Mobile Government Use and Crisis Management: The Moderating Role of Techno-Skepticism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The abstract is too extended and requires a reduction;

2. The sources in the list of references should be prepared according to the journal style;

Author Response

Thank you very much for your efforts and help. Thanks to you, my article has improved a lot. If we have a mistake or deficiency, we are ready to change it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have significantly improved the paper. Under these conditions, I recommend its publication.

Author Response

thank you for everything. Our article has improved a lot thanks to you. If we have a mistake or deficiency, we are ready to change it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your improvements.

In my document figure number 1 is incomplete.

Kind Regards,

 

Author Response

thank you for everything. Our article has improved a lot thanks to you. If we have a mistake or deficiency, we are ready to change it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Colleague,

Thank you for the opportunity to read your manuscript. It is indeed very interesting to learn about m-government use in Cyprus.

There are the following questions that you must raise for the improvement of your manuscript:

1. The abstract is too extended and requires a reduction;

2. The sources according to the Sustainability journal in the test must be cited in the following brackets [...]

3. The sources in the list of references should be prepared according to the journal style;

4. It should be mentioned in the text that the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is not recognized by most of the states of the world except of Turkey. 

5. The information on the e-government gateway has nothing with an introduction and must be placed in the context part;

6.  It does not matter that author is probably from Cyprus but it must be explained why it was chosen to study with part of the island and why it is unique for the world scholarship; 

7. In 2.1 Crisis management literature is presented in a very modest way;

8. The same is valid for 2.2 I will recommend that author to get some insight from the following article: Burksiene, V.; Dvorak, J.; Duda, M. Upstream Social Marketing for Implementing Mobile Government. Societies 2019, 9, 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc9030054

9. Unclear what was the first ambition of the authors for the number of respondents and for whom it was send; 

10. You must to think about section on limitations either in introduction or in in conclusions;

11. You need to add policy implications in the conclusions.

12. Good research questions will help to lead your research in the right direction.

Thank you for attetion

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The purpose of this manuscript is to test the moderating role of techno-skepticism in the impact of crisis management on mobile government. The study was conducted among  Northern Cyprus residents over 18 years old. A quantitative approach was employed.

The article is very interesting and well written. However, in my opinion, the article is not suitable for publication in Sustainability. The content of the article is not related to sustainability.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

First of all, congratulations on the work presented.

The topic is interesting and valuable for the scientific community. However, I will make some comments that may improve the work presented.

 

1- I think the way of referencing the article could be improved. Use the citation rules of the journal;

2- In Line 73, there is a spelling mistake in "he"; it should be "the";

3- Line 105, it doesn't seem correct to start the sentence with the citation instead of mentioning the author's name;

4- Lines 199 to 205; Lines 216 to 233; Lines 239 to 243; Lines 247 to 254; They are underlined in yellow; I don't understand the reason;

5- Lines 481 to 490 wrong font size;

6- The title of section 7 has an error;

7- The discussion should be enriched with the confrontation of ideas with the authors referenced in the literature review;

8- About the number of answers, I think the number is small compared to the population. I believe a higher number of answers would make the study more robust.

Best of luck with your article.

Kind Regards,