Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is very interesting and touches actual issues. Many countries deal with the cyber problems in this field (digitalization) recently. But more emphasis is necessary to explain why the digital signature is important. The method used in the research is not new but it is often in similar researches. Hypotheses have enough theoretical explanation. Questionnaire is well constructed.

I would suggest to put more emphasis and strengths on proving the importance of digital signature not only in pandemic times but in relation to sustainability in particular. From the current text it is difficult to perceive what is meant under “Sustainable Adoption of Digital Signature” and how it is related to the cybercrime.

Abbreviations should appear only after when the full name is mentioned. Now the reader needs to look for the meaning somewhere after he/ she comes to the abbreviation.

English needs to be strictly reviewed throughout the text, as many claims sound rather strange. It is difficult to understand what authors really mean: whether they agree or disagree with other authors, etc. I think that inaccurate English is the main problem with this document. I am not sure if I understood correctly what the authors really meant.

Part of the discussion could be improved by putting greater emphasis on the results that should be discussed. There is not much in the discussion about the interpretation of the data. The second limitation (see 6.3 in Conclusions) could be extended and explained in details. Now it sounds doubtful.

Manuscript would benefit from a thorough edit after the proof-read.

Author Response

We are grateful for the opportunity to resubmit a revision for the manuscript. We want to thank all reviewers for the valuable remarks. We have reworked the manuscript based on reviewers’ suggestions. Please see below our responses to the reviewers' comments. We turned on the track changes feature to indicate the changes made in the manuscript. We appreciate the reviewers' comments. We feel that the paper has now been improved significantly. I am attaching the point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study examined factors affecting consumer intention in using digital signatures based on UTAUT 2 (Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2), TPB (Theory of Planned Behavior), and IACM (Information Acceptance Model) conceptual models. 

 

Although the results of the analysis are interesting, several concerns need to be addressed. First, there are 16 hypotheses (H1 ~ H16), which are too many and make it difficult to present the authors' arguments in a concise manner. Therefore, the authors need to reduce the hypotheses by focusing on the topic of this study. In particular, H1 to H6 and H12 to H14 need to be arranged. 

 

Second, since the AVE values of some constructs presented in Table 3 are lower than the standard value of 0.50, they should be improved. Specifically, PS (Privacy and Security) is 0.40, PV (Price Value) is 0.48, FC (Facilitating Conditions) is 0.46, AT (Attitude) is 0.35, IU (Information Adoption) is 0.42, BI (Behavioural Intention) is 0.45, which were below the standard value. 

 

Third, in Table 4, additional interpretation is needed for paths whose hypothesis results are not significant. Since the hypotheses were developed based on previous studies, it is necessary to sufficiently explain why these results were derived. 

 

Lastly, by adding the theoretical and practical implications of this study, it is necessary to present what differentiates this study from previous studies.

Author Response

We are grateful for the opportunity to resubmit a revision for the manuscript. We want to thank all reviewers for the valuable remarks. We have reworked the manuscript based on reviewers’ suggestions. Please see below our responses to the reviewers' comments. We turned on the track changes feature to indicate the changes made in the manuscript. We appreciate the reviewers' comments. We feel that the paper has now been improved significantly. I am attaching the point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

Review of the study “Factors Affecting the Sustainable Adoption of Digital Signature System during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Indonesia: An Integrated Model Analysis”

 

The reviewer believes that the study was carried out on a relevant topic. Indeed, in the context of digitalization and globalization, it becomes necessary to keep your data intact. A digital signature allows you to make the process of transmitting and receiving data (including financial data) more secure.

As comments, the reviewer recommends paying attention to the following aspects:

- the mention of Covid-19 in the title of the article is not entirely clear.

- the authors of the article focus only on the problems of a single country of Indonesia, which seriously reduces the practical applicability of the study for the rest of the world.

Isn't the problem of cybercrime a problem of other states?! In addition, naming the indicators of crimes in this area, the authors give absolute indicators, but perhaps they should have shown comparative ones, considered in terms of population, etc.

- the article would greatly benefit if the authors showed the unique experience of introducing digital signatures in other countries of the world.

- there are some doubts about the novelty of the proposed hypotheses. It seems that no one doubts that the introduction of digital protection will be positively received by the whole society.

In general, these remarks do not reduce the high professional level of the article.

Author Response

We are grateful for the opportunity to resubmit a revision for the manuscript. We want to thank all reviewers for the valuable remarks. We have reworked the manuscript based on reviewers’ suggestions. Please see below our responses to the reviewers' comments. We turned on the track changes feature to indicate the changes made in the manuscript. We appreciate the reviewers' comments. We feel that the paper has now been improved significantly. I am attaching the point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper Factors Affecting the Sustainable Adoption of Digital Signature System during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Indonesia: An Integrated Model Analysis examines the main factors affecting the consumer’s intention to adopt the digital signature based on several conceptual models. By using data collected from a survey conducted on a sample of 358 participants from Indonesia, whose perception and opinions were collected after answering 69 online questions reflected in the third section of the questionnaire, the authors measured the causes that negatively influence the sustainable adoption of digital signature system during the COVID-19 pandemic in the South-Eastern Asian country, by means of AMOS and structural equation modelling technique. The conceptual framework of the proposed research consists of three main methods: the theory of planned behaviour (TPB), the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology 2 (UTAUT2), and information acceptance model (IACM). The research article aims at being published in a well reputed economic journal, Sustainability.

The article is well structured, it fulfils to a certain extent the requirements made by the editorial board, it is interesting and of a high relevance in the context of a still continuous need for the use of digital signature for document approval activities during the pandemic we are going through. It seems that the relevance of the paper is given also by the actual case study made on the Republic of Indonesia, a country which is not only extremely populated (the fourth most populated on Earth), but which is also experiencing a gradual increase in the volume of the economic activities which need to be carried out quickly, efficiently and with reduced costs. The economic performance of a country seems to be a key factor for any sustainable development and Indonesia stands out as a top country in terms of GDP at purchasing power parity, having the seventh highest GDP at PPP in the world.

Consistency

            The approach presented in the paper seems to be an adequate one. However, the general background is much too limited to the Indonesian literature and I think that, before referring to the Indonesian case, at least one or two paragraphs of the introduction section should offer a much larger perspective. Readers are interested in obtaining a broader image of the current technological developments and in being presented to them complete and various images with respect to the need for adopting safe and sustainable mechanisms to facilitate different economic operations. These aspects are even more relevant especially since globalization is a worldwide phenomenon with many implications.

            I do have also a comment on the distribution of the interviewed people considered in the analysis. Out of the 358 participants, over 96% are individuals aged between 17 and 45. I consider that the category of over 46 year old was a little bit neglected in the study, most of the respondents (80%) being very young (17 to 35 years old). I think that the selection of respondents should have been more balanced in order to obtain much more relevant results for the analysis. I have a similar remark regarding the education background, more than 57% of the total number of the surveyed people being included in the undergraduate category. Nevertheless, the distribution of the sample taking into consideration the other socio-demographic characteristics considered for the analysis seems to be balanced enough.

In the Introduction part, I would suggest to clearly state what makes the paper original, which are the elements that bring about the novelty of the research.

After analysing the specific literature, the authors applied a complex scheme of analysis that brought about a pretty consistent study. The methodology and the materials used are pretty well described in the article, as well as the results and discussion. The authors also emphasized to a certain extent the economic, social and administrative background that explain the results pinpointed in the last sections of the paper. There is also a connection between the main results of the paper and the results reached in other papers concerning the same topic. Moreover, I appreciate the identification of the limitations of the study and the fact that they are properly mentioned in the text.

The conclusion is divided into three subsections and the authors underlined not only the limitations of their study, but also highlighted some future research directions or improvements and the implications of the current research paper both in theory and in practice. Unfortunately, the misspelling, the selection of words and the phrasing represent a really significant issue and have a negative impact on the quality of the information provided to the reader. It should be revised! 

Technical issues

In the abstract I would suggest avoiding the use of abbreviations because they might create confusion at this point for a simple reader. No abbreviations should be used in the abstract, especially since they are quite specific to the analysis and not that much used on a large scale. 

There is a serious lack in the use of the language and I would consider a serious check and rephrasing. For instance, the first phrase of the introduction makes no sense “Over recent decades in the growing acceptance and adoption of modern technology that peoples increasingly want to adopt new technologies in their daily lives” (lines 34-35). Confusion and/or misspelling are to be found throughout the whole paper. For instance, “Using a new technology launched to the market and continuous updating the system to become an important to improve the marketing industry and digital signature become new habits in the society” (lines 42-45) or “Moreover, the government is strictly prohibited toward the society’s gathering with endeavor to restricts on access to the public, and for anyone who violates the prohibition will face a strictly sanctions” (lines 50-52) or “According to Kaur and Kaur [8] stated that solution to all these security issues ...” (lines 57-58).

The use of tenses is not always appropriate, e.g. “In January 2021, internet penetration user in Indonesia reveals that more than 202.6 million (74.7%) of Indonesian people connecting to the internet” (lines 38-39) or “The digital signature is a mathematical algorithm to generated signature for ensures the privacy of conversation,…” (lines 59-60).

I don’t think it is appropriate to finish a (sub)section by a figure or a table. So, I would suggest to place Figure 1 immediately after it was first introduced in the main text, while the text from line 159 to 168 to be moved below the figure.

Perhaps it would be better to avoid using the actual name of the authors (Yang, Shen et al., Aydin et al., Hair et al. etc.) all over the paper and keep only the consecutive numbers placed between square brackets before punctuation.

I think that the information regarding the 69 measures from Table 1 should be placed at the end of the paper, as an appendix.

The references at the end of the paper do not respect entirely the requirements made by the editor. The authors should be presented starting with the last name followed by comma, the abbreviated first and middle name and then full stop “.”, not “,”. No “ “ are necessary when writing the name of the article or book. I think only 1 of the 86 references includes a page range. The authors should pay more attention and give all the required details.

Table 3, 4 and 5 and Figure 2 were not introduced in the main text. Attention should be paid to all those long tables where “Table x. Cont.” was actually placed because in the pdf form received it is not written on the top of the page as I believe the authors would have expected, but somewhere in the bottom. Between Table 4 and Table 5 there should be some text added, as well as after Table 5 and before the discussion section (5).

Author Response

We are grateful for the opportunity to resubmit a revision for the manuscript. We want to thank all reviewers for the valuable remarks. We have reworked the manuscript based on reviewers’ suggestions. Please see below our responses to the reviewers' comments. We turned on the track changes feature to indicate the changes made in the manuscript. We appreciate the reviewers' comments. We feel that the paper has now been improved significantly. I am attaching the point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript would benefit from English proof- read. Aspect of sustainability in relation to the digital signature still is odd. Numbered hypotheses (H1, H2, H3...) next to the findings would be helpful in Fig. 2 and 3. I would propose to think about grouping of findings into those  either in line or in contradiction with earlier studies, and provide them in the table. Best wishes for improving the manuscript.

 

Author Response

We are grateful for the opportunity to resubmit a revision for the manuscript. We would like to thank all reviewers for their valuable remarks. We have reworked the manuscript and implemented all remarks and suggestions. Please see below our responses to the reviewers' comments. We turned on the track-changes feature to indicate the changes made in the manuscript. We appreciate the reviewers' comments. We feel that the paper has now been improved significantly. Please find the point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments as attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I don't accept this manuscript because the authors did not sufficiently reflect my comments. For example, the authors explained that they combined three conceptual models of UTAUT2, TPB, and IACM to examine the effects of consumers' intention to use a digital signature. However, I still think that 16 hypotheses are too many to explain the authors' argument clearly.

Author Response

We are grateful for the opportunity to resubmit a revision for the manuscript. We would like to thank all reviewers for their valuable remarks. We have reworked the manuscript and implemented all remarks and suggestions. Please see below our responses to the reviewers' comments. We turned on the track-changes feature to indicate the changes made in the manuscript. We appreciate the reviewers' comments. We feel that the paper has now been improved significantly. Please find below the point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments as attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors applied the corrections suggested and I now consider the paper to better answer the requirements of a research paper.

Author Response

We are grateful for the opportunity to resubmit a revision for the manuscript. We would like to thank all reviewers for their valuable remarks. We have reworked the manuscript and implemented all remarks and suggestions. Please see below our responses to the reviewers' comments. We turned on the track-changes feature to indicate the changes made in the manuscript. We appreciate the reviewers' comments. We feel that the paper has now been improved significantly. Please find the point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments as attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Well done following the comments and proposals. Improvement of the model has added much value to the understanding of complex research results. Good luck!

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors fully addressed my comments. Based on these improvements, this manuscript is acceptable.