Driving Sustainable AI Implementation in Business: The Integrated Role of Economic Value Perception, Managerial Attitudes, and Behavioral Intentions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

First, I would like to congratulate you on the chosen topic and the research you have done. The article entitled “Driving sustainable AI implementation in business: The integrated role of economic value perception, managerial attitudes, and behavioral intentions” submitted for publication to the Sustainability Journal is interesting and timely.

The article presents laborious research but requires some changes:

- Chapter 2 needs to be revised. Through a reanalysis of the specialized literature, the current state of knowledge could be enriched with new, more up-to-date references (I suggest you use more databases).

- Figure 1 I suggest you move to Chapter 3 because it is related to the research steps.

- Chapter 3.1. I suggest you change its name.

- In chapter 3 you should provide more information about the questionnaire (what types of questions did you use (open/closed; with single or multiple answers….?), then if you did pre-testing on what sample (number of companies, possible improvements suggested…), how did you choose the sample of companies?, if it is conclusive…), how did you frame the questions in the mentioned categories… For transparency, I think you should add the questionnaire to the Appendix.

- How did you size the sample size? How did you calculate the sampling error of the research? An important limitation of the research is the sample size and the margin of error so that we can talk about a level of confidence.

- You talk about price, but it is not clear from Table 2, if you include an amount. If so, how did you establish it?

- I suggest that the material and method part be improved with new information that justifies and exemplifies the research steps, and the introduction part be revised. I think 5 pages of introduction + status is too much, and 1.5 pages of material and method is too little.

- You say that you have performed structural equation modeling with partial least squares (PLS-SEM), but you do not provide any calculation formula or any example. I suggest you introduce new elements

- Chapter 4 should become Chapter 3 "Results and Discussions", that is, to reunite the chapters.

- Chapter 4.1 should become Chapter 5

- Chapter 6 should become Chapter 4 Conclusions, this should be revised and reformulated in a better manner.

- Chapter 4.1. Theoretical and practical implications should become Chapter 5

- Chapter 5.2. Limitations and future research should become Chapter 6

- As I said at the beginning, research is valuable, but it needs to be better presented and highlighted. This cannot be done in any way, but only by taking the material and rewriting and reorganizing it into a scientific form that fully reflects the work behind the research.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Dear authors,

First, I would like to congratulate you on the chosen topic and the research conducted. The article titled "Driving Sustainable AI Implementation in Enterprises: The Integrated Role of Economic Value Perception, Managerial Attitudes, and Behavioral Intentions," submitted for publication in the Sustainability Journal, is interesting and timely.

The article presents laborious research but requires some modifications:

Observation: Chapter 2 needs revision. Through a new analysis of specialized literature, the current state of knowledge could be enriched with newer, more updated references (I suggest using more databases).

Response to Reviewer: The section has been substantially enriched with 13 new references from recent literature (2023-2025), incorporating contemporary findings on AI adoption across multiple sectors including healthcare, education, banking, and e-commerce. The updated content maintains all original citations while integrating current research that validates and extends the theoretical framework with empirical evidence from diverse contexts.

• Figure 1: I suggest moving it to Chapter 3 because it is related to the research steps.

Response: Thank you for the recommendation; however, we are keeping it there since it is a consequence of presenting the research hypotheses that support the study model.

• Chapter 3.1: I suggest changing the name.

Observation: In chapter 3, you should provide more information about the questionnaire (what types of questions you used (open/closed; single or multiple response...?), then if you conducted previous tests on what sample (number of companies, possible suggested improvements...), how did you choose the company sample?, if it is conclusive...), how you framed the questions in the mentioned categories... For greater transparency, I believe you should add the questionnaire to the Appendix.

Response to Reviewer: The instruments section has been comprehensively expanded to include detailed information about question types (closed-ended, single-response), pilot testing procedures with specific sample size and improvements, sampling strategy with organizational selection criteria and response rates, and construct categorization. Additionally, reference to the complete questionnaire in an appendix has been added to enhance methodological transparency and replicability.

Observation: How was the sample size determined? How was the sampling error of the research calculated? An important limitation of the research is the sample size and margin of error, which allows discussing a confidence level.

Response: The sample size determination has been clarified as non-probabilistic convenience sampling with adequate justification for the chosen approach and sample size calculation based on SEM requirements. Additionally, we have explicitly acknowledged the methodological limitations including the inability to calculate sampling error and establish traditional confidence levels, while recognizing this as a significant constraint on the study's generalizability and population-level inferences.

You mention price, but in Table 2 it is not clear if you include an amount. If so, how did you determine it?

I suggest improving the material and method section with new information that justifies and exemplifies the research steps, and reviewing the introduction. I consider that 5 pages of introduction and general description are too many, and 1.5 pages of material and method are insufficient.

Response: Thank you for the observation; corresponding changes were made.

You say you have performed structural equation modeling using partial least squares (PLS-SEM), but you do not provide any calculation formulas or examples. I suggest introducing new elements.

Response: The inclusion of mathematical formulas and manual calculation examples for PLS-SEM analysis is not methodologically relevant in contemporary research practice, as these computations are automatically performed by specialized statistical software. Modern PLS-SEM analysis relies on sophisticated algorithms implemented in programs like SmartPLS 4.0, which handle complex iterative calculations including path coefficient estimation, bootstrapping procedures, and model fit assessments. Manual formula presentation would be redundant and potentially misleading, as researchers do not perform these calculations by hand. The methodological rigor lies in proper model specification, sample adequacy, and interpretation of software-generated outputs rather than manual computational demonstration, which is the standard approach in current structural equation modeling research.

Observation: Chapter 4 should become Chapter 3 "Results and Discussions," that is, merge the chapters.

Observation: Chapter 4.1 should become Chapter 5.

Observation: Chapter 6 should become Chapter 4 Conclusions, which should be reviewed and better reformulated.

• Chapter 4.1. Theoretical and practical implications should become Chapter 5.

Observation: Chapter 5.2. Limitations and future research should become Chapter 6.

Response: The current manuscript structure adheres to established conventions in quantitative empirical research and follows the standard format recommended by leading academic journals in business and technology adoption studies. The separation of Results (Chapter 4) and Discussion (Chapter 5) is methodologically appropriate as it maintains analytical clarity by first presenting empirical findings objectively, then providing theoretical interpretation and contextualization. This structure allows readers to evaluate raw statistical results independently before encountering interpretive analysis. Combining results and discussion would compromise methodological rigor by potentially conflating empirical evidence with theoretical interpretation. The current organization also aligns with APA guidelines and standard practices in structural equation modeling studies, where clear delineation between statistical findings and their theoretical implications enhances scientific transparency and replicability. The proposed restructuring would deviate from these established academic conventions without providing methodological benefits.

As I said at the beginning, the research is valuable, but it needs better presentation and dissemination. This cannot be achieved in any way, but only by taking the material, rewriting it, and reorganizing it in a scientific format that fully reflects the work that supports it.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for submitting this timely and much-needed study on healthcare professionals’ perceptions of mHealth apps through the lens of the Task-Technology Fit (TTF) model. The manuscript makes a valuable contribution, especially given its focus on a developing country context which is still underrepresented in the literature.

That said, there are a few areas that could be strengthened to get the paper ready for publication:

1. The manuscript would really benefit from a thorough language edit. There are quite a few grammatical issues, and some sentences are either awkward or overly complex. A professional edit will go a long way to making your arguments clearer and easier to follow.
2. The current title is a bit clunky. Consider tightening it up for grammar and clarity. Something like “Health Service Professionals’ Perceptions of mHealth App Utilization: A Task-Technology Fit Model Approach” might work better.
3. The methodology section could use more clarity especially in how you defined and measured your constructs. Be sure to explain the distinction between formative and reflective constructs, and briefly justify your choice of PLS-SEM. Also, you mentioned a 39-item questionnaire; please include the English version as supplementary material so readers can fully assess your approach.
4. Some figures, especially the conceptual model, need better labeling and formatting. Add clear, descriptive captions and make sure all acronyms are spelled out the first time they appear.
5. Non-significant findings, like the link between utilization and perceived quality of care, deserve more attention. Consider adding some context, here are there institutional or cultural factors that could explain this result?
6. Try to be more explicit about how your findings fit into the broader research landscape. Do they confirm or challenge previous studies? And are there contextual variables you think future research should include?
7. The ethical approval and data availability statements should be fully included in the manuscript text not just in the supplementary files.
8. Overall, your references are solid but double-check for consistency in formatting and make sure both foundational and recent studies are cited where relevant.

With these revisions, your manuscript will be significantly improved in clarity, academic rigor, and potential impact.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I’d recommend a thorough English language edit for this manuscript. There are quite a few spots where grammar slips up, sentences get a bit clunky, or the phrasing is more complicated than it needs to be. These issues affect overall clarity and make the text harder to follow than it should be. A professional language review would really help improve the flow and make your arguments stand out more clearly. Polishing the language will also help better showcase the strengths of your research.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Thank you for submitting this timely and necessary study on healthcare professionals' perceptions of mHealth applications from the Task-Technology Fit (TTF) model perspective. The manuscript constitutes a valuable contribution, especially given that it focuses on the context of a developing country, still underrepresented in the literature.

That said, there are some areas that could be strengthened to prepare the article for publication:

1. The manuscript would benefit enormously from thorough linguistic revision. It presents quite a few grammatical errors and some sentences are awkward or overly complex. Professional revision will greatly contribute to making your arguments clearer and easier to follow.

Response: Thank you for your observation; the literature was significantly improved.

2. The current title is somewhat clumsy. Consider adjusting it to improve grammar and clarity. Something like "Healthcare Professionals' Perceptions of mHealth Application Use: An Approach Based on the Task-Technology Fit Model" might work better.

Response: The proposed title "Healthcare Professionals' Perceptions of mHealth Application Use: An Approach Based on the Task-Technology Fit Model" does not align with the current manuscript content, which focuses on artificial intelligence adoption among business managers using price-value perceptions, attitudes, and behavioral intentions as primary constructs. The suggested title addresses healthcare professionals and mHealth applications within a task-technology fit framework, representing a fundamentally different research context, population, and theoretical model than the study presented. The current title accurately reflects the manuscript's scope, methodology, and target population, ensuring alignment between content and presentation. A title change of this magnitude would require substantial manuscript revision to match the proposed focus, which would compromise the integrity of the existing research design and findings.

3. The methodology section could be clearer, especially in defining and measuring your constructs. Make sure to explain the distinction between formative and reflective constructs, and briefly justify your choice of PLS-SEM. Additionally, you mentioned a 39-item questionnaire; please include the English version as supplementary material so readers can fully evaluate your approach.

Response: Thank you for your observation; corresponding changes were made.

4. Some figures, especially the conceptual model, need better labeling and formatting. Add clear and descriptive titles and ensure all acronyms are spelled out correctly the first time they appear.

Response: Thank you for your observation; corresponding changes were made.

5. Non-significant findings, such as the relationship between utilization and perceived quality of care, deserve more attention. Consider adding context: are there institutional or cultural factors that could explain this result?

Response: The reviewer appears to be referencing findings not present in the current manuscript, which focuses on artificial intelligence adoption among business managers through price-value perceptions, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. Our study does not examine healthcare utilization or perceived quality of care, nor does it report non-significant relationships in these domains. All hypotheses in our research model demonstrated significant relationships (p<0.001), including price-value influencing intention to use (β=0.662), attitudes affecting intention to use (β=0.456), price-value impacting attitudes (β=0.374), and intention to use predicting sustainable AI implementation (β=0.749). The reviewer's comment may pertain to a different manuscript or study context. If clarification is needed regarding our specific findings on AI adoption factors among business managers, we would be pleased to provide additional detail on the significant relationships identified in our structural equation modeling analysis.

6. Try to be more explicit about how your findings integrate into the overall research landscape. Do they confirm or challenge previous studies? Are there contextual variables you consider should be included in future research?

Response: Yes, this is detailed in the discussion.

7. Ethical approval and data availability statements should be included in their entirety in the manuscript text, not just in supplementary files.

Response: Data will be available upon reasonable request to the authors.

8. Overall, your references are solid, but check consistency in formatting and ensure that both foundational and recent studies are cited when relevant.

Response: Corresponding verification was performed.

With these revisions, your manuscript will significantly improve in clarity, academic rigor, and potential impact.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses a current and pertinent topic based on the sustainable adoption of Artificial Intelligence in the business context.

However, the literature review is largely uncritical and lengthy. It is suggested that instead of referring to the studies, they be critically analyzed. Another question I raise is what is the theoretical gap in this study? Efforts should be made to address this question.

The methodology is appropriate and quite robust, based on PLS-SEM, and is based on a significant sample. Validity, reliability, and fit indices are adequately presented.

The study results are precise and based on high coefficients. The model explains a significant percentage of the variance, which reinforces the importance of the topic.

Nevertheless, the results from business managers in northern Peru limit the applicability of the results. This limitation should be further highlighted and problematized. I believe the study contributes to the integration of economic (price-value perception) and psychological (attitudes and intentions) variables, making it useful for managers and academics, which should be highlighted.

Finally, a careful analysis of the writing will still be necessary, avoiding any redundancy and even some sentence construction.

In short, the study has scientific merit and is relevant, but it still requires major changes before publication, fundamentally:

- Improve the literature review, making it more critical and focused.

- Clarify the theoretical contribution and novelty of the model.

- Better recognize the study's limitations (context, sample).

- Review and align the references with the topic.

- Linguistic and grammatical review

Author Response

The article addresses a current and pertinent topic based on sustainable adoption of Artificial Intelligence in the business context.

Observation: However, the literature review is largely uncritical and extensive. It is suggested that, instead of referring to studies, they be critically analyzed. Another question I raise is what is the theoretical gap in this study. Efforts should be made to address this issue.

Response: The literature review has been substantially revised to provide critical analysis rather than descriptive summaries, clearly identifying three specific theoretical gaps: lack of integrated economic-psychological models, underdeveloped temporal conceptualization of sustainable use, and inconsistent theoretical frameworks in business AI adoption literature. The revision articulates how these gaps limit current understanding and explicitly states how the present study addresses these theoretical deficiencies through an integrated framework.

The methodology is adequate and quite robust, based on PLS-SEM, and relies on a significant sample. Validity, reliability, and fit indices are adequately presented.

The study results are precise and based on high coefficients. The model explains a significant percentage of variance, which reinforces the importance of the topic.

Observation: However, the results from business managers in northern Peru limit their applicability. This limitation should be more highlighted and problematized. I consider that the study contributes to the integration of economic variables (price-value perception) and psychological variables (attitudes and intentions), which makes it useful for managers and academics, which should be highlighted.

Response: The limitations section has been substantially revised to prominently highlight and problematize the geographic constraints of northern Peru, explicitly discussing how regional economic, cultural, and technological factors may limit applicability. Simultaneously, the revision emphasizes the study's significant theoretical contribution in integrating economic and psychological variables, highlighting its practical value for managers and academic contribution to technology adoption literature while maintaining awareness of generalizability limitations.

Observation: Finally, a careful analysis of the writing will continue to be necessary, avoiding any redundancy and even some sentence construction.

Response: Thank you for your observation; pertinent changes were made.

In summary, the study has scientific merit and is relevant, but still requires important changes before publication, fundamentally:

• Improve the literature review, making it more critical and focused.
• Clarify the theoretical contribution and novelty of the model.
• Better acknowledge the study limitations (context, sample).
• Review and align references with the topic.
• Linguistic and grammatical revision.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the changes made to the article entitled “Driving sustainable AI implementation in business: The integrated role of economic value perception, managerial attitudes, and behavioral intentions” submitted for publication at Sustainability

The article still needs some changes, as follows:

- In the Material section, new information related to the data processed in the questionnaire should be provided. A presentation of the questionnaire in the Appendix would be necessary, and then the classification of the questions by areas (adapting Table 2 with preliminary information would help) would facilitate understanding and the scientific approach. We cannot have the questions and the classification by areas in the results and not in the Material.

- I further suggest that you discuss more for clarity and scientific approach your results compared to other studies. You need to show why the research was important (what it brings as novelty, ... , what it contributes to the specialized literature).

- For example, for both the Discussion and Practical implications sections, I recommend the following DOIs for some articles:

https://doi.org/10.3390/su162210024

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102588

- I recommend rewriting Chap. 5.1. Theoretical and practical implications and then renumbering it into a distinct chapter.

- Similarly, rewriting Chap. 5.2. Limitations and future research and renumbering it into a distinct chapter.

- The conclusions chapter must be rewritten so that it reflects the conclusions based on the results and not the repetition of the results.

- As I said at the beginning, research is valuable but it must be better presented and highlighted. This cannot be done anyway, but only by resuming the material and rewriting and reorganizing it to a scientific form that fully reflects the work behind the research.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Thank you for the revisions made to the article titled "Driving Sustainable AI Implementation in Business: The Integrated Role of Economic Value Perception, Managerial Attitudes, and Behavioral Intentions" submitted for publication in Sustainability.

The article still requires some changes, as follows:

In the Materials section, new information related to the data processed in the questionnaire should be provided. A presentation of the questionnaire in the Appendix would be necessary, and subsequently, the classification of questions by areas (adapting Table 2 with preliminary information would be useful) would facilitate understanding and scientific focus. We cannot include the questions and classification by areas in the results and not in the Materials.

Response: We have developed a comprehensive Appendix A featuring Table A1, which mirrors the structure of Table 2 and includes all 26 original items with their complete statistical information (factor loadings, standard deviations, p-values, and retention status), along with Table A2 summarizing validation outcomes by construct. This organization provides complete transparency regarding the measurement model validation process and facilitates scientific replication.

Additionally, I suggest that you analyze your results further, for greater clarity and scientific focus, in comparison with other studies. You must demonstrate the importance of the research (what it contributes as a novelty, what it brings to the specialized literature).

• For example, for the Discussion and Practical Implications sections, I recommend the following DOIs for some articles: https://doi.org/10.3390/su162210024 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102588

Response: We have integrated the two suggested references ([79] Uren & Edwards, 2022; [80] Stoenoiu & Jäntschi, 2024) throughout the discussion section, strategically positioning them to strengthen the theoretical foundation of each hypothesis. These additions enhance the discussion by connecting our findings to organizational readiness frameworks, technology adoption journeys, and digital transformation outcomes in business contexts.

I recommend rewriting Chapter 5.1. Theoretical and Practical Implications and then renumbering it as a separate chapter.

• Similarly, rewrite Chapter 5.2. Limitations and Future Research and renumber it as a separate chapter.

Response: We have completely rewritten and separated the content into three distinct chapters: Chapter 5.1 (Theoretical Implications) focusing exclusively on scholarly contributions; Chapter 5.2 (Practical Implications) addressing actionable organizational strategies; and Chapter 6 (Limitations and Future Research) providing comprehensive discussion of methodological constraints and research directions, thereby improving structural clarity and logical flow throughout the manuscript.

• The conclusions chapter should be rewritten to reflect conclusions based on the results rather than a repetition of them.

Response: We have completely rewritten the conclusions chapter to emphasize theoretical insights, practical implications, and conceptual contributions derived from the results rather than simply restating statistical findings. The revised version synthesizes key discoveries into broader lessons about technology adoption mechanisms, organizational change processes, and the integration of economic and psychological perspectives in understanding managerial AI implementation.

As I said at the beginning, the research is valuable, but it must be better presented and highlighted. This cannot be achieved in any way, but only by summarizing the material, rewriting it, and reorganizing it in a scientific format that fully reflects the work that underpins it.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled “Driving sustainable AI implementation in business” offers a valuable and timely perspective on AI adoption, especially with its focus on northern Peru. The originality of the work stands out, and the way it bridges theory with real-world data is impressive. That said, you might consider making clearer how local factors like digital infrastructure, economic context, or business culture could affect whether your findings apply elsewhere. Also, while the writing is generally strong, a light editorial review might help improve transitions between the conceptual and empirical parts. Another suggestion would be to include more specific, practical recommendations for business leaders or policymakers especially around things like training programs or communication efforts to support more positive attitudes toward AI. Overall, though, this is a thoughtful and well-executed study that contributes meaningfully to both research and practice. Well done!

Author Response

Reviewer 2

The manuscript titled "Driving Sustainable AI Implementation in Business" offers a valuable and timely perspective on AI adoption, particularly by focusing on northern Peru. The originality of the work stands out, and the way it connects theory with real-world data is impressive. That said, you might consider clarifying how local factors such as digital infrastructure, economic context, or business culture could affect the applicability of your findings elsewhere. Additionally, while the writing is generally solid, a light editorial review could help improve the transition between the conceptual and empirical parts. Another suggestion would be to include more specific and practical recommendations for business leaders or policymakers, especially around topics such as training programs or communication initiatives to foster more positive attitudes toward AI. Overall, however, this is a thoughtful and well-executed study that contributes significantly to both research and practice. Excellent work!

Response: We have incorporated a comprehensive paragraph addressing contextual factors specific to northern Peru, including digital infrastructure limitations, economic constraints, and cultural business practices that may shape the observed relationships. This addition enhances the discussion by explicitly acknowledging how local conditions influence result interpretation and by providing specific considerations for generalizability to other contexts, thereby strengthening the manuscript's scientific rigor and practical applicability.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work has been significantly improved following the review. However, the consistency of some references could still be assessed, as there is an excess of very recent proposals from less central journals and even some of a religious/psychological nature that do not seem directly related to the topic.

The academic English, although improved, still requires some analysis. Additional linguistic review could raise the level.

However, I believe the article should be accepted for publication based on its inherent contribution: congratulations.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

The work has improved significantly following the revision. However, the consistency of some references can still be evaluated, as there is an excess of very recent proposals from less prominent journals, and even some of a religious/psychological nature that do not appear to be directly related to the topic.

The academic English, although improved, still requires analysis. An additional linguistic review could enhance the level.

However, I believe the article should be accepted for publication based on its inherent contribution: congratulations.

Response: Thank you for your observation; the corresponding changes will be made accordingly.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the changes made to the article entitled “Driving sustainable AI implementation in business: The integrated role of economic value perception, managerial attitudes, and behavioral intentions” submitted for publication at Sustainability

The article still needs some changes, as follows:

--At the end of chapter 2, a paragraph with the purpose and importance of the research should appear (before line 272). Thus, taking into account the conceptual, empirical and contextual studies, it should be explained how the present study contributes and briefly describe what it aims to achieve.

- At lines 364-365, the citation of the tables in the Appendix with additional information should appear and not just the Appendix in general.

- The conclusions section should be revised by restricting the information. I also suggest restricting the information in chapter 6.

- The references in the references section should be modified taking into account the requirements of the journal (for example: first the last name and then the initial of the first name, the same for the rest of the elements to be checked)

- In the Appendix section, I suggest you check the font size.

Author Response

Observation: At the end of Chapter 2, a paragraph should appear with the purpose and importance of the research (before line 272). Thus, considering the conceptual, empirical, and contextual studies, the contribution of the present study should be explained and its objectives briefly described.

Response: We have added a comprehensive paragraph at the end of Section 2 that articulates the research gaps, explains the study's theoretical and practical contributions, and describes the main objectives before presenting the hypotheses. This addition clarifies how our integrated model advances understanding of sustainable AI adoption among business managers in emerging economies.

Observation: In lines 364-365, citations to the Appendix tables with additional information should appear, not just the Appendix in general.

Response: We have revised lines 364-365 to include specific citations to Tables A1 and A2 in Appendix A, rather than referencing the appendix generically. This modification provides readers with precise guidance on where to locate the complete item inventory and validation summary.

Observation: The conclusions section should be revised by restricting the information. I also suggest restricting the information in Chapter 6.

Response: We have substantially condensed the conclusions section by removing redundant elaborations, consolidating theoretical and practical implications into focused paragraphs, and streamlining the discussion of limitations. The revised section now provides a more concise synthesis while retaining the essential contributions and actionable insights of the research.

Observation: The references in the references section should be modified taking into account the journal requirements (for example: first the surname and then the initial of the name, the same for the rest of the elements to be reviewed).

Response: We have reformatted all references according to journal requirements, placing surnames before initials, standardizing punctuation, italicizing journal titles, using bold for volume numbers, and ensuring consistent formatting for DOIs and publication details throughout the reference list. All 94 references now conform to the required citation style.

Observation: In the Appendix section, I suggest you review the font size.

Response: The corresponding changes have been made accordingly

Round 4

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the changes made to the article.

The article still needs some changes, as follows:

- Figure 1 I suggest you place after the sentence in line 272.

- In Table 1 I suggest you rename column 1 (for example 'characteristics')

- Chapter 3.1. I suggest you rename it, as well as chapter 3.2.

- In line 451 we can have:

Instead of 'First, H1…' it could be 'First, H1 (see Figure 2)… (the same in lines 456 and 460). This is how Table 5 could be introduced, where the values obtained in the other columns should also be commented.

- In Table 3, a legend should be introduced that tells us what it means (HAP, RES, SPI and HTMT).

Author Response

The article still requires some modifications, as follows:

• Figure 1: I suggest placing it after the sentence on line 272.
• In Table 1, I suggest changing the name of column 1 (for example, 'Characteristics')
• Section 3.1: I suggest renaming it, as well as section 3.2.
• On line 451 we can have: Instead of "First, H1…", it could be "First, H1 (see Figure 2)…" (similarly on lines 456 and 460). This would allow for the introduction of Table 5, where the values obtained in the other columns should also be discussed.
• In Table 3, a legend should be introduced to indicate what HAP, RES, SPI, and HTMT mean.

Response: Thank you for your observations. The corresponding changes have been implemented accordingly.