A Survey of Middleware Adoption in Nonprofit Sectors: A Sustainable Development Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsA useful paper describing the current and potential future of the position of middleware in NPOs. Unfortunately, it appears that the literatiure can only provide 14 examples (a small sample and statistically insignificant) but the authors have qualitatively extracted as much information as possible from the texts and - in the case of occurrence counts of keywords - provided some quantitative results.
Suggestion: an associated study could be done using not-for-profit quasi-government organisations such as research laboratories or universities which have similar challenges to NPOs yet are (a) more numerous (b) tend to be better funded (c) commonly deploy middleware with strong IT support.
The within-NPO interoperation and between NPO interoperation is not spelt out clearly (line 69 area) and should be separated (between NPO interoperability using middleware is discussed line 274 for example). It is not clear in the text which statements or assertions refer to within NPO and which to between NPO interoperation using middleware. THis should be structured into two separete sections.
There are various small issues with the text as follows:
Figures 4 and 5 use 'ngo' when earlier in the text the authors state they will use NPO to cover both npo and ngo
lines 241-242: the claim is that NPOs are using middleware to improve their SDG-related activities, but the correlation of keywords would also be present if the discussion of middleware for SDG activities had a negative outcome (the use of middleware does not support SDG activities) so this is not really supporting the assertion
Line 322 IO this is usually written I/O
line 367 EAE is used as an acronym without immediate expansion for meaning (I realise there is a list of acronyms at the end but it is good practice to expand an acronym on first use) EAE also means European Association for Education. See line 440 where this is done correctly
Line 405 DMAS (see above)
Line 408 ONC (see above)
Table 6 MySQL, GoogleSQL are RDBMS (as distinct from OODBMS)
Line 791 H ohfeld ==> Hohfeld
Overall, a useful paper for NPOs to initiate their use of middleware and /or to learn of other experiences with middleware.
Author Response
Attached is the reviewer response in a tabular form. The table has four columns: the first column is the serial number, the second is the reviewer's comment, the third is the ID or the reviewer that commented, the third column answers the comment, and the fourth column describes the modifications made in the manuscript.
Thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript aims to explores middleware applications, opportunities, and challenges among NPO, which may be an interesting point. However, the reviewer has some major concerns as follows:
1.Although the motivation was presented in Section 1.1, it is unconvinced that the research propose. Only 14 papers had been found related to this tiny issue. Please further justfiy the reason to choose this topics
2. For the survey paper, only select 14 papers is not enough. Maybe the research direction restricts the materials.
3. For the adopted new technologies, there exists many keywords, besides the middleware. It could be better to extend the keyworks and other papers can be obtained.
Although this current version is well organized and well presented. Please consider to address the above question.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Attached is the reviewer response in a tabular form. The table has four columns: the first column is the serial number, the second is the reviewer's comment, the third is the ID or the reviewer that commented, the third column answers the comment, and the fourth column describes the modifications made in the manuscript.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the opportunity to review the article titled "A Survey of Middleware Adoption in Nonprofit Sectors: A Sustainable Development Perspective." The manuscript addresses the use of middleware in non-profit organizations, a highly pertinent topic given the growing use of digital technologies to improve the efficiency of services and results in these organizations, which have different particularities in relation to for-profit organizations.
The manuscript is organized into easy-to-read and understandable sections, which makes it easier to understand the content. The use of PRISMA for the systematic review is a strong point, promoting transparency and rigor in the selection of analyzed articles.
The manuscript describes significant contributions such as the identification of middleware applications, the challenges associated with nonprofit organizations, and the potential for future research. The discussion covers several areas of middleware utilization, including education, healthcare, security and humanitarian efforts, demonstrating the comprehensive nature of the technology.
However, the manuscript, in its current state, requires many alterations and improvements to be considered for acceptance in the Journal. The necessary changes are not limited to content but also include the structure of the manuscript.
Increase the Number of Studies: The systematic review is based on only 14 articles after filtering, which may limit the generalizability of the results. It is recommended to increase the number of studies included in the review to provide a more comprehensive and robust view of the state of the art on middleware adoption in nonprofit organizations.
Add a detailed technical section that explains how different types of middleware work, the evolution of middleware over time, and how it is implemented in nonprofits. This section may include architecture diagrams and specific implementation examples.
Expand the discussion about middleware adoption challenges, including practical solutions and evidence-based recommendations for overcoming them. This may include comparative studies of different approaches and their effectiveness in specific contexts.
Provide more detailed explanations for graphs and figures, such as VOSviewer maps, to improve understanding for readers who are unfamiliar with these tools. Include detailed captions and descriptions in the main text.
Practical examples or case studies of non-profit organizations that have successfully adopted middleware would be extremely helpful in illustrating the points discussed. This would help to contextualize the benefits and challenges described in the manuscript with real-world examples.
These improvements can significantly strengthen the quality and usefulness of the manuscript.
Author Response
Attached is the reviewer response in a tabular form. The table has four columns: the first column is the serial number, the second is the reviewer's comment, the third is the ID or the reviewer that commented, the third column answers the comment, and the fourth column describes the modifications made in the manuscript.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors accepted the proposed suggestions and thus improved the article.
Author Response
Thank you sir. We really appreciate your effort in improving the quality of this paper.
Regards,
Farouq Aliyu
