Bridging Digital Divides: Validating Government ICT Investments Accelerating Sustainable Development Goals

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General:

The conclusions are robust and well-aligned with the research objectives. However, the impact and utility of the findings could be enhanced by providing clearer links to theoretical frameworks, offering specific examples, and outlining detailed recommendations for future research and implementation.

Specific:

1. The conclusions effectively link findings to objectives, but the connection could be made more explicit by restating the specific research objectives at the beginning of the section. This would provide a clear framework for readers to evaluate how well the study addressed its goals.
2. The discussion of theoretical implications is strong but it requires deeper engagement with existing frameworks. Suggestions: (i) connect the findings to specific theories of digital governance or sustainable development. (ii) highlight how this study advances the theoretical field.
3. The recommendations provided are pragmatic and insightful, but case studies from the dataset could illustrate their applicability, e.g., identifying a country where balanced digital investments led to significant SDG improvements.
4. While the need for ongoing monitoring and adaptation is mentioned, the section should explicitly outline areas for future research. Suggestions could include: (i) extending the analysis to non-European contexts to explore generalizability, (ii) investigating longitudinal effects of digital investments over a longer period, and (iii) examining the role of private sector collaboration in achieving sustainable digital governance.
5. The emphasis on ethical and socially sustainable digital governance is commendable. However, it is imperative to discuss potential challenges, such as the risk of digital divides or the ethical implications of emerging technologies and offer strategies to address them.
6. Offer step-by-step guidance or frameworks for balanced ICT investments to increase the practical relevance of the research.

Author Response

everything has been changed according to the reviewer   comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to read and review your paper. I appreciate the research idea and how did you construct the proposed research hypotheses, the methodology used and the results obtained. But, I recommend you to include recent relevant references in your paper and to corroborate your research results withe the previous results obtained in the literature.  

 

Author Response

everything has been changed according to the reviewer   comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is a clear, concise examination of how funding and initiatives related to meeting UN Sustainability benchmarks work together and how effective these initiatives are. Overall, the paper is fairly easy to read and the methodology is clear. I am not a PLS expert, so my comments do not address the statistical methods employed.

Firstly, I appreciate this use of secondary data sets. This is an excellent example of how available government metrics can be used to answer theoretical and practical questions. Well done. Secondly, I would like to thank the author(s) for Table 1. This table is useful and clear, and I appreciate being able to see exactly what has been measured and included. Finally, the practical implications section addresses why this research and the initiatives it is based upon matter. Well done.

If space allows, I would like to see a small edit: While UN SDGs are discussed in some detail, I would appreciate a slightly more in-depth description of what the governmental inputs look like in the real world. This could include an example of what these look like in practice in one of the included countries, or references to news stories or press statements addressing these initiatives. While this information isn’t strictly required, I think it would enhance the paper by allowing readers to fully grasp the included concepts.

Author Response

everything has been changed according to the reviewer   comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study presents a relevant contribution to the analysis of how government investments in ICT can influence the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Its main strength lies in the integration of data from 27 European countries and the use of structural equation modeling to assess the impact of digital coverage, digital skills education, and cybersecurity. The combination of an empirical and theoretical approach provides useful findings for public policy formulation.

However, the manuscript could be improved in the clarity of some methodological sections and the argumentation of its findings about previous studies. In addition, the English, although understandable, presents some structures that could be refined to improve the fluency of the text.

Introduction

• The manuscript provides a general overview of the importance of digital government for achieving the SDGs; however, it lacks explicit references to prior studies examining the impact of government ICT investments on SDG progress. It is recommended to integrate recent research that addresses the relationship between government digitalization and sustainable development.
• The manuscript mentions existing studies on digital infrastructure and economic development but does not explain how these studies fall short in justifying the current research. Adding this argument would better highlight the theoretical gap addressed by the study.

Methodology

• The manuscript states that data were sourced from Eurostat and the World Bank, but it does not specify the exact time range of the data used. Indicating the years of data collection would enhance the study’s replicability.
• The SEM-PLS model is described, but the criteria used to validate the model structure are not detailed. It is essential to include key metrics such as R², SRMR, or goodness-of-fit values to justify the robustness of the methodological approach.
• In Table 1, the study variables are well operationalized, but the rationale for selecting certain indicators (such as Q3-1 to Q3-8 for Digital Skills Education) should be strengthened by explaining their specific relevance to the SDGs.

Results

• In the results section, while regression coefficients and p-values are provided for the relationships between ICT investments and SDGs, there is no comparison with effect sizes reported in previous studies using similar methodologies. It is recommended to include references to comparable studies to contextualize the magnitude of the observed effects.
• The study reports that the predictors explain 65.9% of the variability in SDG performance, which is a significant finding. However, no discussion is provided on potential mediators or moderators that could further refine the interpretation of these results. Addressing this would enhance the depth of the analysis.

Discussion

• The findings are discussed about theoretical frameworks, but the connection to the literature on digital public policies is limited. Strengthening the discussion with references to studies that examine effective strategies for ICT implementation in governments and their real impact on sustainable development would improve the manuscript’s theoretical depth.
• The manuscript asserts that the findings confirm the importance of digital infrastructure for sustainable development, but it does not explore potential differences across the countries studied. Discussing whether there are significant variations in the effects based on each country's level of digital development would provide a more nuanced analysis.

Conclusions

• The conclusions state that ICT investments predict SDG performance, but there is no discussion on whether these effects can be extrapolated to regions outside Europe. It is recommended to add a brief section reflecting on the applicability of the findings in developing countries.
• The importance of balancing availability, capabilities, and security in government digital strategies is mentioned, but no specific recommendations for policymakers are provided. Including concrete suggestions based on the study’s findings would strengthen the practical implications of the research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English, although understandable, could be improved to improve fluency and clarity. I share some examples:

Example 1 (Lines 11-16, Abstract)

Original text:

"Achieving the ambitious economic, social, and environmental aims under the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) urgently necessitates strategic digital governance advancements enabling lasting, equitable participation in emerging technologies."

Issue: The sentence is overly dense, with multiple adjectives and concepts packed into one phrase, making it difficult to read.

Improved version:

"Achieving the ambitious economic, social, and environmental goals of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) requires strategic digital governance improvements that promote long-term and equitable participation in emerging technologies."

 

Example 2 (Lines 48-50, Introduction)

Original text:

"As today's intersectional priorities captured in the SDGs necessitate unprecedented coordination across social and environmental policy realms, e-government modernization constitutes an indispensable capacity."

Issue: The phrase "constitutes an indispensable capacity" sounds unnatural. Additionally, the sentence could be split to improve readability.
Improved version:

"Given that the SDGs require unprecedented coordination across social and environmental policies, modernizing e-government is essential for achieving these goals."

 

Example 3 (Lines 97-100, Introduction)

Original text:

"Testing these hypothesized positive relationships will address the need for confirmatory evidence that key facets of socially sustainable e-governance contribute to comprehensive development progress along economic, social, and environmental dimensions."

Issue: The structure is unnecessarily complex, and "along economic, social, and environmental dimensions" could be expressed more clearly.

Improved version:

"Testing these hypotheses will provide evidence on how key aspects of socially sustainable e-governance contribute to economic, social, and environmental development."

 

Example 4 (Lines 273-275, Results)

Original text:

"The structural model results provided confirmation for all three proposed directional hypotheses regarding relationships between digital governance policy investments and SDG performance at the national level."

Issue: The phrase "provided confirmation for all three proposed directional hypotheses" is unnecessarily long and repetitive.

Improved version: "The structural model confirmed all three hypotheses on the relationship between digital governance investments and SDG performance at the national level."

 

Example 5 (Lines 363-366, Discussion)

Original text:

"Results mathematically confirm directing funding toward ICT infrastructure expansion, digital skills programming, and cybersecurity protocols as complementary building blocks that collectively strengthen capacities to pursue sustainability initiatives."

Issue: The structure "confirm directing funding toward..." is not fluid and can be reformulated for greater clarity.

Improved version:

"The results confirm that investing in ICT infrastructure, digital skills programs, and cybersecurity protocols strengthens the capacity to implement sustainability initiatives."

Author Response

everything has been changed according to the reviewer   comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf