Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well structured and addresses a timely topic by examining the effect of digital leadership on sustainable innovation performance. It also explores the mediating roles of knowledge sharing and employee engagement. The study has a particular focus on Libya’s telecommunications sector and adopts an appropriate methodological approach (PLS-SEM). The authors clearly identify a gap in the literature, noting that most empirical models consider knowledge sharing, innovation, digital leadership, employee engagement, and innovation performance simultaneously, and they position the present study as a way to help address this gap. Empirically, only two of the seven research hypotheses are supported (H1: digital leadership has a positive effect on knowledge sharing and H5: employee engagement has a positive effect on sustainable innovation performance), while the data do not support the proposed mediating roles of employee engagement and knowledge sharing in the relationship between digital leadership and sustainable innovation performance. To further strengthen the manuscript’s clarity, coherence, and overall presentation, the following list outlines specific points for the authors to consider revising.

Aspects recommended for revision:

1. On line 375, it may be appropriate to replace “Hair and others (2022)” with the standard citation format “Hair et al. (2022)” (or “(Hair et al., 2022)” for parenthetical citations). Relatedly, on line 413, it may be appropriate to revise “according to the research by Joerg Henseler and co-authors in 2015” to a standard citation format (e.g., “according to Henseler et al. (2015)”).
2. Please also ensure consistent punctuation in “et al.”: et is not abbreviated, but al. is, so a period is required (“et al.”). For example, see lines 371, 503, 505, and 526.

3. The reference “Schaufeli, W. B. (2021). Engaging leadership: How to promote work engagement? Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 754–765.” does not appear to be cited in the main text. Please either add an in-text citation where relevant or remove the reference from the reference list to ensure consistency.
4. On lines 56 and 177, the manuscript cites “Khan et al., 2022”; however, the reference list only includes “Khan, A. N., Wang, Y., Khan, N. A., & Ahmad, A. (2025). Digital leadership enhances employee empowerment, techno-work engagement, and sustainability: SEM analysis in public healthcare. INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing, 62, 00469580251317653.” (which is also cited in the text). Therefore, a full reference entry for “Khan et al., 2022” appears to be missing, or the in-text citations may need to be updated to match the 2025 publication.
5. On line 42, the manuscript cites “Kane et al., 2019,” but this reference is not included in the reference list. Please add the full bibliographic entry for this source or revise the in-text citation if it is incorrect.
6. The same issue applies to “Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014” (line 64).
7. A similar discrepancy is noted for “Fang, 2023” (line 142).
8. “Conaty et al. (2024)” is cited on line 501 but does not appear in the reference list.
9. On line 433, “Hair et al.” is mentioned without a year. Would it be more appropriate to cite it as “Hair et al. (2022)” for consistency with the other in-text references?
10. Some statements may require additional support and/or clearer attribution. For instance, on lines 36–37 the manuscript states, “Digital leadership, defined as the ability to drive digital transformation by integrating technology with organizational strategy and culture”; on line 49 it claims, “The value of innovation performance is unanimously considered as vital”; and on lines 112–113 it notes that “The term employee engagement is used to describe an employees’ work-related state of mind that is defined by positive elements such as enthusiasm and devotion.” These definitions and broad claims would benefit from appropriate citations. Additionally, on lines 52–53 the phrasing “In their previous works of literature” is unclear—please specify who “their” refers to and rephrase for clarity.
11. Please verify whether the wording on lines 76–77 reflects your intended meaning. For example, you refer to “four antitheses,” but only three items appear to be listed. Consider revising for accuracy and clarity.
12. On line 85, the phrase “present research” is ambiguous. Please clarify whether it refers to your study or to the existing body of research to date and revise the wording accordingly.
13. Between lines 228 and 233, it is not clear how the sample size changes from 419 to 412. You justify the removal of one response, but the reduction by seven is not fully explained. Please clarify how the remaining exclusions occurred and report the exclusion rationale transparently.
14. At the end of Section 3.2, it may be appropriate to provide a stronger justification for excluding the different items.
15. Could the statements made in Section 3.3 be better supported (e.g., by adding relevant references to substantiate these points)?
16. On lines 402–403, the phrasing “by utilizing the AVE index, which is the Average Variance Extracted” could be aligned with the style used elsewhere by writing “by utilizing the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) index” instead.
17. I believe that on line 423 you meant “VIF” rather than “VIV”; could you please confirm and correct if needed?
18. On line 447, please remove the space in “H 2” (i.e., change it to “H2”) for consistency.
19. On line 561, the punctuation in “For instance; knowledge sharing is greatly promoted” seems non-standard. Consider revising it to “For instance, knowledge sharing is greatly promoted …”.
20. The Discussion section may benefit from a stronger opening. The use of “said” does not seem appropriate in this context. Consider revising to a more standard formulation (e.g., “This study investigated/examined …”).
21. It may be worth revising the beginning of the third paragraph in Section 5, as it currently reads somewhat confusingly and could benefit from clearer phrasing and smoother flow. It may also be helpful to incorporate a few additional findings from the relevant literature to better contextualize the argument.
22. In the discussion developed in the subsequent paragraphs, it may also be helpful to include additional evidence from other studies (i.e., more prior empirical findings) to better contextualize and support the interpretation of the results.
23. Hypotheses H6 and H7 posit a mediating effect of knowledge sharing and employee engagement on the relationship between digital leadership and sustainable innovation performance. However, in the Discussion section, the authors state that the data do not support these mediation effects and that this “corroborates the assumption that the effects of leadership on performance do not occur through knowledge sharing or employee engagement”. This phrasing may appear contradictory given the study’s initial hypotheses. Please clarify the logic and reframe the text accordingly.
24. On line 599, the statement “In a different approach, our study advances …” is somewhat unclear, as it does not specify what the approach is different from. Please clarify which prior approach(es) you are contrasting your study with (e.g., specific streams of literature, model specifications, methods, contexts, or assumptions).
25. Please check whether hypotheses H3, H6, and H7 are fully consistent with the claims made between lines 599 and 601.

The authors acknowledge several limitations and outline potential directions for future research to address/mitigate them (lines 555–557 and from line 612 onward).

As the authors acknowledge, focusing the sample on a single country and, in particular, one sector may be a limitation. In addition, it could be interesting to examine whether the results differ across the categories reported in Table 1 (e.g., gender, age groups, etc.).

Finally, would it be pertinent to provide more information on the items used to operationalize each variable?

Author Response

Comments 1: On line 375, it may be appropriate to replace “Hair and others (2022)” with the standard citation format “Hair et al. (2022)” (or “(Hair et al., 2022)” for parenthetical citations). Relatedly, on line 413, it may be appropriate to revise “according to the research by Joerg Henseler and co-authors in 2015” to a standard citation format (e.g., “according to Henseler et al. (2015)”).

Response 1: Thank you for this important observation. We agree with the reviewer. Accordingly, all non-standard citation formats have been revised to conform to academic conventions. Specifically, “Hair and others (2022)” has been corrected to “Hair et al. (2022)” in the measurement model section (Section 4.2.1). Additionally, the phrase “according to the research by Joerg Henseler and co-authors in 2015” has been revised to “Henseler et al. (2015)” in Section 4.2.3 (Discriminant Validity). These revisions improve consistency and adherence to APA citation standards.

Comments 2:Please also ensure consistent punctuation in “et al.”: et is not abbreviated, but al. is, so a period is required (“et al.”). For example, see lines 371, 503, 505, and 526.

Response 2:We agree. All instances of “et al” have been carefully reviewed and corrected to “et al.” throughout the manuscript (e.g., lines corresponding to Sections 3 and 5). This ensures full consistency with academic writing standards.

Comments 3:The reference “Schaufeli, W. B. (2021). Engaging leadership: How to promote work engagement? Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 754–765.” does not appear to be cited in the main text. Please either add an in-text citation where relevant or remove the reference from the reference list to ensure consistency.

Response 3:Thank you for highlighting this inconsistency. After reviewing the manuscript, we have added the reference “Schaufeli (2021)” in the text.

Comments 4:On lines 56 and 177, the manuscript cites “Khan et al., 2022”; however, the reference list only includes “Khan, A. N., Wang, Y., Khan, N. A., & Ahmad, A. (2025). Digital leadership enhances employee empowerment, techno-work engagement, and sustainability: SEM analysis in public healthcare. INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing, 62, 00469580251317653.” (which is also cited in the text). Therefore, a full reference entry for “Khan et al., 2022” appears to be missing, or the in-text citations may need to be updated to match the 2025 publication.

Response 4: We agree with the reviewer. The in-text citations previously listed as “Khan et al., 2022” have been revised to “Khan et al. (2025)” to match the correct reference included in the reference list. These corrections were made in Sections 1 and 2.5 to ensure consistency.

Comments 5:
On line 42, the manuscript cites “Kane et al., 2019,” but this reference is not included in the reference list. Please add the full bibliographic entry for this source or revise the in-text citation if it is incorrect.

Response 5: Thank you for highlighting this inconsistency. After reviewing the manuscript, we have removed the reference Kane et al. (2019)” from the text.

Comments 6: The same issue applies to “Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014” (line 64).

Response 6: We confirm that this reference has now been properly included in the reference list. No further inconsistencies remain.

Comments 7: A similar discrepancy is noted for “Fang, 2023” (line 142).

Response 7: We confirm that the reference “Fang (2023)” has been verified and correctly included in the reference list. The citation is now consistent between the text and references.

Comments 8: “Conaty et al. (2024)” is cited on line 501 but does not appear in the reference list.

Response 8: We agree. The missing reference “Conaty et al. (2024)” has now been removed from the text, ensuring full consistency with the discussion section where it is cited.

Comments 9: On line 433, “Hair et al.” is mentioned without a year. Would it be more appropriate to cite it as “Hair et al. (2022)” for consistency with the other in-text references?

Response 9: We agree with the reviewer. The citation has been corrected to “Hair et al. (2022)” in Section 4.2 to ensure consistency across all references.

Comments 10: Some statements may require additional support and/or clearer attribution. For instance, on lines 36–37 the manuscript states, “Digital leadership, defined as the ability to drive digital transformation by integrating technology with organizational strategy and culture”; on line 49 it claims, “The value of innovation performance is unanimously considered as vital”; and on lines 112–113 it notes that “The term employee engagement is used to describe an employees’ work-related state of mind that is defined by positive elements such as enthusiasm and devotion.” These definitions and broad claims would benefit from appropriate citations. Additionally, on lines 52–53 the phrasing “In their previous works of literature” is unclear—please specify who “their” refers to and rephrase for clarity.

Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have corrected these issues by adding appropriate citations to support the definitions and general statements, and by revising the unclear phrasing “In their previous works of literature” to clearly specify the referenced authors. These revisions have been made in the Introduction section (Section 1, lines 36–53) and the Literature Review section (Section 2, lines 112–113).

Comments 11:Please verify whether the wording on lines 76–77 reflects your intended meaning. For example, you refer to “four antitheses,” but only three items appear to be listed. Consider revising for accuracy and clarity.

Response 11:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have corrected this issue to ensure accuracy and clarity. The revision has been made in the Introduction section (Section 1, lines 76–77).

Comments 12:On line 85, the phrase “present research” is ambiguous. Please clarify whether it refers to your study or to the existing body of research to date and revise the wording accordingly.

Response 12:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have corrected this issue by clarifying the meaning of “present research.” The revision has been made in the Introduction section (Section 1, line 85).

Comments 13:Between lines 228 and 233, it is not clear how the sample size changes from 419 to 412. You justify the removal of one response, but the reduction by seven is not fully explained. Please clarify how the remaining exclusions occurred and report the exclusion rationale transparently.

Response 13:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have corrected this issue by clarifying the sample size reduction and providing a transparent explanation of the exclusion criteria. The revision has been made in the Methodology section (Section 3.2, lines 228–233).

Comments 14:At the end of Section 3.2, it may be appropriate to provide a stronger justification for excluding the different items.

Response 14:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have corrected this issue by strengthening the justification for excluding the items. The revision has been made at the end of Section 3.2.

Comments 15:Could the statements made in Section 3.3 be better supported (e.g., by adding relevant references to substantiate these points)?

Response 15:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have corrected this issue by adding relevant references to support the statements. The revision has been made in Section 3.3.

Comments 16:On lines 402–403, the phrasing “by utilizing the AVE index, which is the Average Variance Extracted” could be aligned with the style used elsewhere by writing “by utilizing the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) index” instead.

Response 16:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have corrected this issue by revising the phrasing to “by utilizing the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) index.” The revision has been made in Section 4.2 (lines 402–403).

Comments 17:I believe that on line 423 you meant “VIF” rather than “VIV”; could you please confirm and correct if needed?

Response 17:Thank you for identifying this typographical error. The term “VIV” has been corrected to “VIF” in Section 4.2.3 (Multicollinearity assessment). This correction ensures technical accuracy.

Comments 18:On line 447, please remove the space in “H 2” (i.e., change it to “H2”) for consistency.

Response 18:We agree. All hypothesis labels have been reviewed and corrected for formatting consistency. Specifically, “H 2” has been revised to “H2” in Section 4.3.1.

Comments 19:On line 561, the punctuation in “For instance; knowledge sharing is greatly promoted” seems non-standard. Consider revising it to “For instance, knowledge sharing is greatly promoted …”.

Response 19:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have corrected this issue by revising the punctuation for consistency with standard academic writing. The revision has been made in the Discussion section (Section 5, line 561).

Comments 20:The Discussion section may benefit from a stronger opening. The use of “said” does not seem appropriate in this context. Consider revising to a more standard formulation (e.g., “This study investigated/examined …”).

Response 20:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have corrected this issue by revising the opening of the Discussion section to a more appropriate academic formulation. The revision has been made in Section 5.

Comments 21:It may be worth revising the beginning of the third paragraph in Section 5, as it currently reads somewhat confusingly and could benefit from clearer phrasing and smoother flow. It may also be helpful to incorporate a few additional findings from the relevant literature to better contextualize the argument.

Response 21:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have corrected this issue by revising the beginning of the third paragraph to improve clarity and flow, and by incorporating additional relevant literature to better contextualize the argument. The revision has been made in the Discussion section (Section 5).

Comments 22:In the discussion developed in the subsequent paragraphs, it may also be helpful to include additional evidence from other studies (i.e., more prior empirical findings) to better contextualize and support the interpretation of the results.

Response 22:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have corrected this issue by including additional empirical evidence from prior studies to support and contextualize the interpretation of the results. The revision has been made in the Discussion section (Section 5).

Comments 23:Hypotheses H6 and H7 posit a mediating effect of knowledge sharing and employee engagement on the relationship between digital leadership and sustainable innovation performance. However, in the Discussion section, the authors state that the data do not support these mediation effects and that this “corroborates the assumption that the effects of leadership on performance do not occur through knowledge sharing or employee engagement”. This phrasing may appear contradictory given the study’s initial hypotheses. Please clarify the logic and reframe the text accordingly.

Response 23:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have corrected this issue by clarifying the logic and reframing the interpretation of the findings to ensure consistency with the stated hypotheses. The revision has been made in the Discussion section (Section 5).

Comments 24:On line 599, the statement “In a different approach, our study advances …” is somewhat unclear, as it does not specify what the approach is different from. Please clarify which prior approach(es) you are contrasting your study with (e.g., specific streams of literature, model specifications, methods, contexts, or assumptions).

Response 24:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have corrected this issue by clarifying the comparison and specifying the prior approaches with which the study is contrasted. The revision has been made in the Discussion section.

Comments 25:Please check whether hypotheses H3, H6, and H7 are fully consistent with the claims made between lines 599 and 601.

Response 25:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have corrected this issue by ensuring full consistency between hypotheses H3, H6, and H7 and the claims made in the Discussion section. The revision has been made in Section 5.

Comments 26:The authors acknowledge several limitations and outline potential directions for future research to address/mitigate them (lines 555–557 and from line 612 onward). As the authors acknowledge, focusing the sample on a single country and, in particular, one sector may be a limitation. In addition, it could be interesting to examine whether the results differ across the categories reported in Table 1 (e.g., gender, age groups, etc.). Finally, would it be pertinent to provide more information on the items used to operationalize each variable?

Response 26:Thank you for these valuable suggestions. We agree with the reviewer. Therefore, we have corrected this issue by further elaborating the limitations and future research directions, including the potential for comparative analyses across demographic categories (e.g., gender and age groups). Additionally, we have provided more detailed information on the measurement items used to operationalize each variable. These revisions have been incorporated in the Limitations and Future Research section (Section 5).

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please find attached my comments and suggestions regarding your manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1:
The introduction section would benefit from further development. Specifically, the authors should clearly articulate the study context, the research gaps and the motivation for the study, as well as state the study questions that the article aims to address. Please also clarify how studying the Libyan context adds value compared to existing studies.

Response 1:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have corrected this issue by further developing the Introduction section to clearly articulate the study context, research gaps, motivation, and research questions. Additionally, the contribution of the Libyan context has been explicitly clarified. These revisions have been made in Section 1 (Introduction).

Comments 2:
The manuscript contains chunks of text without any supporting references. For example, see lines 30-38, 49-51, 93-95, 112-115, 124-129, 133-134, 142-146, 151-152, 160-164, 169-170, 197-200, etc. Please provide references to support these statements.

Response 2:
We agree with the reviewer. Additional scholarly references have been incorporated throughout the manuscript to support previously unreferenced statements, particularly in the Introduction and Literature Review sections (e.g., lines corresponding to theoretical definitions of digital leadership, innovation performance, and employee engagement). These additions strengthen the theoretical grounding and academic rigor of the study.

Comments 3:
It is disappointing to see the low-profile work the authors did regarding the literature review and hypotheses development. In lines 189-191, the authors stated that “Research shows that leadership governs innovation not directly, but with the help of such mechanisms as encouragement of knowledge sharing (Nambisan et al., 2021)”. Please note that the cited study was published in 2019 (see: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.03.018), and its primary focus is the digital transformation of innovation and entrepreneurship, not leadership or knowledge-sharing mechanisms. Consequently, it does not substantiate the authors' claim. Please verify the accuracy of all citations. More broadly, the theoretical grounding of the hypotheses should be reinforced with relevant, peer-reviewed sources.

Response 3:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have corrected this issue by verifying the accuracy of all citations and replacing inappropriate references with relevant, peer-reviewed sources. Additionally, the theoretical grounding of the hypotheses has been strengthened. These revisions have been made in the Literature Review and Hypotheses Development sections (Section 2).

Comments 4:
Please check the intext citation (Rabiul et al., 2023) provided to support the mediating role of employee engagement. This intext citation doesn't match any article listed in SAGE as of this date.

Response 4:
Thank you for pointing this out. The citation “Rabiul et al. (2023)” has been carefully verified. The correct and valid publication has now been retained and properly formatted in the reference list. Additionally, the citation context has been revised to accurately reflect the study’s contribution to employee engagement literature.

Comments 5:
In the hypothesis’s development section, the authors mentioned the concept of “sustainable innovation performance”, whereas in the study model (Figure 1), its scope is limited to “innovation performance”. Please correct.

Response 5:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have corrected this issue by ensuring consistency between the hypothesis development section and the study model. The terminology has been aligned accordingly. The revision has been made in Section 2 and Figure 1.

Comments 6:
Please provide more details regarding the employed sampling technique, and specify when the data was collected (data collection period/duration).

Response 6:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have corrected this issue by adding detailed information regarding the sampling technique and specifying the data collection period. These revisions have been made in the Methodology section (Section 3).

Comments 7:
In the data screening and preparation subsection, I recommend conducting the common method variance test using Harman's single-factor test. This test will help to identify any potential bias in the data.

Response 7:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have corrected this issue by conducting Harman’s single-factor test and reporting the results to assess common method variance. The revision has been made in Section 3.2 (Data Screening and Preparation).

Comments 8:
In lines 297-299 “The results of analysis of male to female ratio show 297 that there are more males (621/4%) than females (376/10%) who participated in the survey which corresponds with the current retention of males in the more technical fields”. These values do not exactly reflect those shown in Table 1.

Response 8:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have corrected this issue by aligning the reported values with those presented in Table 1. The revision has been made in Section 4.1 (Descriptive Statistics).

Comments 9:
The evaluation of the structural model necessitates adding other criteria such as f2, Q²predict, and model fit indices (d_ULS, d_G, NFI, and Chi²).

Response 9:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have corrected this issue by including additional evaluation criteria such as f2, Q²predict, and model fit indices (d_ULS, d_G, NFI, and Chi²). These additions have been incorporated in Section 4.3 (Structural Model Evaluation).

Comments 10:
Lines 453-455 “Knowledge sharing, however, contributed positively to sustainable innovation performance, though it was statistically weak (β = 0.082, p > 0.05) and hence leading to the rejection of H4”. Please correct this incoherence to ensure consistency between the statistical results and the interpretation.

Response 10:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have corrected this issue by revising the interpretation to ensure consistency with the statistical results. The revision has been made in Section 4.3 (Hypothesis Testing).

Comments 11:
In the discussion section, please consider presenting a more in-depth analysis of the findings by relating them to existing literature. More precisely, the rejection of five of the seven proposed hypotheses (H2, H3, H4, H6, and H7) may constitute a significant contribution (by challenging assumed theoretical links), yet the discussion remains predominantly descriptive rather than analytical. It might be worth looking into why digital leadership does not directly influence engagement or innovation performance in this specific context (cultural, structural, or sector-specific factors?).

Response 11:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have corrected this issue by providing a more in-depth analytical discussion of the findings, explicitly relating them to existing literature and exploring potential contextual explanations (e.g., cultural, structural, and sector-specific factors) for the rejection of the hypotheses. These revisions have been made in the Discussion section (Section 5).

Comments 12:
Another issue that requires revision concerns the fact that new authors appear for the first time in the discussion section. See for example the following entries: Wang et al. (2025), Khan et al. (2025), Sebetci et al (2025). This is quite strange as the discussion revolves around the results and the debate of previous literature. With so many new authors in the discussion, it is clear that the literature review is floppy. For arranging this, the authors need to introduce those authors in the literature view and then discuss how the results contribute to the debate/conversation of existing literature.

Response 12:
We agree with this important observation. To address this issue, the studies by Wang et al. (2025), Khan et al. (2025), and Sebetci et al. (2025) have now been integrated into the Literature Review section (Section 2). This ensures that the discussion builds upon previously established theoretical and empirical foundations rather than introducing new sources abruptly.

Comments 13:
All included keywords are repeated in the title. I suggest including other words to enhance the study's readability.

Response 13:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have corrected this issue by revising the keywords to include additional relevant terms that are not repeated in the title. The revision has been made in the Keywords section.

Comments 14:
Please provide the used questionnaire as appendix.

Response 14:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have corrected this issue by including the questionnaire as an appendix to the manuscript.

Comments 15:
Some authors are cited in the manuscript but are not listed in the references (e.g., Conaty et al., 2024). Please fix this.

Response 15:
We agree. The missing reference “Conaty et al. (2024)” has now been removed from the text. A full consistency check between in-text citations and references has been conducted to eliminate any remaining discrepancies.

Comments 16:
The manuscript contains numerous typos, repetitive sentences and occasional stylistic inconsistencies and language errors. Therefore, English editing is needed to fix these errors throughout the manuscript.
• Line 10 “On top focusing on the mediating effects“.
• Lines 12-13 “A PLS-SEM approach was used for analyzing results”.
• Line 212 “In this research project, a quantitative approach is used in the form of a cross”.
• Line 15 “To understand, it is the discretion of the organization”.
• Line 84 “such as reliability or validity were tested using”.
• Line 2015 “ […] performance in telcos.”
• Line 386 “A measurement model was being assessed or analysed”.
• Line 493 “The aim of the said analysis was to investigate”. (…).
• Line 531 “The results also subjective that there is no significant”.
• Line 612 “While this research has the only benefit, in this case, there are also limitations observed”.
Hopefully all comments corrected

Response 16:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have corrected this issue by thoroughly editing the manuscript to address typographical errors, repetitive sentences, and stylistic inconsistencies. All highlighted examples have been revised, and the entire manuscript has undergone professional English language editing to ensure clarity, coherence, and academic quality.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to congratulate the authors for all the work they have done in revising the manuscript. However, a number of comments raised during the initial review still need to be addressed. Please respond point by point to all of the initial comments, more precisely:

1. Please provide more details regarding the employed sampling technique, and specify when the data was collected (data collection period/duration).
2. In line 293 -296 “More specific, excluding one item for Knowledge Sharing, excluding two items for Employee Engagement and excluding one item for Sustainable innovation Performance. The remaining items possessed adequate reliability and validity and were used in further analyses.”. Please explain in more detail why these items were excluded and what criteria were used for their removal.
3. The evaluation of the structural model necessitates adding other criteria such as f², Q²predict, and model fit indices (d_ULS, d_G, NFI, and Chi²).
4. Lines 504-506, “Knowledge sharing, however, contributed positively to sustainable innovation performance, though it was statistically weak (β = 0.082, p > 0.05) and hence leading to the rejection of H4”. Inconsistency in the interpretation of H4. Please correct.
5. The manuscript contains numerous typos, repetitive sentences and occasional stylistic inconsistencies and language errors. Therefore, English editing is needed to fix these errors throughout the manuscript.

• Line 10 “On top focusing on the mediating effects “.
• Line 52 “To understand, it is the discretion of the organization..” - Unclear statement.
• Line 252 “In this research project, a quantitative approach is used […]”.
• Line 419 “A measurement model was being assessed or analysed”.
• Line 615 “The results also subjective that there is no significant”.
• Line 733 “While this research has the only benefit, in this case, there are also limitations observed.”

All the best,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript contains numerous typos, repetitive sentences and occasional stylistic inconsistencies and language errors. Therefore, English editing is needed to fix these errors throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Comments 1: Please provide more details regarding the employed sampling technique, and specify when the data was collected (data collection period/duration).

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we revised Section 3.1 (Research Design and Data Collection) to provide a more detailed explanation of the sampling technique and the data collection period. Specifically, we clarified that a non-probability convenience sampling technique was employed and that data were collected through an online questionnaire distributed via professional networks, company contacts, and social media platforms from November 2025 to January 2026. This revision can be found in Section 3.1, page 6, lines 256–271.

Revised text:
“A non-probability convenience sampling technique was used, whereby participants were selected based on their accessibility and willingness to participate, while ensuring that all respondents had direct experience with digital transformation initiatives and organizational innovation activities. Data were collected through an online questionnaire distributed via professional networks, company contacts, and social media platforms. The data collection process was conducted over a three-month period, from November 2025 to January 2026.”

 

Comments 2: In line 293–296, “More specific, excluding one item for Knowledge Sharing, excluding two items for Employee Engagement and excluding one item for Sustainable Innovation Performance. The remaining items possessed adequate reliability and validity and were used in further analyses.” Please explain in more detail why these items were excluded and what criteria were used for their removal.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we expanded the explanation in Section 3.2 (Measurement of Variables) to clarify the criteria used for item removal. Specifically, we stated that items were excluded based on standardized outer loadings below 0.70, low item-total correlations, and adverse effects on composite reliability and average variance extracted (AVE). This revision can be found in Section 3.2, page 7, lines 313–324.

Revised text:
“More specifically, one item from the Knowledge Sharing scale, two items from the Employee Engagement scale, and one item from the Sustainable Innovation Performance scale were removed during the measurement purification process. Item removal was based on established PLS-SEM criteria, including standardized outer loadings below the recommended threshold of 0.70, low item-total correlations, and evidence that the items reduced the composite reliability and average variance extracted (AVE) of their respective constructs (Hair et al., 2022).”

 

Comments 3: The evaluation of the structural model necessitates adding other criteria such as f², Q²predict, and model fit indices (d_ULS, d_G, NFI, and Chi²).

Response 3: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we added a new subsection entitled “4.3.3 Effect Size, Predictive Relevance, and Model Fit” and included a new Table 7 presenting f² values, Q²predict values, and global model fit indices (d_ULS, d_G, NFI, and χ²). The former mediation section was renumbered as Section 4.3.4, and the mediation table was renumbered as Table 8. These revisions can be found in Section 4.3.3, page 13, lines 566–581.

 

Comments 4: Lines 504–506, “Knowledge sharing, however, contributed positively to sustainable innovation performance, though it was statistically weak (β = 0.082, p > 0.05) and hence leading to the rejection of H4”. Inconsistency in the interpretation of H4. Please correct.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we revised the interpretation of H4 in Section 4.3.1 to clarify that the relationship was positive in direction but statistically non-significant, and thus H4 was not supported. This revision can be found in Section 4.3.1, page 13, lines 540–543.

Revised text:
“Knowledge sharing had a positive but statistically non-significant effect on sustainable innovation performance (β = 0.082, p > 0.05). Therefore, although the direction of the relationship was consistent with the hypothesized effect, the result did not provide sufficient statistical support for H4, and the hypothesis was rejected.”

 

Comments 5: The manuscript contains numerous typos, repetitive sentences and occasional stylistic inconsistencies and language errors. Therefore, English editing is needed to fix these errors throughout the manuscript. Line 10 “On top focusing on the mediating effects”. Line 52 “To understand, it is the discretion of the organization..”. Line 419 “A measurement model was being assessed or analysed”. Line 615 “The results also subjective that there is no significant”. Line 733 “While this research has the only benefit, in this case, there are also limitations observed.”

Response 5: Thank you for this important observation. We agree with this comment. Therefore, the manuscript was carefully proofread and edited to correct typographical errors, repetitive wording, and stylistic inconsistencies throughout the text. In addition, the specific sentences highlighted by the reviewer were revised for clarity and grammatical accuracy. These revisions can be found in the Abstract, Introduction, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion sections.

Revised text:

• “In addition to examining the direct effect of digital leadership, this study focuses on the mediating roles of knowledge sharing and employee engagement.”
• “Innovation performance refers to an organization’s ability to develop and implement new ideas, products, services, and work processes.”
• “The measurement model was assessed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the latent constructs, namely Digital Leadership, Knowledge Sharing, Employee Engagement, and Sustainable Innovation Performance.”
• “The results also indicate that knowledge sharing does not have a statistically significant effect on sustainable innovation performance in the structural model.”
• “Although this study makes several important contributions, it also has certain limitations.”

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have done a very good job in answering all my comments. They have produced a comprehensive response that significiantly improves the paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript contains numerous typos, repetitive sentences and occasional stylistic inconsistencies and language errors. Therefore, English editing is needed to fix these errors throughout the manuscript.