Skip to Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Jinmin Kim 1,
  • AhRam Cho 2 and
  • Jaeyoung Kim 1,*

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title: Effect of standardization in service platform for high-involvement PropTech services

 

The issues raised by the authors are topical and interesting for the reader. It can be a source of inspiration for both theorists and practitioners. It can be a starting point for further scientific research.

The text is large and clear. The authors logically conduct a scientific argument.

The title indicates the subject matter discussed in the text.

The abstract is well written, comprehensive and sufficiently concise. The abbreviations TAM (add: Technology Acceptance Model), IS (add: Information System) and IR (add: Innovation Resistance) should be explained. The keywords are appropriate.

The introduction is very well written, setting the topic in context. The authors indicated the aim of the study and described the structure of the text

The authors have performed a critical and comprehensive review of the literature (77 references). It is relevant to the subject matter and current (more than half of the references - 56% - were published in 2016 or later, including 15 publications issued in 2020-2021). The text contains one self-citations: Kim, J.; Kim, J. An Integrated Analysis of Value-Based Adoption Model and Information Systems Success Model for PropTech Service Platform. Sustainability. 2021, 13(23), 12974.

On the basis of the analyzes (correct and logical reasoning), the authors formulated eight main hypotheses and twenty detailed hypotheses. The conceptual model proposed by the authors on Figure 1 is consistent and transparent.

What the abbreviation TAM means is explained in line 73 of the text, there is no need to explain the abbreviation again in line 152.

In this section, the authors should identify the main research gaps.

Research Methodology - the description is clear. The process of creating the questionnaire and conducting the research is described in detail. The structure of the respondents was presented (524 people). It should be clearly indicated which country the respondents were from. This may be important for comparisons with studies by other authors.

The research process does not raise any objections. The authors explained the questions of their questionnaire in a logical and transparent manner and indicated the sources of this questionnaire.

„Results” section: The authors conducted all the necessary tests to verify the applied research tool. In my opinion, these calculations should be moved to the "Research Methodology" section.

The "Results" section is logical and clear. The authors verified the hypotheses correctly.

The conclusions are correctly formulated, based on the results of the previous analyzes. The authors indicated implications of the research results as well as shortcomings and perspectives for further research.

Author Response

Dear  Anonymous Reviewer,

We thank you for the feedback on our manuscript, "Effect of standardization in service platforms for high-involvement PropTech services".

We did our best to address every concern in the feedback. The review process significantly improved the quality of our manuscript.

We really appreciate it. 

Sincerely,

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is devoted to an important issue of standardization in service platform for high-involve-ment PropTech services. The subject matter discussed in the article is an interesting one, timely and novelty (the review indicates both Originality, Logical Coherence/Strength of Argument/Academic Soundness). It is useful from the scientific point of view and interesting for the readers.

The statement is transparent, factually correct and well structured. The cited bibliography confirms the thesis put forward by the authors. However, data sources in figures and tables should be improved - Authors should clearly indicate where the data comes from or who is their author as well as colors in tables (e.g. Table 1). Numerous tabular statements are sufficiently commented. The presented final conclusions sufficiently relate to the thesis put forward by the authors. The English language and style are fine; the minor text editing faults.

Author Response

Dear  Anonymous Reviewer,

We thank you for the feedback on our manuscript, "Effect of standardization in service platforms for high-involvement PropTech services".

In the revised manuscript, data sources for figures and tables pointed out by reviewers have been improved. We did our best to address every concern in the feedback. The review process significantly improved the quality of our manuscript.

It should be noted that the current manuscript is somewhat longer than the previous manuscript by responding to the comments of both reviewers one by one and reflecting them in the revised manuscript during the revision process. If you have any immediate questions or comments, please let us know and we will be happy to address them.

We really appreciate it. 


Sincerely,

Reviewer 3 Report

This study proposes an extension to the widely-known Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to investigate the effect of standardisation in the service platform for high-involvement PropTech services. In general, the execution of statistical analysis is rigorous enough. However, there are a couple of issues with the linearity and clarity of the research content, especially on the research focus, the methodology, and the discussion of key findings. The following comments intend to enable the authors to disseminate their work at the highest possible quality.

MAIN CONCERN.

  • After reading through the manuscript, I see unclear linearity of the research background (introduction), the research model (literature review), and the testbed for hypothesis testing (case study). The primary proposal of this research is the extended TAM. It is the foundation for research hypotheses, which would later be tested in the PropTech case. However, the PropTech case is prematurely mentioned in the Introduction section, while the literature review focuses on relevant theories but does not focus on PropTech at all (only one neglectable mention). Therefore, the authors must ensure that the flow from background to hypothesis-building to hypothesis-testing is consistently linear.

INTRODUCTION.

  • I suggest the authors remove all mention of PropTech services in this section. The removal does not affect the introductory narration of this research, which focuses on suggesting the extended TAM (solution) for IT service acceptance during the pandemic (research gap). Cleaning this section from the case study improves the value of the research gap, making the entire research more promising since it addresses an essential theoretical gap rather than practical problems for PropTech services.
  • At the end of the Introduction section, the authors should formulate a couple of research questions. They are critical to guiding the form of research design: what activities, methods, and instruments are necessary to answer each of them. It also provides guidelines to ensure a consistent corridor of research processes and findings. The authors may refer to this article to build appropriate research questions for this research ⇒ DOI: 10.1177/1350508410372151

LITERATURE REVIEW.

  • Lines 100-149. Please make this a subsection, and give a proper title.
  • Lines 151 and 193. Please distinguish the titles of these subsections.
  • Line 219. "Mediator variables" → "Mediating variables" (variables that mediate)

METHODOLOGY.

  • The information in this section is too messy. It mixes methodological information (developed before the survey) with primary information (produced after the survey has been conducted). The authors should move all primary information (number of respondents, demographic characteristics) to the "Results" section.
  • Besides, I suggest the authors provide a better structure for this section, for example:
    1. Subsection 3.1 (Research Design). Case-agnostic systematic "Research Design" that contains brief explanations of research stages (step-by-step). The brief overview must convince readers that this research has been conducted systematically and has included all necessary research activities.
    2. Subsection 3.2 (Study Area). Any mention of the testbed (PropTech case) should only begin from this subsection onwards. Please remove any mentions of the case that currently appear before this subsection. In this subsection, the authors must explain why the PropTech is the proper testbed to test the research model/hypotheses. Please also argue the significance of the PropTech case among similar cases in South Korea.
    3. Subsection 3.3 (Sampling and Research Instruments). This subsection should focus on presenting: First, how the authors calculate the required sample size to test the hypotheses in the PropTech case. Please provide explicit mathematical formulas to calculate the required sample size. Second, how the authors develop the research instrument (questionnaires development, distribution, and collection). Please avoid mentioning primary information such as the number of respondents, valid responses, etc.
    4. Subsection 3.4 (Analysis). This subsection should focus on the statistical methods used in this research to test the hypotheses. The authors should argue the relevancy and necessity of the methods to the research objectives. Please cite relevant references regarding the methods and their example usages to support the arguments.

RESULTS.

  • The basic primary results (number of respondents, valid responses, demographic characteristics, etc.) should appear as the first subsection in the "Results" section. It would clear up the linearity issue between research stages.

DISCUSSION.

  • I am surprised that this social science research has not included any "Discussion" section. The authors should make a separate "Discussion" section to prove what this research has done for the scientific literature. In this section, the authors should conduct a compare-and-contrast process between each key finding of this study to the results of relevant literature. This way, the Discussion section is the place where authors show the de facto proof of their scientific contributions.
  • Besides, this section should include relevant literature covering both sides (positive vs. negative results; intuitive vs. counter-intuitive results) compared to the results of this research. It would significantly enrich the whole discussion.
  • Then, the Discussion section should be arranged to answer all Research Questions in their original order. It should be clear which key finding(s) would answer which Research Question.
  • NOTE: Since this section presents a comprehensive compare-and-contrast process to the scholarly literature, the Discussion section is typically much longer than the Conclusion section.

Author Response

Dear  Anonymous Reviewer,

We thank you for the feedback on our manuscript, "Effect of standardization in service platforms for high-involvement PropTech services".

We did our best to address every concern in the feedback. The review process significantly improved the quality of our manuscript. 

It should be noted that the current manuscript is somewhat longer than the previous manuscript by responding to the comments of reviewers one by one and reflecting them in the revised manuscript during the revision process. If you have any immediate questions or comments, please let us know and we will be happy to address them.

We really appreciate it. 


Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

After reading through the revised manuscript, I see that the authors have put effort into revising their first submission. I want to suggest the following revisions for this second review round.

LINEARITY CONCERNS.

  • The linearity issues in this article have not been thoroughly addressed. The authors claim that "[f]ollowing your suggestion, we deleted this part on Introduction on page 2." However, the premature mentions in the Introduction and Literature Review sections are still there. More premature mentions are even added in the Research Design subsection. The authors should think about this: how come PropTech appear before it is even proposed as a testbed in Subsection 3.2? Therefore, these linearity issues remain.
  • Please delete the phrases "We collect ... housing property" (lines 64-65), "for PropTech services" (line 68), "We believe ... and personalization)" (lines 68-70), "PropTech services," (line 74), ", in PropTech services" (line 81), and "PropTech" (line 144).
  • Please replace the sentence "System quality ... independent variables" (lines 70-72) with "This study particularly observes system quality, considering the establishment of service standards processes proposed by companies, and service quality-defining service standards." Declaring specific issues as variables in the Introduction section is too premature.

METHODOLOGICAL CONCERNS.

  • Lines 285-294. These statements are more appropriate for detailed explanations in Subsections 3.2-3.4. In a research design, the authors should explain the step-by-step of this research by focusing on a short overview of the objectives, methods, and expected outcomes for each research stage. Please relate each stage to research questions to see which research questions are addressed in which research stage(s). Also, please consistently avoid mentioning PropTech before it is proposed in Subsection 3.2.
  • Line 295. "PropTech" is not a methodological term. Also, no research has ever treated "PropTech" as a research stage. It is either "Case Study" or "Observed Case."
  • Lines 296. All information to support the selection of PropTech should be based on validated information. Please cite official documents/published literature for the case selection.
  • Line 307. Every researcher should be aware of what formula underlying sample size calculation in software to ensure that the sample size fits the purpose of statistical analysis. Since there are numerous ways to calculate sample size, please state the original formula (whose and which) instead of mentioning the software.
  • Line 312. Please state the "research model" and "previous literature" the authors are referring to. Besides, please explain in detail what adaptations the authors apply to fit the existing model and related literature for the PropTech case.
  • Lines 320-328. It is imperative to argue that SEM-PLS is the appropriate analysis method for this study. Therefore, please refer to relevant studies to support the arguments for using SEM-PLS in this research.

MINOR CONCERN on CONCLUSION.

  • Lines 482-484. Since PropTech is a testbed to address a theoretical concern (extending TAM), please expand this paragraph by focusing on the introductory narration of this study from a theoretical perspective (not the PropTech case). One suggestion is to present a short summary of the Introduction section (which should not mention the PropTech case).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We thank you for the feedback on our manuscript, “Effect of standardization in service platforms for high-involvement PropTech services." We did our best to address every concern in the feedback. The review process significantly improved the quality of our manuscript.

We really appreciate it. There are several changes made in the revised manuscript.

It should be noted that we responded to every point from a reviewer, attempted to address it in the revision process, and incorporated it in the revised manuscript. If there are any immediate questions or comments, please do let us know and we will be happy to address them.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.


Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf