Antecedents of Waze Mobile Application Usage as a Solution for Sustainable Traffic Management among Gen Z
, Frances Jeann Charlize S. Bermejo 2, Keisha Taranee C. Elpedes 2, Lady Fatima E. Gonzales 2 and Aaron Chastine V. Villajin 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for providing this article on the antecedents of Waze Mobile Application Usage as a Solution for Sustainable Traffic Management among Gen Z. The manuscript is too weak to warrant publication at this time. There are major gaps in the conceptual framework and methodology. Below I present my main concerns with the current form and some suggestions to improve it.
Abstract
1. In the abstract section, I suggest reporting the results after describing the methodology and not vice versa. Consequently, the statement between lines 15 and 17 "The study’s data results have revealed that the System Quality, Perceived Location Accuracy, Perceived Usefulness, and Perceived Ease of Use affect Filipinos' intentions to use traffic navigation applications, particularly Waze" should be placed right after the methodological description ([...] partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM)").
Introduction
2. The introduction section requires additional elaboration in order to highlight the importance and motivations of the current study.
3. In line 63, I suggest using the proper in-text citation "Yamsaengsung & Papasratorn do [9]".
Conceptual Framework
4. Section 2 needs to be improved, focusing on recent empirical studies in order to justify the choice of hypotheses.
5. Davis' Technology Acceptance Model hypothesized the positive influence of ease of use on perceived usefulness of the technology. You have ignored this hypothesis in your model. Kindly clarify your decision.
6. The hypotheses formulated in lines 140 to 143 do not accurately capture your model (Figure 1). For instance, you stated that "Hypothesis 5 (H5). Perceived usability has significant and positive effect on attitude". However, in the model we found the "usage intention" rather than the attitude, and "usage behavior" instead of "usage intention".
7. This section includes chunks of text with no references. For instance, in lines 105-106, "System quality is often based on an information system's accuracy, comprehensiveness, timeliness, and presentation format" there is no in-text citation to support the statements. Kindly include in-text citation to support your statements according to previous studies.
8. Surprisingly, the authors presented eight hypotheses, whereas the research model only includes seven hypotheses.
9. I do not think it is useful to divide this section in subsections since there is only one subsection (2.1).
Methodology
10. In line 164, the authors mentioned, "The survey link was sent to the intended participants for a duration of two months". To avoid any confusion, kindly specify the starting and ending date of the data collection.
11. In Table 1, there is an issue with the categories of the age variable. I suggest using the age ranges as categories.
12. Please briefly report the respondent demographics shown in Table 1.
Results and Findings
13. In lines 209-210, the authors stated that " […] reliability, and validity results are presented in Table 5". The problem is that Table 5 shows the discriminant validity suing the Fornell-Larcker criterion.
14. In Table 3 devoted to reporting reliability and convergent validity outcomes, the authors are asked to include additional essential criteria for assessing composite reliability, such as rho_a, and rho_c.
15. Tables 5 and 6 related to the discriminant validity should be placed within the part related to outcomes of the measurement model, and not after the results of the hypothesis testing (structural model).
16. I would also invite the authors to introduce other essential criteria for checking the structural model, including the effect size (f2), the predictive relevance (Q2), and the model goodness-of-fit (GoF).
Discussion
17. The discussions represent a crucial section that provides context, meaning, and significance to the findings. In this section, the authors should explain what the findings mean, and how they contribute to the field. They should also compare their results to previous research, and explain how the new findings add to the existing knowledge. The discussion section of this paper fails to contextualize the results within the broader field of study.
Bibliographic Reference
18. There is a serious problem concerning in-text citations. Note that the same reference has been quoted in two different placements; more precisely the in-text quotations 3 and 33 refers to the same reference.
· 3. Noerkaisar, N., Suharjo, B., & Yuliati, L. N. (2016). The adoption stages of mobile navigation technology waze app as Jakarta traffic jam solution. Independent Journal of Management & Production, 7(3), 914-925
· 33. Noerkaisar, N., Suharjo, B., & Yuliati, L. N. (2016). The adoption stages of mobile navigation technology waze app as Jakarta traffic jam solution. Independent Journal of Management & Production, 7(3), 914-925
19. The same problem for reference 13 and 14
· 13. Voinea, G. D., Postelnicu, C. C., Duguleana, M., Mogan, G. L., & Socianu, R. (2020, September 28). Driving performance and technology acceptance evaluation in real traffic of a smartphone-based driver assistance system. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(19), 7098. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197098
· 14. Voinea, G. D., Postelnicu, C. C., Duguleana, M., Mogan, G. L., & Socianu, R. (2020, September 28). Driving performance and technology acceptance evaluation in real traffic of a smartphone-based driver assistance system. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(19), 7098. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197098
20. In line 63, I suggest using the proper in-text citation. For instance
· In line 63, "Yamsaengsung [9]"// "Yamsaengsung and Papasratorn [9]".
· In line 115 "Peeta and Ramos [15]"// "Peeta, Ramos, and Pasupathy [15]"
21. The in-text citation used in line 296 "Yamsaengsung & Papasratorn [44]; Ben-Elia et al. [14]", do not match with reference 44. Please correct it.
22. I can note that reference citations in the text do not appear in the references section. For instance, Ouellette and Wood [37], do not appear in the reference list.
Please ensure that each citation listed in the text is also included in the reference list (and vice versa). Therefore, I highly recommend using a reference management software to prepare citations.
Minor issues:
23. Problems in subsection numbering. For instance, there is no subsection 3.4.
All the best
Some English editing is needed to correct the various grammatical errors present in the manuscript.
I strongly recommend professional proofreading for the entire manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Here are some comments for the authors to consider:
1. Page 4, line 140. It is suggested to use the same expression of the variables in your Figure and your Hypothesis, different kinds of expressions without any relevant explanations can really undermine the readability of your paper. For instance, Perceived usefulness in Figure 1, but Perceived usability in H5; Usage intention in Figure 1, but attitude in H5, H6; Actual use in Figure 1, but usage behavior in H7.
2. Page 4, line 143. Can not find H8 in your extended TAM (Figure 1), some explanations will be needed.
3. Page 4, line 156. There should be a “was” between “profile” and “shown” instead of an “I”.
4. Page 4, line 165. How do you make sure that every respondent fully completed the questionnaire? As you have mentioned that the total number of the respondents was set at 300, how do you select these 300 respondents, by the time they finished the form or what? Please add more detail of the online-survey process.
5. The sample size is only 300 which is relatively low for a field survey. Is it even enough for the proposed model? Techniques to calculate the sample size can be found here: https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3051283. The authors can use the formula here to check whether the sample size satisfied the standard or not.
5. Page 4, line 175. An additional “(6)” should be deleted.
6. Page 5, line 178. “The questionnaire was briefly discussed with each respondent.” seemed to be contradict with the pervious description that “without any assistance from the researchers”.
7. Page 13. The Author Contributions part should be modified.
Please consider these comments and modify the manuscript accordingly.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Please find attached my comments and suggestions regarding your manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Some English editing is needed to correct the various grammatical errors present in the manuscript. I strongly recommend professional proofreading for the entire manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Please find attached my comments and suggestions regarding your manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your kind review and your significant contribution in improving our paper. We have revised the table for goodness-of-fit of the model calculation in the revised manuscript.
