Modeling Intelligent Judgment Formation in Public Digital Services: Cognitive and Social Pathways from a Structural Equation Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The present research aims to reveal the mechanism of intelligent judgment in implementing a blockchain-based public digital wallet within a smart city project in Khon Kaen Province, Thailand. Instead of the conventional view that technology adoption is an adaptive technology diffusion process, this research offers a new view that technology adoption is an adaptive process of social judgment. The theoretical framework combines the Theory of Planned Behavior and Technology Acceptance Model, with cognitive evaluations, social information processing, and trust-risk appraisal under conditions of uncertainty. The concept of attitude is defined as an integrative judgment, and behavioral intention is defined as decision readiness. The survey results with 841 participants show that social information and attitude are the primary outcomes.

The present study uses a cross-sectional theory-driven survey design based on actual user data from 841 participants. Such a research design is suitable for examining latent cognitive and social judgment processes. It can be said that the study has substantial statistical power, thus making it appropriate for using structural equation modeling. It can also be said that the study’s measurement model has high reliability and validity, as shown by high factor loadings, AVE, and composite reliability. However, it can also be said that the study has a limitation, which is based on its cross-sectional, self-reported nature. Other limitations include the study’s potential for item redundancy, lack of discriminant validity, lack of tests for common method bias, and use of attitudinal indicators to measure intelligence.

The following constructive feedback and areas for improvement are suggested:

• Elaborate on the Construct of Intelligence. The manuscript has shown good theoretical depth. Nevertheless, it would be better if it was made clearer why the word "intelligent" was used as opposed to "evaluative" or "decision-making" typologies of constructs. More differentiation from conventional intelligence measures and an elaboration on the limitations associated with the current approach would add value to the manuscript.
• Elaborate on Discriminant Validity and Method Bias. The discriminant validity tests would add value to the manuscript. Although it is evident that the authors have written an easy-to-understand manuscript, an elaboration on how discriminant validity tests were carried out would add value.
• Temper the Results Relating to Causal Effect. The cross-sectional design affects the results obtained from the SEM. The authors would be advised to temper the causal results or, better still, discuss how the current approach has limitations. The causal effect obtained from the SEM should be made clear as being theoretically consistent as opposed to causative.
• Reduce Measurement Redundancy. The manuscript would greatly benefit from the addition of more details regarding the rationale for the scale length of the attitude and behavioral intention measures, both of which have 10 items each. Although the current methodology has significant redundancy, reducing redundancy would be worthwhile, especially after streamlining the measures.
• Future Research Directions. The future research directions provided in the manuscript are clear; however, the discussion would greatly benefit from the addition of more details regarding the use of longitudinal research, the use of behavioral data, and more specific details regarding the use of decision quality measures according to levels of performance in order to determine the degree of intelligent decision-making.
• This manuscript is theoretically ambitious and methodologically rigorous, making a meaningful contribution to interdisciplinary research at the intersection of intelligence theory, digital governance, and smart city research. With increased conceptual prudence and additional methodological explication, this paper would be well-suited for publication in a high-quality interdisciplinary journal.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your thorough evaluation and constructive feedback. Your comments have substantially strengthened the theoretical clarity, methodological transparency, and overall contribution of the manuscript. We have carefully addressed all points raised and revised the manuscript accordingly. Detailed modifications are reflected in the revised manuscript and summarized below.

Comment 1: Theoretical positioning and conceptual clarity

Response:
We have strengthened the theoretical positioning of the study by explicitly clarifying the conceptual gap in the Introduction. Specifically, we now articulate that prior technology adoption models under-specify the integrative judgment processes embedded in public governance systems. A new paragraph has been added to clearly position the study as a reconceptualization of public digital wallet usage as an applied intelligence process of adaptive judgment formation. This clarification enhances the novelty and theoretical necessity of the study.

Comment 2: Sustainability relevance

Response:
In response to your suggestion, we have strengthened the sustainability framing throughout the manuscript. The Abstract, Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion sections now explicitly link intelligent judgment formation to sustainable civic digital engagement and governance resilience. We clarify that sustainable smart governance depends on socially scaffolded evaluative ecosystems rather than solely on technological optimization.

Comment 3: Measurement rigor and construct validity

Response:
We have reinforced the measurement section to enhance methodological transparency. Specifically:

• Section 4.3.3 (Discriminant Validity) has been refined to clearly present and interpret the Fornell–Larcker criterion results.
• The narrative explanation has been strengthened to clarify empirical distinctiveness among constructs.
• In Section 3.5, we added justification regarding high reliability coefficients to address potential concerns about redundancy.

These revisions ensure stronger construct validity reporting consistent with covariance-based SEM standards.

Comment 4: Interpretation of unexpected structural results

Response:
The negative relationship between subjective norms and attitude has been reinterpreted and theoretically elaborated in Section 5.1.2. Rather than treating this as an anomalous finding, we now frame it as a refinement of traditional TPB assumptions. We discuss how normative pressure in civic digital contexts may trigger evaluative scrutiny rather than automatic attitudinal alignment, thereby identifying a boundary condition within public governance environments. This clarification strengthens the theoretical contribution of the study.

Comment 5: Strengthening conclusions and contribution

Response:
The Conclusion section has been substantially revised to reinforce the study’s theoretical contributions, particularly:

• The structural dominance of socially distributed experiential information.
• The differentiated role of normative versus credibility-based social influence.
• The sustainability implications for long-term smart governance systems.

These revisions sharpen the contribution and clarify the broader implications of the findings.

We confirm that all revisions have been incorporated into the revised manuscript, as detailed in the attached file. We are grateful for your insightful comments, which have significantly improved the clarity, rigor, and contribution of the study.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Sirs/Madam,
The article presents a relevant research objective, as it addresses intelligent decision-making in digital public services, understood as a process that integrates cognitive evaluation, socially distributed information, and judgment under conditions of uncertainty. This approach allows for a deeper understanding of the use of public digital wallets as complex judgment-forming processes within real-world institutional contexts. The research gap is correctly identified, and the manuscript demonstrates an appropriate structure. However, for its publication to be considered, the authors should introduce the following improvements:
• The research is based on a single empirical case, but the relevance of the selected case and its representativeness to the phenomenon under study are not sufficiently justified.

• The results are presented in an excessively summarized manner and without providing concrete data, which hinders their understanding and limits the ability to adequately evaluate the hypothesis.

• The discussion section does not establish a critical dialogue with the theoretical framework, preventing the identification of contributions, tensions, or contradictions between the findings and the existing literature. • Following the discussion, it would be advisable to incorporate the practical implications of the study, future lines of research, and the limitations of the work itself.

• The conclusions should be more concise and focus on the main findings.

• The bibliography is limited and outdated; a more comprehensive and recent review would strengthen the theoretical framework and enrich the subsequent analysis.

Sincerely,

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your careful review and insightful comments. Your suggestions have significantly enhanced the conceptual rigor, structural coherence, and scholarly contribution of the manuscript. We have carefully addressed each of your concerns and revised the manuscript accordingly. All modifications are incorporated in the revised version, as detailed in the attached file.

Comment 1: The literature review should be strengthened and more clearly structured.

Response:
In response, we have substantially revised and reorganized the Literature Review section. The revised structure now:

• Clearly separates conceptual foundations from hypothesis development.
• Expands recent literature to strengthen theoretical positioning.
• Clarifies how prior TAM/TPB-based studies under-specify integrative judgment processes in public governance contexts.
• Explicitly positions the present study within the intersection of intelligence theory, digital governance, and smart city research.

These revisions improve conceptual clarity and strengthen the theoretical necessity of the study.

Comment 2: The novelty and theoretical contribution should be more clearly articulated.

Response:
We have strengthened the Introduction and Conclusion sections to explicitly clarify the study’s novelty. The manuscript now:

• Identifies a theoretical gap in modeling structured evaluative integration in civic digital environments.
• Reconceptualizes digital wallet use as an applied intelligence process rather than a simple adoption outcome.
• Demonstrates a boundary condition within TPB by distinguishing between compliance-oriented normative influence and credibility-based experiential influence.

These revisions clarify the original contribution and theoretical advancement of the study.

Comment 3: Clarify methodological justification and robustness.

Response:
We have enhanced the methodological sections to improve transparency and rigor:

• Strengthened justification for covariance-based SEM.
• Clarified reliability and validity procedures.
• Refined discriminant validity reporting (Fornell–Larcker criterion).
• Expanded explanation regarding high reliability coefficients to address potential redundancy concerns.
• Clarified sample adequacy and model explanatory power.

These improvements reinforce the robustness of the analytical framework.

Comment 4: Expand interpretation of results and theoretical implications.

Response:
The Discussion section has been substantially revised to provide deeper theoretical interpretation. In particular:

• The negative path between subjective norms and attitude is now interpreted as a theoretical refinement rather than an anomaly.
• The dominance of social electronic word of mouth is discussed as a structural reordering of influence mechanisms in public digital systems.
• Sustainability implications are explicitly articulated, emphasizing long-term governance resilience and socially scaffolded evaluative ecosystems.

These revisions enhance interpretive depth and conceptual integration.

Comment 5: Clarify practical and sustainability implications.

Response:
We have strengthened the Practical Implications and Conclusion sections to clearly articulate sustainability relevance. The manuscript now emphasizes that sustainable smart governance depends on credible peer-based communication, institutional transparency, and adaptive citizen judgment capacity rather than solely on system usability optimization.

We confirm that all revisions have been fully incorporated in the revised manuscript, as reflected in the attached file. We are grateful for your constructive feedback, which has significantly improved the scholarly quality and clarity of the study.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is an empirical test of theories of intelligent social behavior using the example of a digital wallet in Thailand, which is a meaningful contribution to assessing the success of digitalization and the smart cities concept. The chosen method of study is SEM modeling, a common approach in studies of this sort. Overall, the paper's research design and theory selection are adequate, but the manuscript requires substantial refinement before publication.

First, the description of the theories is relatively weak. Assuming they are well-known, it is still necessary to properly tie them to the examined case and support the choice with previous literature on the topic. The same should be done for SEM modeling (as mentioned before, it is a relatively frequently used tool, so findings from related studies should not be difficult to obtain). Previous studies on the topic will also be needed for the discussion section at the end of the paper to contrast the obtained results with and assess their significance.

Second, the paper should include more information about the conducted survey: at least a copy of the questionnaire as an annex (or a weblink if the results were made public). At the very least, it is crucial to explain the scale and structure of the population using survey data.

Third, the SEM results, i.e., the individual coefficients representing the tested hypotheses, are never commented on. This means that the hypotheses defined in the literature review were not returned to in the results section and discussion, constituting a substantial omission that must be addressed. This should be done by the author(s) and not left to the reader(s).

To conclude, the paper's text seems a little vague. A more data-centered/factual approach should be adopted, at least in the problematic areas mentioned above.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your careful and constructive review. Your comments have been instrumental in improving the conceptual precision, analytical clarity, and overall coherence of the manuscript. We have thoroughly revised the paper in response to your suggestions. All modifications are reflected in the revised manuscript, as detailed in the attached file.

Comment 1: Clarify the conceptualization of smart city and public digital services.

Response:
We have revised the Introduction and Literature Review sections to more clearly define smart city governance and its relevance to public digital services. The manuscript now explicitly situates municipal digital wallet systems within socio-technical smart city ecosystems, emphasizing governance coordination, citizen engagement, and institutional legitimacy rather than purely technological sophistication. This clarification strengthens the contextual grounding of the study.

Comment 2: Strengthen theoretical integration and conceptual coherence.

Response:
The theoretical framework has been reorganized to enhance coherence. We now clearly articulate how cognitive evaluation (TAM), social influence (TPB), and trust–risk appraisal converge within an applied intelligence perspective. The revised manuscript explicitly frames intelligent judgment formation as a structured evaluative integration process rather than a simple adoption outcome. This strengthens the theoretical contribution and clarifies the integrative logic of the model.

Comment 3: Improve clarity of structural results and interpretation.

Response:
The Results and Discussion sections have been refined to provide clearer interpretation of structural pathways. In particular:

• The dominance of social electronic word of mouth is more explicitly discussed as a structural hierarchy of influence mechanisms.
• The negative relationship between subjective norms and attitude is now theoretically elaborated as a boundary condition within civic governance contexts.
• Direct, indirect, and total effects are interpreted more systematically to clarify mediation mechanisms.

These revisions improve analytical transparency and interpretive depth.

Comment 4: Enhance contribution and discussion of implications.

Response:
The Conclusion and Practical Implications sections have been strengthened to more clearly articulate the study’s theoretical and sustainability contributions. We emphasize that sustainable civic digital engagement depends on socially scaffolded evaluative ecosystems rather than solely on technological optimization. This framing reinforces the broader governance implications of the findings.

Comment 5: Improve overall clarity and organization.

Response:
We have carefully revised the manuscript for structural coherence, logical flow, and clarity of expression. Redundant phrasing has been reduced, key arguments have been sharpened, and section transitions have been improved to enhance readability and conceptual continuity.

We confirm that all revisions have been fully incorporated into the revised manuscript, as reflected in the attached file. We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback, which has substantially strengthened the theoretical rigor and overall quality of this study.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Dear Sirs,   The authors have made significant improvements to the article, appropriately incorporating many of the previously mentioned recommendations. In particular, the justification for the case study is now presented more robustly. Furthermore, the practical implications are relevant and add value to the work. However, I believe some modifications should still be made:   • Quantitative data should not be included in the abstract.   • The discussion contains too much quantitative data, while lacking references that would allow for a comparison of the theoretical framework with the results obtained. The only reference is to Davis et al. (1989) in section 5.1.1.   • More recent citations could be included.   Best Regards.  

 

Author Response

We sincerely thank Reviewer 2 for the constructive and valuable comments provided in Round 2. The manuscript has been carefully revised in response to all suggestions.

In particular, we have strengthened the theoretical contextualization in the Introduction, reduced the repetition of quantitative indicators in the Discussion, incorporated additional recent literature (2020–2025), improved citation consistency, and moderated the Conclusions to ensure that all claims are directly supported by the empirical findings.

A detailed point-by-point response is provided in the attached file.

We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s guidance, which has significantly improved the clarity and scholarly rigor of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewer has no further remarks.

Author Response

We sincerely thank Reviewer 3 for the positive evaluation and for confirming that there are no further remarks at this stage.

In addition, for the items previously identified as “Can be improved,” we have carefully revised the manuscript to address those suggestions. The relevant sections have been refined to enhance clarity, methodological transparency, coherence of discussion, and alignment between the conclusions and empirical findings.

A detailed point-by-point response is provided in the attached file.

We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback and valuable time devoted to improving the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf