Analyzing the Employees’ New Media Use in the Energy Industry：The Role of Creative Self-Efficacy, Perceived Usefulness and Leaders’ Use
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The introduction could encompass more information on the context of the research. It could also be more analytical than it is.
The literature review starts with very basic definitions, such as what is new media whereas you should really start with more advanced literature. This comment is for the first paragraph of the literature review only. The second paragraph that summarises fields of research is very good.
Section 2.2. is called TAM. This should be amended to include full term and then TAM should be in parenthesis and then used later on. As it is, it is a bit confusing and unclear.
In general, the paper is well written but it needs small improvements to make it less descriptive. Engage with the literature a bit more.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper uses extraordinary large survey data (+20k respondents) from a single case location. The paper has some deficiencies. First, the style of writing could be more concise and efficient. Now the paper starts with quite empty statements regarding the “new” media and its impacts on the world. In terms of terminology, the use of “new” in describing social media and other internet based means of communication the paper positions itself to outdated department. Second, it is difficult to understand why authors have selected hypotheses approach to test theoretical propositions. The main tools are simple correlation and regression analyses. The produced result tables indicate very low and debatable explanation levels and even though almost all of the relations are statistically significant (what is not a surprise as the data set is so large) the whole research design does not make much sense as media and internet studies have proven the same fundamental explanative variables to be the most important ones. The main problem is however, the lack of reflection on the presented theories and critical reflective consideration on the main questions. Overall feeling is that the paper recycles old ideas (even with an extensive primary data from a location that has probably not studied this way before) and offers little to an international reader who is familiar with media studies. To conclude, there is nothing new in the paper. I recommend cutting down the descriptive part of result presenting and focusing on rewriting both introduction and reflection parts by dropping the hypotheses testing away and substituting it with other methodological tools.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is interesting and the topic of the paper is relevant but In my opinion it needs a little effort before acceptance. I don't understand why the descriptive statistic for the variable measured on the nominal scale as a gender is calculated? How should 1.32 be interpreted for the variable: age? Gender is a dichotomous variable and in this case the mean and standard deviation should not be calculated.
The same remark concerns the mean value and standard deviation measured for the age (presented in the Table 3) which in the previous table (Table 1) is resented as a categorised variables with various levels of answers. I've got serious doubts if the Pearson coefficient could be calculated between age and other variables. For this purpose, other correlation coefficients are usually applied as V-Cramer correlation and others.
Finally the main question: what way of estimation of mathematical models was used in the paper?
The authors should explain and added this information to the text especially taking into account the character of some variables which are measured on the nominal scales. For this purpose e.g. the logit model can be used.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Analyzing the Employees’ New Media Use in Energy Industry：The Role of Creative Self-efficacy, Perceived Usefulness and Leaders’ Use
Thank you for the opportunity to revise the paper titled: “Analyzing the Employees’ New Media Use in Energy Industry：The Role of Creative Self-efficacy, Perceived Usefulness and Leaders’ Use”
In this paper the author(s) analyze the use of media by employees in the energy sector, drawing on a sample of 20161 workers in China. Specifically they focus on creative self-efficacy, perceived usefulness in information acquisition and perceived usefulness.
First of all I would like to congratulate the author(s) for a well-written paper, dealing with an interesting topic. Also, the literature review seems comprehensive and includes recent contributions of relevance to the field. I have some suggestions that I hope the authors find useful:
There might be a typo in the abstract in the word “angel”, should it be “angle”?
The introduction does a good job at positioning the importance of the topic and what the paper has done. However, I would recommend emphasizing a bit more the gap in the literature, and more explicitly what is the research question that the paper is trying to make, and how by responding to this research question, the author(s) are making significant contributions to the field.
Were all the participants Chinese? Were all of them proficient in the language employed in the survey? Were multiple languages used in the survey (especially since in China multiple widely-spoken languages co-exist).?
Can you please test there was no non-respondent bias? And also early vs late-respondent bias?
As the dependent variable comes from a Likert-type question from 1 to 5, would it be possible to test the results using estimation techniques that take this into account (for example Ordered (ordinal) logistic regression, or any other that is suitable)?
In the figures, please correct “moderate” for “moderating”. And also “robust” for “robustness” in the corresponding section of robustness tests.
I hope the author(s) find my comments useful and constructive and I wish them luck with their paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
N/A
Reviewer 3 Report
Author(s) considered and addressed most of my concerns and suggestions for improvement. The manuscript reads much better now and it can be accepted for publication in the journal.
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have correctly addressed the concerns expressed in the previous round of review.
