Digital Leadership, AI Integration, and Cyberloafing: Pathways to Sustainable Innovation in SMEs Within Resource-Constrained Economies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is timely and addresses a significant gap by examining the interplay of digital leadership, AI integration, and cyberloafing in SMEs operating in resource-constrained economies. It contributes meaningfully to the literature by reframing cyberloafing as a potential resource rather than a purely deviant behavior, while drawing on the JD-R and TAM models for a strong theoretical foundation. The empirical design is robust, with an appropriate sample of 400 SME employees in Iraq, validated measures, and rigorous PLS-SEM analysis. Results are clearly presented and highlight important gender, education, and age-based contingencies, which add nuance to existing research. Practical implications are well-developed, particularly regarding inclusive digital leadership training, ethical AI adoption, and restorative cyberloafing policies.

That said, there are areas where the manuscript could be improved. The paper is somewhat lengthy and occasionally verbose, especially in the literature review, and could benefit from streamlining to enhance readability. While the authors acknowledge limitations, the discussion would be stronger with a clearer examination of how sampling bias—such as gender imbalance and geographic specificity—may affect generalizability. Terminology could also be applied more consistently, particularly in the use of terms like “restorative cyberloafing” and “social cyberloafing,” which should be clearly defined and applied uniformly throughout.

Finally, while the policy implications are valuable, they could be more directly connected to specific stakeholder groups (e.g., SME managers, government agencies, and international donors) through concrete examples to improve applicability. Some minor language polishing is also recommended, as simplifying complex sentences would enhance flow and accessibility for a broader readership.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor polishing for conciseness could improve readability, but overall it is clear and professional.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for your time and for providing these insightful and constructive comments on our manuscript. We are grateful for the thorough review and the valuable suggestions, which have significantly helped us improve the quality of our paper.

We have carefully revised the manuscript to address all the points you raised. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to your specific recommendations.

That said, there are areas where the manuscript could be improved. The paper is somewhat lengthy and occasionally verbose, especially in the literature review, and could benefit from streamlining to enhance readability.

We have carefully edited the entire manuscript for language clarity. This involved breaking down overly long sentences, simplifying complex phrasing, and ensuring a smoother flow to improve readability and accessibility for a multidisciplinary audience.

 

While the authors acknowledge limitations, the discussion would be stronger with a clearer examination of how sampling bias—such as gender imbalance and geographic specificity—may affect generalizability.

We thank the reviewer for highlighting the need to more clearly address sampling bias. We have now expanded the Discussion section to acknowledge limitations related to gender imbalance and geographic specificity, and clarified how these factors may affect the generalizability of our findings. A new passage has been added before the final synthesis paragraph to address this point (See page 17, lines 715-724)

Terminology could also be applied more consistently, particularly in the use of terms like “restorative cyberloafing” and “social cyberloafing,” which should be clearly defined and applied uniformly throughout.

We thank the reviewer for this critical observation. We have revised the manuscript to ensure terminological consistency. As now detailed in Section 2.1 (Social Cyberloafing as a Behavioral Resource and Sustainable Innovation Promoter) on page 5, we have clearly defined "restorative cyberloafing" as the primary term for positive, recovery-oriented online activities. The term "social cyberloafing" is introduced as a key example or subtype (depending on which option you chose) of this br3ader category. This distinction is now applied uniformly throughout the paper to eliminate ambiguity. (see lines 197-200)

 

Finally, while the policy implications are valuable, they could be more directly connected to specific stakeholder groups (e.g., SME managers, government agencies, and international donors) through concrete examples to improve applicability.

We have revised the 'Policy Implications' and 'Conclusions' sections to directly tailor our recommendations to the specific stakeholder groups you mentioned. For each key implication, we now provide a concrete example of how it can be applied by, for instance, SME managers (e.g., " Managers should adopt inclusive leadership styles that promote digital literacy and psychological safety, especially for women and vocationally trained employees who may face digital skill gaps"), government agencies (e.g., " Governments could, for example, integrate digital wellness and AI literacy modules into vocational curricula, ensuring that less-educated workers can benefit from technological change"), and international donors (e.g., " Donors could support initiatives that provide SMEs with affordable access to AI tools while also financing leadership and digital literacy training tailored to fragile contexts. Such programs would ensure that investments in technology also yield inclusive innovation outcomes, thereby advancing SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production) alongside broader development goals." (see Page 18, lines 756-783).

Some minor language polishing is also recommended, as simplifying complex sentences would enhance flow and accessibility for a broader readership.

We have carefully edited the entire manuscript for language clarity. This involved breaking down overly long sentences, simplifying complex phrasing, and ensuring a smoother flow to improve readability and accessibility for a multidisciplinary audience.

Once again, we sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and helpful comments. We believe the manuscript has been greatly enhanced as a result of your input and we hope you find our revisions satisfactory.

 

Sincerely,

 

The Authors

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.    Clarify the coherence between the idea of “reducing cyberloafing” and “social cyberloafing as a positive mediator,” explicitly outlining the conditions and assumptions under which this relationship holds.
2.    Define and consistently apply the concepts of cyberloafing, social cyberloafing, and counterproductive cyberloafing.
3.    Justify the sample size by conducting and reporting a priori power analysis and other methodological considerations.
4.    Provide a more detailed description of the sampling procedure (frame, response rates, and potential biases), as well as its implications for the generalizability of results.
5.    Specify the subsectors within the “services” industry and the inclusion/exclusion criteria for SMEs.
6.    Normalize the use of acronyms (DL, AI, SC, SI) and avoid introducing “IB” if it is not part of the final model.
7.    Standardize tables (titles, footnotes, number of decimals, and data sources).
8.    Carefully review and verify all reported values and results, providing appropriate explanations and analytical interpretation.
9.    Include the estimation of additional statistical parameters, such as effect sizes and relative or absolute deviations.
10.    Document the treatment of missing data and the rules applied for data cleaning (e.g., outlier detection using Mahalanobis distance or robust methods).
11.    If the survey questions were categorized, describe those categories clearly.
12.    Provide the full set of survey questions used in the study (items, scales, and anchors), either within the text or as an appendix.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your constructive and detailed feedback. Below we provide a point-by-point response to each comment. Tracked changes have been applied in the revised manuscript, and this letter provides a structured summary of revisions.

Reviewer Comment	Author Response	Location in Manuscript
Clarify the coherence between reducing cyberloafing and social cyberloafing as a positive mediator.	We clarified in the Introduction and Discussion that digital leadership reduces counterproductive cyberloafing, while bounded social cyberloafing, under specific conditions (brief, restorative, socially interactive, and norm-aligned), acts as a positive mediator of innovation.	Introduction (end), Discussion (interpretation of H2–H4)   (see page 2, lines 83-86; and page 16, lines 667-670)
Define and consistently apply cyberloafing, social cyberloafing, and counterproductive cyberloafing.	Section 2.3 now defines all three terms and applies them consistently throughout the manuscript.	Section 2.3 (see page 5, lines 194-205)
Justify the sample size by conducting and reporting a priori power analysis.	An a priori power analysis using G*Power 3.1 was added in Section 3.1, showing a minimum requirement of 129 participants. Our sample of 400 exceeds this threshold.	Section 3.1 (see page 8, lines 367-370)
Provide a more detailed description of the sampling procedure.	Section 3.2 now details the sampling frame, response rate (600 invited, 400 completed), potential biases, and implications for generalizability.	Section 3.2 (see page 9, lines 386-389)
Specify subsectors within the services industry and inclusion/exclusion criteria for SMEs.	We listed IT services, retail, finance, hospitality, and education. SMEs included had 10–250 employees using digital tools. Micro-enterprises and informal firms were excluded.	Section 3.2 (see page 8, lines 377-380)
Normalize acronyms (DL, AI, SC, SI) and remove IB if not in final model.	We standardized acronyms across the manuscript and removed IB entirely.	Throughout manuscript
Standardize tables (titles, footnotes, decimals, sources).	All tables were standardized to two decimals, consistent footnotes, and data source notes.	Tables 4–7
Carefully review and verify all reported values and results.	We rechecked SmartPLS outputs and added interpretive explanations for β and R² values.	Section 4 (Results) (see page 15, lines 612-621 and 626-634)
Include effect sizes and deviations.	Effect sizes (Cohen’s f²) were already included in Tables 6 and 7. We now highlight them explicitly in the text and interpret their meaning (e.g., DL → SC stronger than DL → SI).	Section 4, Tables 6–7 (see page 15, lines 618-621)
Document treatment of missing data and data cleaning rules.	Section 3.4 now describes removal of incomplete responses, outlier detection using Mahalanobis distance and robust z-scores, and mean substitution for <2% missing data.	Section 3.4   (see page 10, lines 441-444)
If the survey questions were categorized, describe those categories clearly.		(see page 9, lines 419-422)
Provide the full set of survey questions used in the study (items, scales, and anchors), either within the text or as an appendix.		See attached supplementary file

 

Sincerely,

Pshdar Hamza and Georgiana Karadas

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: Sustainability-3850344

Title:  Digital Leadership, AI Integration and Cyberloafing in SMEs: Behavioral Drivers of Sustainable Innovation in Resource-Constrained Economies

Summary:   This study demonstrates that digital leadership in SMEs drives sustainable innovation and reduces counterproductive cyberloafing. When managed properly, social cyberloafing can act as a positive mediator, boosting well-being and creativity. AI integration further amplifies these effects. The findings offer a human-centric framework for achieving sustainable growth in resource-constrained economies.

Thank you for sharing your well-organized research article. I recommend that the authors revise certain sections to address some of the paper's weaknesses.

 

The manuscript title is unclear and does not meet academic standards. It should align with the paper's theme and objectives. Please revise it carefully.

 

The Introduction is too brief and lacks substantive information. Please expand on it with a detailed background, context, and relevant dates to properly frame the research.

 

The main research question, which should address the core research focus, is not apparent in this study. Please add that.

 

Authors, please add a section outlining your research structure at the end of the introduction. This will make it easier for readers to follow.

 

I have noted that the authors have utilized a substantial amount of data; however, they haven't clearly explained the research methodology, including the methods used for data collection and the sources consulted. Please address this carefully.

 

I suggest that authors revise the discussion section to provide more detailed information and include analysis within the discussion part.

 

The author has placed the "Theoretical and Practical Contributions" section in the Conclusions chapter, which is non-standard. This section should be included in the literature review.

 

Author Response

Manuscript ID: Sustainability-3850344

 

Title:  Digital Leadership, AI Integration and Cyberloafing in SMEs: Behavioral Drivers of Sustainable Innovation in Resource-Constrained Economies

Summary:   This study demonstrates that digital leadership in SMEs drives sustainable innovation and reduces counterproductive cyberloafing. When managed properly, social cyberloafing can act as a positive mediator, boosting well-being and creativity. AI integration further amplifies these effects. The findings offer a human-centric framework for achieving sustainable growth in resource-constrained economies.

 

Thank you for sharing your well-organized research article. I recommend that the authors revise certain sections to address some of the paper's weaknesses.

 Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for your time and for providing these insightful and constructive comments on our manuscript. We are grateful for the thorough review and the valuable suggestions, which have significantly helped us improve the quality of our paper.

We have carefully revised the manuscript to address all the points you raised. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to your specific recommendations.

 

The manuscript title is unclear and does not meet academic standards. It should align with the paper's theme and objectives. Please revise it carefully.

We sincerely thank you for this observation. We have thoroughly revised the title to ensure it is academically rigorous, clearly reflects the paper's core theme, and accurately aligns with our research objectives. The new title is: Digital Leadership, AI Integration, and Cyberloafing: Pathways to Sustainable Innovation in SMEs within Re-source-Constrained Economies

 

The Introduction is too brief and lacks substantive information. Please expand on it with a detailed background, context, and relevant dates to properly frame the research.

We agree with this assessment. We have substantially expanded the Introduction section to provide a more comprehensive background, establish a clearer context for the study, and include relevant historical or chronological details to better frame the research problem and its significance (see Page 2, Lines  55-60).

The main research question, which should address the core research focus, is not apparent in this study. Please add that.

Thank you for highlighting this crucial omission. We have now explicitly stated the main research question at the end of the expanded Introduction section to clearly guide the reader and define the core focus of our study (see Page 2, Lines 86-89).

 

Authors, please add a section outlining your research structure at the end of the introduction. This will make it easier for readers to follow.

This is an excellent suggestion for improving the manuscript's readability. We have added a new paragraph at the end of the Introduction (Section 1) that clearly outlines the structure of the paper, providing a roadmap for the reader (see Page 2, Lines 90 -105).

 

I have noted that the authors have utilized a substantial amount of data; however, they haven't clearly explained the research methodology, including the methods used for data collection and the sources consulted. Please address this carefully.

We apologize for this lack of clarity. We have completely revised the Methodology section (now Section 3) to provide a detailed and transparent account of our research design. This includes a comprehensive explanation of the data collection methods, a detailed description of the datasets used, and a complete list of the sources consulted. We believe these changes will ensure the study's reproducibility and clarity. (see Page 8, Lines 349-363; 367-370; 377-381; 386-389). the sources consulted are provided (see Page 9, lines 400-423).

 

I suggest that authors revise the discussion section to provide more detailed information and include analysis within the discussion part.

We appreciate this guidance. We have thoroughly revised the Discussion section to move beyond a mere presentation of results. We now provide a deeper analysis, interpreting the findings in the context of existing literature and explaining their implications in greater detail (see pages 16-17).

 

The author has placed the "Theoretical and Practical Contributions" section in the Conclusions chapter, which is non-standard. This section should be included in the literature review.

Thank you for this important correction regarding academic convention. As suggested, we have moved the "Theoretical and Practical Contributions" subsection from the Conclusions to the Literature Review chapter (it is now Section 2.6), where it properly sets the stage for the research by identifying the gaps our study aims to fill (see page, 7).

Once again, we sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and helpful comments. We believe the manuscript has been greatly enhanced as a result of your input and we hope you find our revisions satisfactory.

 

Sincerely,

 

The Authors

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been revised well and suggests accepting for publication.