PONE-D-25-01491-->-->Why Would Individuals Use Indoor Positioning Systems? A Study from a Potential User Perspective-->-->PLOS One?>

Dear Dr. Wichmann,

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.

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

1. Conceptual Validity: Prototype vs. Actual System (Crucial)

Both reviewers, particularly Reviewer 2, identify a fundamental disconnect between the study's claims and its stimulus.

• The Issue: You evaluated a static/interactive User Interface (UI) mock-up, not a functional Indoor Positioning System (IPS). Real IPS usage involves signal latency, localization errors, and battery drain, none of which were experienced by users.
• The Requirement: You must significantly qualify your findings. You cannot claim to measure "IPS adoption" in general. You are measuring the acceptance of a UI concept for indoor navigation. The manuscript must explicitly discuss this limitation and how the lack of technical friction (e.g., navigation errors) might inflate acceptance scores.

2. Data Quality and Sampling Rigor

There are serious concerns regarding how the data was processed and the final sample size.

• High Exclusion Rate: You excluded 268 out of 392 completed questionnaires (approx. 68% rejection rate). This is exceptionally high and suggests potential flaws in the survey design, task complexity, or attention checks. You must provide a detailed analysis of why so many participants failed.
• Sample Size: The final sample (<code>N</code><code _ngcontent-ng-c1097911779=" " class="rendered">=123)</code> is considered small for a UTAUT2 model with moderators (Reviewer 1). You need to justify the statistical power of this sample size more robustly.
  Demographics: The sample is skewed toward young German males/students. You must discuss how this limits generalizability to other populations (e.g., hospital visitors, elderly users).

3. Statistical Anomalies and Model Fit

The statistical results raise red flags regarding validity.

• Suspiciously High R2: An explained variance of 0.859 is unusually high for behavioral intention studies (Reviewer 2). This suggests potential Common Method Bias (CMB), multicollinearity, or conceptual overlap between predictors. You must conduct and report rigorous tests for CMB and multicollinearity.
  Insignificant Core Constructs: Many core UTAUT2 variables (Effort Expectancy, Facilitating Conditions, Hedonic Motivation, Habit) were non-significant. The discussion currently lacks a deep theoretical explanation for why these established predictors failed in this context.
• Missing Data: Reviewer 1 notes that the specific list of items (especially for Spatial Abilities) and standard validity/reliability tables are missing or insufficient. These must be added.

4. Theoretical Weaknesses: Spatial Abilities & Price Value

The theoretical additions to the model are viewed as weak or poorly operationalized.

• Spatial Abilities (Hypothesis 8): Both reviewers criticize the inclusion of Spatial Abilities. It was found to be insignificant, yet the discussion does not adequately explain why. The operational definition of this construct is unclear, and its theoretical integration needs to be much stronger—or reconsidered.
• Price Value: Setting a fixed hypothetical price (€0.99) is problematic (Reviewer 2). In a university context, students often expect free services. This framing likely skewed the results and needs to be discussed as a limitation.

5. Structure and Presentation

• Introduction: Remove methodological details (sample size, specific stats) from the Introduction; focus on the theoretical gap.
• Comparison: The literature review should better contrast outdoor vs. indoor navigation prototypes to justify the specific design choices made.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 30 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 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,

Frantisek Sudzina

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 provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) 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.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

4. 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

1. Conceptual Validity: Prototype vs. Actual System (Crucial)

Both reviewers, particularly Reviewer 2, identify a fundamental disconnect between the study's claims and its stimulus.

The Issue: You evaluated a static/interactive User Interface (UI) mock-up, not a functional Indoor Positioning System (IPS). Real IPS usage involves signal latency, localization errors, and battery drain, none of which were experienced by users.

The Requirement: You must significantly qualify your findings. You cannot claim to measure "IPS adoption" in general. You are measuring the acceptance of a UI concept for indoor navigation. The manuscript must explicitly discuss this limitation and how the lack of technical friction (e.g., navigation errors) might inflate acceptance scores.

2. Data Quality and Sampling Rigor

There are serious concerns regarding how the data was processed and the final sample size.

High Exclusion Rate: You excluded 268 out of 392 completed questionnaires (approx. 68% rejection rate). This is exceptionally high and suggests potential flaws in the survey design, task complexity, or attention checks. You must provide a detailed analysis of why so many participants failed.

Sample Size: The final sample (N=123) is considered small for a UTAUT2 model with moderators (Reviewer 1). You need to justify the statistical power of this sample size more robustly.

Demographics: The sample is skewed toward young German males/students. You must discuss how this limits generalizability to other populations (e.g., hospital visitors, elderly users).

3. Statistical Anomalies and Model Fit

The statistical results raise red flags regarding validity.

Suspiciously High R2: An explained variance of 0.859 is unusually high for behavioral intention studies (Reviewer 2). This suggests potential Common Method Bias (CMB), multicollinearity, or conceptual overlap between predictors. You must conduct and report rigorous tests for CMB and multicollinearity.

Insignificant Core Constructs: Many core UTAUT2 variables (Effort Expectancy, Facilitating Conditions, Hedonic Motivation, Habit) were non-significant. The discussion currently lacks a deep theoretical explanation for why these established predictors failed in this context.

Missing Data: Reviewer 1 notes that the specific list of items (especially for Spatial Abilities) and standard validity/reliability tables are missing or insufficient. These must be added.

4. Theoretical Weaknesses: Spatial Abilities & Price Value

The theoretical additions to the model are viewed as weak or poorly operationalized.

Spatial Abilities (Hypothesis 8): Both reviewers criticize the inclusion of Spatial Abilities. It was found to be insignificant, yet the discussion does not adequately explain why. The operational definition of this construct is unclear, and its theoretical integration needs to be much stronger—or reconsidered.

Price Value: Setting a fixed hypothetical price (€0.99) is problematic (Reviewer 2). In a university context, students often expect free services. This framing likely skewed the results and needs to be discussed as a limitation.

5. Structure and Presentation

Introduction: Remove methodological details (sample size, specific stats) from the Introduction; focus on the theoretical gap.

Comparison: The literature review should better contrast outdoor vs. indoor navigation prototypes to justify the specific design choices made.

[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: No

**********

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: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: It is recommended to adhere to the academic writing style for a quantitative study, namely by refraining from utilising terms such as 'we' or 'our study' or ‘they’ in the text.

Abstract

The overall sample of 123 is insufficient for survey methods and does not align with the claim that IPS has gained popularity. The moderator should be highlighted in the abstract as a major contribution of this study.

Introduction

The research problem appears insufficiently robust to warrant the application of UTAUT2. Researchers employ UTAUT to understand the factors that influence both intentions and actual behaviour when using technology. However, the problem articulated primarily concentrated on technological or system design concerns.

The content should be realigned with the sub-title; for instance, in the Introduction section, the sample size and statistical methods should not be reiterated, as they are already covered in the abstract and subsequently in the methodology section. The study's significance focusses primarily on application, neglecting theoretical contributions.

Literature Review – Indoor Positioning Systems

The discussion primarily emphasises that previous studies fail to address the aspect of intention to use. Given that the technology purports to possess a distinctive system, a robust rationale must be articulated regarding the necessity of employing the theory in relation to this unique system.

Literature review – Developing an IPS prototype

Since the author(s) have noted the differences in navigation outdoors. This section must compare the two prototypes to provide a clear description.

Literature review – theory for evaluation

Similar to the previous discussion, it indicated that the theory has not been tested in the IPS prototype. No novel components have been incorporated into the theory, owing to the distinctive prototype of the technology discussed in prior sections. The requirements of the moderator within the theory should be emphasised in the discourse, along with the rationale for including spatial abilities within the theory. The points may be incorporated in the introduction as research issues.

Literature Review – Hypotheses & Research Model

The discussion appears to have led to a superficial hypothesis. Given the significance of Hypothesis 8 to the theory, the debate necessitates the strengthening and enhancement of Hypothesis 8. There is a lack of comprehensive reviews on topics related to spatial ability.

Method

Out of 464 questionnaires, only 26.51% were deemed useful, indicating either a flawed sample selection process or a less accurate questionnaire. The list of items to measure the variables should be presented, especially the spatial abilities. Missing of few statistical test: descriptive, reliability, validity, VIF etc.

Results and conclusion

The operational definition of spatial abilities has been overlooked, resulting in the diminished significance of this study's primary contribution.

The primary focus of this study should be on analysing the moderator, or spatial ability. However, the insignificance of the moderators has raised numerous doubts. The author(s) should concentrate on justifying the potential insignificance of the moderator within the framework. Regrettably, the limitation did not address the practical definition of the moderators or their potential insignificance.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic by investigating individuals’ intention to use indoor positioning systems (IPS). The study is carefully structured and methodologically transparent; however, several substantial conceptual and methodological limitations need to be addressed before the conclusions can be considered robust.

First, a central limitation of the study is that it does not evaluate an actual indoor positioning system but rather an interactive user interface prototype without real positioning technology. Critical characteristics of IPS—such as localization accuracy, signal instability, latency, or navigation errors—are not part of the user experience. Nevertheless, the manuscript repeatedly draws conclusions about the adoption and use of “IPS” in general. This conceptual leap risks overstating the implications of the findings and should be substantially qualified.

Second, although the authors attempt to reduce the intention–behavior gap by requiring interaction with the prototype, the study still relies exclusively on self-reported behavioral intention in an artificial and short-term setting. Participants complete predefined tasks in a mock-up environment under monetary incentives, which does not reflect real-world usage, sustained adoption, or behavioral consequences. As a result, the external and ecological validity of the findings remains limited.

Third, the sampling strategy raises concerns. Of the 392 completed questionnaires, 268 were excluded due to failed control questions, resulting in a final sample of only 123 participants. This exceptionally high exclusion rate warrants a more critical discussion, as it may indicate issues related to task complexity, participant engagement, or survey design. Furthermore, the sample is heavily skewed toward young, male, German university members, which severely limits generalizability to other user groups, cultural contexts, and indoor environments such as hospitals or airports.

Fourth, the reported explained variance of behavioral intention (R² = 0.859) is unusually high for technology acceptance research. Such a value may point to conceptual overlap between predictors, common method bias, or an overly context-specific model. The manuscript does not sufficiently reflect on this issue, nor does it discuss potential inflation of explanatory power.

Fifth, several core UTAUT2 constructs—effort expectancy, facilitating conditions, hedonic motivation, and habit—do not show significant effects. While null findings are reported, their theoretical implications are not deeply explored. Similarly, the inclusion of spatial abilities as a moderating variable appears weakly justified and empirically unsupported, raising questions about its conceptual integration within the model.

Finally, the operationalization of price value through a fixed hypothetical price (€0.99) introduces a strong framing effect. This price does not reflect realistic IPS deployment models (e.g., institutional provision, subscription-based services, or free access), limiting the interpretability and transferability of the observed price value effect.

In summary, while the study demonstrates methodological diligence and addresses an underexplored area, its conclusions should be more cautiously framed, and several conceptual, methodological, and interpretative issues require substantial revision.

**********

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.]

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.

<p>Why Would Individuals Use Indoor Positioning Systems? A Study from a Potential User Interface Perspective

PONE-D-25-01491R1

Dear Dr. Wichmann,

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,

Frantisek Sudzina

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: