Building Sustainable Creative Economy in Society through the Mediation Role of Innovation Behavior
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
What is the main question in the study?
The article raises an interesting problem of building a sustainable creative economy in society through the mediating role of innovative behavior. However, it does not present the main question of the study and it does not present the purpose of the article.
Is it relevant and interesting?
The discussed issue is currently interesting, and the study measures the scope of the role of DC, GB, PWB in building the SCE.
Is the text original?
The text is original.
Is the article well written?
The article is written correctly. It should be specified whether the presented results refer only to the territory of Indonesia or whether they can also be applied to the global dimension
Is the article clear and easy to read?
The article is easy to read for experts in the described problem.
Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments?
The conclusions are in line with the conducted considerations.
Do they address the main question asked?
The authors did not present the purpose of the research or the research questions, so the main question is for the individual reader to discover.
1. Please clearly write the purpose of the article and the research question or questions in the abstract and in the article.
2. In Chapter 2, in its individual parts, a total of 12 hypotheses based on the literature analysis are presented, but the question arises whether these are the hypotheses adopted in the article?, because the authors do not refer to them in the analysis and verification of the results.
3. There is a problem with the methodology of the article, because the authors rely on the results of the study by analyzing 294 surveys collected among respondents from 6 major cities in Indonesia ..., the authors did not specify what cities they were or when the study was carried out (it was mentioned only in the conclusions) . The results are based on only 294 surveys collected in several million cities, so are they probabilistic? The authors stated that the selection of respondents was made according to the criteria of having experience, but the question arises, what were the criteria related to experience?
4. Figure 2 is hard to read, please improve its quality.
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing and providing input to us to improve the article. We are happy and very enthusiastic to respond to the results of your review. We hope that our improvements can be satisfactory for all parties. Thank You.
Reviewer 1: Please clearly write the purpose of the article and the research question or questions in the abstract and in the article.
Author: We have added and clarified the article's purpose and the research question or questions in the abstract and article.
Reviewer 1: In Chapter 2, in its individual parts, a total of 12 hypotheses based on the literature analysis are presented, but the question arises whether these are the hypotheses adopted in the article?, because the authors do not refer to them in the analysis and verification of the results.
Author: The hypothesis is built based on theoretical studies that show the relationship between the variables studied. This theoretical study comes from books and research reports published in journal databases. This is what underlies us in developing hypotheses.
Reviewer 1: There is a problem with the methodology of the article, because the authors rely on the results of the study by analyzing 294 surveys collected among respondents from 6 major cities in Indonesia ..., the authors did not specify what cities they were or when the study was carried out (it was mentioned only in the conclusions) . The results are based on only 294 surveys collected in several million cities, so are they probabilistic? The authors stated that the selection of respondents was made according to the criteria of having experience, but the question arises, what were the criteria related to experience?
Author: In the method section, especially in the research participant section. We've clarified the criteria specifically in terms of experience in innovation. Meanwhile, we did not mention the cities designated as research sites. However, we have the consideration that the cities designated are cities that have received awards for achievements in the development of creative industries. We also emphasize this in the method and section.
Reviewer 1: Figure 2 is hard to read, please improve its quality.
Author: We've tried to improve the pixel quality of the image. We hope to read clearly.
Reviewer 2 Report
This one studies and measures the extent of the role of DC, GB, PWB and IB in building a deeper SCE, IB also tested its mediating role in the influence of DC, GB and PWB in enhancing SCE development. The article has potential but the authors should explain certain items better:
1) What are the contributions of this study to the existing literature?
2) The bibliography should be placed in chronological order, and the articles cited should have better Ranking (ABS, WOS and SCOPUS).
3) Using an ex-post facto design means that the study is looking at relationships between variables that already exist, rather than manipulating them, which limits the ability to draw causal conclusions.
4) While 294 participants is a decent sample size, it is unclear whether they are representative of the broader population of creative industry communities in Indonesia. In addition, the fact that participants voluntarily completed the questionnaire may introduce some bias.
5) The study is based on self-reported data, which may be subject to response or social desirability biases. While SEM analysis is a popular and useful tool for examining complex relationships between variables, it is still subject to certain assumptions and limitations.
6) The results of the study may not be generalizable beyond the specific context of creative industry communities in Indonesia.
7) The language and terminology of the study may be difficult for non-experts to understand, which may limit the potential impact of the findings.
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing and providing input to us to improve the article. We are happy and very enthusiastic to respond to the results of your review. We hope that our improvements can be satisfactory for all parties. Thank You.
Reviewer 2: What are the contributions of this study to the existing literature?
Author: The results of this study provide an overview to the government and society to seek the growth of digital competence and green behavior, which is balanced with psychological well-being to encourage sustainable creative economic development in society. These results contribute to the development of literature based on current global issues. These results also contribute to strengthening the existing literature that building a creative economy requires the support of new-oriented behaviors that are built through mastery of developing technology, sustainable (green) behavior, and prosperous balanced psychological conditions.
Reviewer 2: The bibliography should be placed in chronological order, and the articles cited should have better Ranking (ABS, WOS and SCOPUS).
Author: Of course, we try to refer to articles from reputable international journals such as Scopus and WOS. We ensure that most refer to articles published in reputable international journals. However, in certain contexts, we only get articles from less or less reputable journals. Moreover, related to things that are more specific in scope. Especially a problem in certain countries.
Reviewer2: While 294 participants is a decent sample size, it is unclear whether they are representative of the broader population of creative industry communities in Indonesia. In addition, the fact that participants voluntarily completed the questionnaire may introduce some bias.
Author: We confirm that the 294 participants were selected from several creative industries spread across six cities in Indonesia. We consider this selection because it has been awarded for developing creative industries. We also use the voluntary principle, considering that this greatly affects the level of rationality of the data generated. But we ensure the participants' accuracy aligns with the goals achieved.
Reviewer 2: The language and terminology of the study may be difficult for non-experts to understand, which may limit the potential impact of the findings.
Author: We make grammatical corrections so that readers from all walks of life can more easily understand it.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article entitled Building Sustainable Creative Economy in Society Through the Mediation Role of Innovation Behavior, represents a research of scientific interest, timely in the global context of uncertainty.
Authors should improve the following aspects to bring the research to a publishable level.
1) Abbreviations should not be entered in the abstract
2) In the abstract, the potential beneficiaries of the research must be highlighted
3) The paper does not contain footnotes. Throughout the paper, as in the following example, footnotes appear: According to reports from Li et al. (2021), innovation behavior (IB) in society determines the main indicators of creativity in society, so that they are able to create something new that has high benefits 12??? (lines 53-55)
4) The objectives of the study are not clearly highlighted in the introduction. The last 2 paragraphs should be amended accordingly.
5) Please revise table 1 (row alignment) so that the Standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) does not require the declaration of 2 sets of values. In addition, please check the criteria at probability 0.407≥0.50??? FIT???
Please do the same for table 2.
6) Figure 2 is not legible. It needs to be redone. Check the values written in yellow. They are not seen. In addition, we recommend that you enter the notations from the figure in the text, otherwise a legend must be added. Please check and explain in more detail why you entered only 4 IB indicators when you present 5 in the text and clearly define the selected ones. It is necessary to note the indicators in the text according to the figure.
7) An important observation is related to hypotheses. In our opinion, the level of intensity of the correlations generates significant changes in the perception of the hypotheses. We extracted the hypotheses and their proof from the text. Please further argue the positive influence of the intensity correlation 0.147, which argues the construction of hypothesis 7 (for example).
The validation of the hypotheses according to the work is currently as follows:
H1 : DC plays a positive role in constructing GB
The estimated path coefficient on DC to GB was obtained at 0.247, and the p value of 0.000***
H2: PWB played a positive role in stimulating GB
the path coefficient value of PWB to GB is 0.540, and the p value is 0.000***, so that H2 is also supported
H3: DC plays a positive role in stimulating IB
DC path to IB with an estimate of 0.198 and a p value of 0.000***, thus supporting H3
H4: GB plays a positive role in stimulating IB
H4 is supported by considering the estimated path coefficient of 0.213 and a p value of 0.000*** on the GB to IB path.
H5: PWB plays a positive role in stimulating IB
Furthermore, the path coefficient on PWB to IB is 0.863 and the p value is 0.000***, so that H5 is supported.
H6: DC plays a positive role in constructing SCE
The effect of DC on SCE is obtained by a path coefficient with an estimate 369 of 0.147 with a p value of 0.000***, so that H6 is supported
H7 : GB plays a positive role in constructing SCE
The effect of DC on SCE is obtained by a path coefficient with an estimate of 0.147 with a p value of 0.000***, so that H6 is supported
H8: PWB plays a positive role in stimulating SCE
PWB affects SCE by obtaining a path coefficient value of 0.312 with a p value of 0.000***, so that H8 is supported
H9: IB plays a positive role in building SCE
IB has a significant influence on SCE with an estimated value of 0.541 with a p value of 0.000***, so it also supports H9
H10 : AI significantly mediates the effect of DC on SCE
The estimated coefficient of the indirect effect of DC on SCE is 0.122 with a p value of 0.000***, so that H10 is supported
H11 : AI significantly mediates the effect of GB on SCE
the indirect effect of GB on SCE is 0.161 with a p value of 0.000***, so H11 is also supported
H12 : AI significantly mediates the effect of PWB on SCE
the coefficient of the indirect effect of PWB on SCE is 0.108 with a p value of 0.000***, so H12 is also supported.
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing and providing input to us to improve the article. We are happy and very enthusiastic to respond to the results of your review. We hope that our improvements can be satisfactory for all parties. Thank You.
Reviewer 3: Abbreviations should not be entered in the abstract
Author: We've edited the abbreviations to clarify what they stand for before shortening the terms in the abstract.
Reviewer 3: In the abstract, the potential beneficiaries of the research must be highlighted
Author: We have added and confirmed the potential beneficiaries of the research into the abstract.
Reviewer 3: The paper does not contain footnotes. Throughout the paper, as in the following example, footnotes appear: According to reports from Li et al. (2021), innovation behavior (IB) in society determines the main indicators of creativity in society, so that they are able to create something new that has high benefits 12??? (lines 53-55)
Author: We apologize for writing errors, especially in referring to a literary source. In this case, we have changed the citation style to suit the provisions in the sustainability journal.
Reviewer: The objectives of the study are not clearly highlighted in the introduction. The last 2 paragraphs should be amended accordingly.
Author: We have clarified the research objectives and provided additions related to relevant research questions to achieve the objectives.
Reviewer 3: Please revise table 1 (row alignment) so that the Standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) does not require the declaration of 2 sets of values. In addition, please check the criteria at probability 0.407≥0.50??? FIT???
Author: We've fixed tables 1 and 2 with regards to row alignment. Regarding the model suitability index, especially for probability, where the theory states that at a significance level of 5% it is 0.050. In this case we are not careful in writing the number so that it becomes 0.50. We apologize for the error. Related to this, we have revised it by adding 0 in front of the number 5 (to 0.050).
Reviewer 3: Figure 2 is not legible. It needs to be redone. Check the values written in yellow. They are not seen. In addition, we recommend that you enter the notations from the figure in the text, otherwise a legend must be added. Please check and explain in more detail why you entered only 4 IB indicators when you present 5 in the text and clearly define the selected ones. It is necessary to note the indicators in the text according to the figure.
Author: We've increased the resolution of images to address the lack of readability of captions in images. Furthermore, related to the IB indicator, we have eliminated a number of one indicator with the consideration that the loading factor value is below 0.700 (according to existing theory). We have also clarified in more detail what indicators were eliminated and why in the method section.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors carried out the reviewers' suggestions. The article should be accepted.
Good luck!
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is now ready for publication.
