Assessing the Influence of Collaborative Technology Adoption—Mediating Role of Sociotechnical, Organizational, and Economic Factors
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article concerns an interesting topic which is "Assessing the Influence of Collaborative Technology Adoption? Mediating Role of Sociotechnical, Organizational, and Economic Factors". The topic of the article is very timely and in my opinion fits into the thematic scope of the Sustainability journal.
The article is interesting, but has a few bugs that should be eliminated before the actual publication.
From an editing point of view:
1. The article has incorrect literature formatting - names instead of numbers.
2. The article has an invalid reference list that does not conform to MDPI formatting.
3. The article has very poor quality fugures that should be improved.
From the substantive point of view:
1. The first chapter lacks a clear indication of the purpose of the research.
2. At the end of the first chapter, there is no information about the organization of the article and an indication of how many chapters it contains, what constitutes individual chapters, etc.
3. I don't like the unmarked subsections in chapter 2. For example, "Organizational factors". It is worth introducing numbering, for example, "2.1. Organizational factors" etc.
4. In the discussion I miss a specific reference to the research conducted by other authors and confronting the results with the results of others.
5. Moreover, collaborative technology is closely related to data openness and reliable cooperation. I miss a reference to the concept of open innovation or at least consider whether this concept can support the development of collaborative technology. Please refer to the work of Open Innovation Business Model as an Opportunity to Enhance the Development of Sustainable Shared Mobility Industry, 10.3390/joitmc8010036 and https://doi.org/10.1177/000812561668395 in the discussion.
6. In conclusion, I miss an indication of the limitations of the research carried out and the authors' further research plans on the subject matter.
Author Response
Reviewer 1:
The article concerns an interesting topic which is "Assessing the Influence of Collaborative Technology Adoption? Mediating Role of Sociotechnical, Organizational, and Economic Factors". The topic of the article is very timely and in my opinion fits into the thematic scope of the Sustainability journal.
The article is interesting, but has a few bugs that should be eliminated before the actual publication.
From an editing point of view:
- The article has incorrect literature formatting - names instead of numbers.
Response: Literature is formatted according to the journal format
- The article has an invalid reference list that does not conform to MDPI formatting.
Response: Reference and citation is numbered according to the journal format
- The article has very poor quality fugures that should be improved.
Response: Figure qualities has been improved
From the substantive point of view:
- The first chapter lacks a clear indication of the purpose of the research.
Response: The study aims is to investigate what influences collaborative robots’ adoption by evaluating the sociotechnical, organizational, and Economic factors
- At the end of the first chapter, there is no information about the organization of the article and an indication of how many chapters it contains, what constitutes individual chapters, etc.
Response: Article organization is prosed at the end of introduction chapter -
- I don't like the unmarked subsections in chapter 2. For example, "Organizational factors". It is worth introducing numbering, for example, "2.1. Organizational factors" etc.
Response: Sub-section has given proper heading number
- In the discussion I miss a specific reference to the research conducted by other authors and confronting the results with the results of others.
Reference: Discussion section is compared and results are supported with the past studies.
- Moreover, collaborative technology is closely related to data openness and reliable cooperation. I miss a reference to the concept of open innovation or at least consider whether this concept can support the development of collaborative technology. Please refer to the work of Open Innovation Business Model as an Opportunity to Enhance the Development of Sustainable Shared Mobility Industry,
https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8010036 and https://doi.org/10.1177/000812561668395 v in the discussion.
Turoń, K. From the Classic Business Model to Open Innovation and Data Sharing—The Concept of an Open Car-Sharing Business Model. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. 2022. 8(1), 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8010036.
Nicolescu, Ovidiu, and Ciprian Nicolescu. Transition to the Knowledge-Based Economy and the Digital Economy–The Context of the Company Management, Stakeholder, and Social Responsibility Approach.Stakeholder Management and Social Responsibility. Routledge, 2022. 16-50.
Response: Recommended article are very useful and we have cited the work in the discussion section to support our studies. Thank you for the suggestions
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
this is an interesting work which could be further elaborated to improve its consistency.
Specifically, the introduction should be much more focused to justify the novelty of the work.
About socio-technical system, I would suggest the authors to frame the relative sections with respect the predominant literature. Please see for having a picture:
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031680
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rset.2022.100034
https://doi.org/10.3934/energy.2021035
Methods should be described in detail. I think the research procedure could be much more clearly described by means of a diagram also highlighting its potential and limit.
The discussion of the results is merely descriptive and the obtained evidence is flimsy due to the fact the outcomes are not supported by an adequate discussion in light of scientific literature. Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible.
Conclusions must also be revised according to the previous comments. In particular, they should discuss practical and policy implications as well as future lines of research.
I hope these comments might help in improving the paper and encourage the authors to move forward.
Author Response
Reviewer 2:
Dear authors,
This is an interesting work which could be further elaborated to improve its consistency.
Specifically, the introduction should be much more focused to justify the novelty of the work.
About socio-technical system, I would suggest the authors to frame the relative sections with respect the predominant literature. Please see for having a picture:
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031680 [cited- 42]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rset.2022.100034 [Cited 43]
https://doi.org/10.3934/energy.2021035 [cited 44]
Methods should be described in detail. I think the research procedure could be much more clearly described by means of a diagram also highlighting its potential and limit.
The discussion of the results is merely descriptive and the obtained evidence is flimsy due to the fact the outcomes are not supported by an adequate discussion in light of scientific literature. Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible.
Response: Discussion section is revised and supported with past literature Studies
Conclusions must also be revised according to the previous comments. In particular, they should discuss practical and policy implications as well as future lines of research.
Response: Conclusion is revised and policy implication is added
I hope these comments might help in improving the paper and encourage the authors to move forward.
Reviewer 3 Report
The study investigated the factors that influence the adoption of collaborative robots in the manufacturing sector in Russia from sociotechnical, organizational and Economic factors points. The authors use organizational factors, economic factors and sociotechnical factors to estimate the impact on robot adoption and perceived performance improvement. To comply with this, authors use CFA and SEM. The results are presented in tangible fashion and beautifully crafted. However, the results of reliability and validity tests should also be present in one table. The authors explained these results but not presented in the table.
Author Response
The study investigated the factors that influence the adoption of collaborative robots in the manufacturing sector in Russia from sociotechnical, organizational and Economic factors points. The authors use organizational factors, economic factors and sociotechnical factors to estimate the impact on robot adoption and perceived performance improvement. To comply with this, authors use CFA and SEM. The results are presented in tangible fashion and beautifully crafted. However, the results of reliability and validity tests should also be present in one table. The authors explained these results but not presented in the table.
Response: We are Thanking reviewer for the spending valuable time and review this study and we have addressed the required corrections requested – Table of the reliability and validity added in this work -
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, thank you for the corrections made. It looks much better. Before the publication, I would like to ask you to broaden the context of the discussion or summary to include the relationship between technological development and corporate social responsibility, which requires appropriate actions not to reduce social values. Please refer to the article: The Analysis Of Progress CSR Good Practices Areas In Logistic Companies Based On Reports "Responsible Business In Poland. Good Practices" In 2010-2014. It fits perfectly into the need to supplement business models with CSR.
Thank you!
Author Response
Response: We greatly appreciate and value your effort forreviewing our manuscript and very kind of the suggestions advised
We have correlated the relationship between CSR and Technological development and supported the idea with suggested article – Section 4- Discussion – Reference [60]
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is much improved
Author Response
We greatly appreciate and value your effort of reviewing our manuscript and very kind of the suggestions advised Thank you very much -
