Can We Trust Green Apps? Mapping out 14 Trustworthiness Indicators

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article deals with a pertinent issue and is highly relevant. It is well-written, and the arguments are clearly stated. All in all, the structure is correctly organised, which enhances readability. The methodological approach is sound, and the difficulties inherent to extracting data from semi-structured interviews have been adroitly addressed. The bibliography used is updated and relevant, and the authors were able to use references to complement several issues deriving from the interviewees' inputs.

My comments and suggestions for improvement relate to formal issues, a few requests for clarification, and a last suggestion on the advisability of transferring some of the material in the conclusion to the 'discussion' section and introducing a subsection in the conclusion on the limitations of the present study. 

• Although, as I mentioned above, the article is highly readable, I detected some colloquialisms which might be eliminated. Also, there are some punctuation issues which should be addressed. I noticed some syntactical and grammatical mistakes (probably typos, as in l. 353, 'reply' where you mean 'rely'?)
• I struggled to understand the following sentence (l. 392): 'Willis and Loy [49] that ingroup identification with others engaging in climate protection and perceived pro-environmental activism of friends are correlated with frequency of people protesting.'. Could you please clarify and explain?
  
  
• Data #8, last paragraph. You say: 'Importantly, this code was discussed less than other codes identified in our analysis. This was not due to a lack of specialists in the role of data in the development and roll out of smartphone apps. Instead, we argue that data security and privacy is a considerable issue across smartphone apps – and personal technology more broadly – that it was not seen as a particular problem for green apps.' I had difficulty understanding this paragraph, since I believe the last sentence is unclear (perhaps the 'it' should not be there?). Do you mean that the fact that this code was less discussed than others should be attributed to the experts not seeing it as relevant for green apps, although it is widely seen as such for smartphone apps in general? If so, could you provide any explanation for this? 
• I believe paragraph 2 in the 'Conclusion' section should be in the 'Discussion' section since it introduces new ideas.
• Lastly, I think the article would be improved by introducing a subsection in 'Conclusion' discussing the limitations of the present study, which could then tie in seamlessly with the suggestions for further studies. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Regarding the depth of the research design and sample representativeness, while the article demonstrates methodological innovation through 19 interdisciplinary expert interviews to construct credibility indicators, the sample composition has limitations. For instance, the expert pool lacks scholars specializing in "accessibility and inequality," which may result in insufficiently in-depth discussions for this category. For example, Indicator #7 relies on perspectives from a small number of non-specialized experts. It is recommended to supplement interviews with domain-specific experts or explicitly address this limitation in the discussion section, supported by a literature review to strengthen the theoretical foundation of this indicator.

 

2. The six-category framework is generally reasonable, but some indicators exhibit issues of overlapping or contradictory categorization. For example, "users as co-creators" (#13) is classified under "organization," yet its core focus on user participation in design processes overlaps with the "application design" category (e.g., #4, #5). It is advised to revisit the classification logic or use visual diagrams to clarify inter-indicator relationships and enhance the systematic coherence of the framework.

 

3. The paper inadequately integrates expert perspectives with literature evidence in certain indicators. For example, regarding "balancing negative and positive framing" (#6), while experts emphasize the importance of positive framing, literature indicates that negative framing may be more effective in specific contexts. Although the authors propose the concept of "emotional flow" to reconcile this, they fail to provide operationalizable recommendations, such as designing phased information flows in applications.

 

4. Indicators #9 and #10 emphasize data transparency and user comprehension but lack actionable guidance on "how to achieve transparency." Should green apps be required to publish third-party audit reports? Or adopt standardized data templates? Operational suggestions should be added to the discussion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf