Dear Dr. Zhang,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 05 2025 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.

• 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,

Uğur Cakilcioğlu, PhD

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. You indicated that ethical approval was not necessary for your study. We understand that the framework for ethical oversight requirements for studies of this type may differ depending on the setting and we would appreciate some further clarification regarding your research. Could you please provide further details on why your study is exempt from the need for approval and confirmation from your institutional review board or research ethics committee (e.g., in the form of a letter or email correspondence) that ethics review was not necessary for this study? Please include a copy of the correspondence as an ""Other"" file.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), grant number “72202002”.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In the online submission form you indicate that your data is not available for proprietary reasons and have provided a contact point for accessing this data. Please note that your current contact point is a co-author on this manuscript. According to our Data Policy, the contact point must not be an author on the manuscript and must be an institutional contact, ideally not an individual. Please revise your data statement to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, and send this to us via return email. Please also include contact information for the third party organization, and please include the full citation of where the data can be found.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors;

The paper should be edited according to the writing rules of the journal

Original manuscript. There are, however, major changes required.

Regards

[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?

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Reviewer #1: The Uses and Gratifications Theory (UGT) has been addressed extensively. The classification of motivations within this theory is explained at great length; it is recommended that this section be restructured more concisely and directly connected to the research model. Additionally, the relationship between UGT’s media-based origins and the context of AI use should be discussed more clearly and critically.

The current model focuses solely on cognitive and social motivations. However, other important components of UGT, such as hedonic motivation, have been excluded. This creates a lack of full alignment with the theory. The model should be expanded with new hypotheses to address this gap.

Although the study is based on cross-sectional data, it makes causal claims. This is a significant methodological issue. The authors should either soften the causal language or propose longitudinal or experimental studies to support such claims.

The contribution to the literature section repeats many concepts. Does this study merely apply the Uses and Gratifications Theory, or does it extend it? The claim of theoretical contribution should be strengthened.

The translation and adaptation process of the scales is described in a very superficial manner. The use of GenAI tools can vary across cultural contexts, particularly in China. The appropriateness of the scales for the Chinese cultural context should be supported with stronger justification.

In the structural model, the direct effect of social use on innovative performance appears negative and insignificant. This result has been overlooked by the authors. It should be seriously considered, discussed, or the rationale for including this variable in the model should be re-evaluated.

90% of participants have an undergraduate or higher level of education. The implications of this for the generalizability of the results should be discussed, as this sample may not represent the broader Chinese workforce.

The limitations section at the end of the paper is overly general. The effects of issues such as the ethical use of GenAI tools, privacy concerns, and algorithmic bias should be taken into account.

Data availability is stated as “available upon request,” but PLOS ONE requires an open data policy. The authors should clearly specify under what conditions and on which platform the data will be shared.

The literature heavily relies on Western-centric references. More up-to-date local sources and case studies specific to the Chinese workforce should be included.into account.

Reviewer #2: First of all, I congratulate you on your work. However, your article needs improvement in some important areas:

Reporting of statistical analyses is incomplete. In the Results section, important indicators such as beta coefficients, p-values, R² are not given in full in some places. I did not see that indirect effects (mediation) were tested. The overall explanatory power of the model could be expanded.

Discussion section could be organized. The findings are only repeated and the linking and comparison with the literature is weak. This section could be expanded to discuss similarities or differences in findings with previous studies.

Ethical approval process and data confidentiality are not adequately explained. Ethics committee approval or exemption statement for the research should be clearly stated; otherwise, it may pose a problem in terms of publication ethics.

The written language is below academic standards. One gets the impression that a large part of the article was created with a google translate translation. This negatively affects conceptual clarity and quality of expression. A professional English academic editing is required to make it suitable for publication.

Practical contributions and recommendations should be developed and presented more clearly for practitioners. At the moment the suggestions are very general and can be expanded as suggestions.

**********

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.docx

Dear Dr. Zhang,

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.

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

I secured the opinion of one reviewer, and I have carefully read the manuscript myself to offer my independent opinion. Both the reviewer and I believe that there are some merits in the study, and it may be of interest to readers of PLOS One upon major revisions. The authors should carefully consider each of my comments and the Reviewer’s comments.

In the Introduction section, it is not clear to me what is meant by “social use of AI”? Adding some examples would be useful, together with the use of example items in the Method section (see below). I have a similar concern regarding “resource acquisition” that could be better explained in the Introduction section. In the scale used, the resource acquisition is not explained to participants, with possible different interpretations by them. In general, since the topic is very new and in development, I think that the Introduction can be updated with more recent work (even published in 2025).

In the Method section, the authors state that they target “employee groups”; what groups were targeted? How were the organizations selected? The type of organizations the participants work in should be included in the demographics.

“An explanation of workplace applications for GenAI tools was provided both at the start of the questionnaire and through screening questions to confirm participants' professional experience”. The authors should disclose this information and may include it in a Supplementary file.

In the descriptions of the scales, examples of items for cognitive and social use of AI are missing. Moreover, the response scales and range of values are missing for all instruments.

In the Results section, in Figure 2, a note should be added explaining the abbreviations used.

Moreover, the information in Table 6 is not justified since the authors do not use these classifications in their results. Regarding the model’s results, they should be better presented. For instance, it seems that Figure 2 shows only total effects. Where can the reader find direct effects?

A very important point is that the writing is very poor and should be improved. In some parts of the manuscript, it is difficult to understand what is meant, especially in the Introduction and Discussion sections. I encourage authors to revise the manuscript with the aim of enhancing clarification.

Regarding the response to Reviewers, I have similar concerns; it was difficult for me to follow. For instance, in the Response to Reviewer 1 point 3, the authors’ citation is not consistent with what was then reported in the manuscript (in blue).

All these issues should be carefully addressed for consideration of publication.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 22 2025 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.

• 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,

Annalisa Theodorou

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript. Your study presents a relevant and timely investigation into the factors influencing the adoption of AI-based technologies in healthcare settings in Saudi Arabia. The integration of TOE and UTAUT frameworks strengthens the theoretical foundation and helps capture both organizational and individual-level factors.

Your use of a mixed-methods design is well justified and effectively implemented. The quantitative data is analyzed appropriately through descriptive and regression analyses, while the qualitative interviews complement and reinforce the findings. The conclusions are supported by the data, and you have clearly acknowledged the limitations of your study.

The manuscript is generally well-structured and intelligible, although we recommend a professional language edit to address minor grammatical and stylistic issues, particularly in the discussion and conclusion sections.

Overall, this is a technically sound and methodologically robust contribution that addresses a significant research gap in digital health transformation, particularly in the context of developing economies.

Congratulations on your work. I wish you continued success in your future research endeavors.

Best regards,

Reviewer #3: Dear Editor; The attached article was checked. The manuscript contains interesting information about The Influence of Using Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools on Employee's Innovative Job Performance

I think that this article is well suited to your journal.

It is generally good work. The scientific and presentation level of the manuscript is high.

The title is understandable and in line with the text. The text is written in a descriptive and understandable language. The material and method are well described and adequately detailed Discussion and conclusion are interrelated.

Reviewer #4: A few of the sentences in the intro and discussion are clumsy or wordy and could be helped by some light language editing for concision and clarity.

Figure 1 (conceptual model) could be redrawn for easier visual clarity. For example, use the same shapes and even spacing to make it easier to read.

You could mention ethical implications of GenAI use in the workplace (e.g., privacy, bias, algorithmic transparency) briefly, even speculatively.

**********

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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes:  Stefanos Balaskas

**********

[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.

Dear Dr. Zhang,

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.

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

I carefully read the authors' responses to my comments and the reviewers' feedback. I believe that the authors did a good job in responding to each point. For this reason, I consider the manuscript accepted upon minor revisions. In particular, I kindly request that the authors submit the Appendix file, which is currently unavailable on the platform. Moreover, regarding response to Reviewer 1, Comment 3, I believe that in the modified insert in the manuscript, the reference to the important limitation regarding the cross-sectional nature of the data and the impossibility of establishing causal inference is now missing. I believe that this important limitation should be integrated before publishing the manuscript.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 04 2026 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.

• 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 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,

Annalisa Theodorou

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

The Influence of Generative Artificial Intelligence Usage on Employees’ Innovative Job Performance

PONE-D-25-16015R3

Dear Dr. Zhang,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Annalisa Theodorou

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: