university students’ intention to use e-government services and H8. Intention to use has a positive influence on female university students’ actual use of e-government system are supposed to be H7 and H8? Align the findings in Table 4. Indicate H1 to H8 in Table 4.

6. There is a lack of description of the data collection process, for instance, the use of questionnaire? Online? Face to face?

7. What are the sampling techniques and how to determine the minimum sample size?

8. It is recommended that to include the source of instruments/ measurement items in a table or describe it for each of the constructs.

9. What are the procedures used to analyze the data? Further discuss why PLS-SEM is selected as the estimation procedure. Did common method bias check is performed?

10. For structural model results presentation, include the interpretation of each of the hypothesis. Indicate which hypothesis is supported and not supported. Align Table 4 with Figure 2 as well as the hypotheses proposed in the section of ‘research model and hypotheses’.

11. For discussion, include the justification for each of the hypothesis. For instance, H1 Perceived usefulness has a positive influence on female university students’ attitude towards the use of e-government services. Indicate how does perceived usefulness is related to attitude among female, supported by which previous study. Same applies to H2 to H8. Kindly cross check and align the hypothesis across whole manuscript.

12. What are the theoretical and practical implications?

13. Include limitations and recommendation for future study after the conclusion.

**********

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review Report-PONE.pdf

影响女大学生采用电子政务的因素

PONE-D-24-32042R1

尊敬的 Valencia-Arias 博士

我们很高兴地通知您，您的手稿已被科学地判断为适合出版，并且一旦满足所有未完成的技术要求，将被正式接受出版。

一周内，您将收到一封电子邮件，详细说明所需修改内容。修改完成后，您将收到正式的录用通知，您的稿件将安排出版。

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,

Mingming Li

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Please check the further grammar and several mistakes when you proofread in the future.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. 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

**********

6. 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: The quality of this paper has increased significantly after addressing the reviewers' comments. Thus, it is ready for publication.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed satisfactory. It would be good to:

1) include the relevant theories that bind the variables together.

2) include the labelling of hypotheses in Figure 1.

3) Proofread the manuscript to rectify the error such as "(TAM developed by Davis..." at Line 146.

**********

7. 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

**********