Sustainability Model for the Continuous Intention to Use Metaverse Technology in Higher Education: A Case Study from Oman

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present an interesting paper and a possible impact of metaverse technology in education. The interesting thing is that the authors start the paper with a self-citation and they have cited themselves around 10-12 times, witch means that 15% of the citations are papers published by one of the authors. 

The paper has fragments with no further explanations. For example, "Even though some studies have focused on the significance of metaverse, none of them have produced satisfactory results based on a comprehensive model which incorporates all critical variables. Metaverse is a newly constructed system is one of the key reasons for the absence of a full understanding of its effectiveness. The study aims to prevent effective technique and a solid conceptual model from being used to research the metaverse system's effects in depth."

What are the critical variables?

Also, they specify that "Metaverse is a newly constructed system", but reading the paper, they change they mind and say that "The metaverse system was distinct from earlier technologies such as virtual environments and reality"

Also, can authors clarify what "satisfactory results"  look like,  as none of previous studies have produced "satisfactory results", and how their work does that?

The authors said something about a study and questionary, without describing it. 

 

 

Author Response

The authors are really very grateful to the feedback and comments raised by the reviewer which really assist them to significantly enhance this work and its presentation. The productive and valuable remarks enable us to update many parts of the paper as shown by the responses to each comment. Our responses are mentioned below under each comment raised by the reviewer and it is written in (Times New Roman, red color). Besides, all the updated parts in the manuscript were highlighted in yellow color in order to be easily tracked by the reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Authors have discussed "Sustainability model for The Continuous Intention to Use Metaverse Technology in Education: AI & SEM-ML approach". But, at any point in time, the quality of education differs from state to state and also from country to country. The title of the paper is not talking about this. It is considered general education. If it is the case, then the sample size of 953 is very less. With a small sample size, one can not predict the whole education. So, I suggest changing the title of the paper to mention the state or country. 

 2. The title also talks about AI & SEM-ML. Artificial Intelligence is a vast concept, and what component of AI is used must be reflected in the title. Similarly, ML has many things and all are not used in the paper. The author must identify the fundamental notions used in the paper and it must be reflected in the title of the article.

3. Authors have used much literature on metaverse. But, some references are old and can be removed. In addition, the authors must introduce a new section talking about scientific techniques used in this paper. It must be discussed briefly. 

4. The questionnaire circulated to collect data must be available publicly. This will help the readers to understand the paper.

5. The measurement items presented in Table 2 must be discussed before the development of the model and data collection. It can be in terms of paragraphs rather than a table.

6. Authors must reference recent literature relating to SEM. A few are referenced below.

- DOI: 10.4018/IJACI.2020040105

- doi.org/10.1007/s12652-020-01687-8

7. The SEM-PLS path model must be constructed. In addition to that, authors must calculate the accuracy of the model using various measures. 

8. The conclusion must be improved. 

 

Author Response

The authors are really very grateful to the feedback and comments raised by the reviewer which really assist them to significantly enhance this work and its presentation. The productive and valuable remarks enable us to update many parts of the paper as shown by the responses to each comment. Our responses are mentioned below under each comment raised by the reviewer and it is written in (Times New Roman, red color). Besides, all the updated parts in the manuscript were highlighted in yellow color in order to be easily tracked by the reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The idea of the paper is very good. However, I have few observations that need to be addressed:

 English needs some serious revisions.

There are some spelling mistakes (or may be Typos) in text and even in the questionnaire  

The use of past, present tenses needs a through revision

Arguments and generic/informative statement are repetitive at times.

It would ne good if you deposit questionnaire data file in the journal repository.

It is mentioned that students didn’t have the chance to access MS. Then how come, their answers reliable regarding use of MS

In statistics based results, when you mention a reference, you should also add a line that the test you have done meets the criterion as stated in the cited research

Kindly improve the figures for measurement model and SEM.

For an SEM based paper, the discussion on results doesn’t provide sufficient statistical evidences.  

Conclusions needs serious improvement

Author Response

The authors are really very grateful to the feedback and comments raised by the reviewer which really assist them to significantly enhance this work and its presentation. The productive and valuable remarks enable us to update many parts of the paper as shown by the responses to each comment. Our responses are mentioned below under each comment raised by the reviewer and it is written in (Times New Roman, red color). Besides, all the updated parts in the manuscript were highlighted in yellow color in order to be easily tracked by the reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Good