Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

Many thanks for sharing your manuscript "Understanding Technostress Worldwide: Scientific Growth, Thematic Clusters, and Implications for Social Sustainability and Organizational Resilience." I found much to admire in this research, though I do have some notes to hopefully help strengthen the contribution of your findings to scholarship. First, I want to acknowledge that I am not familiar with the bibliometric analysis method, so will not address the details of that method in this review.

My comments:

• Your abstract is too long in my opinion. Unless this journal specifies that they use long abstracts, I would keep the abstract no more than 200 words. (It is currently around 300.) Condensing your abstract to only present the main problem, theoretical concept of technostress, method, findings, and implications might also help with my other major critique of this paper: lack of interpretive clarity about what these findings about technostress say for scholarship.
• Your intro does well at defining technostress and why it's relevant to study now, in the overall world. Bringing up educational settings first, however, when you begin unpacking technostress scholarship, feels a bit out of place. I would reframe this intro section to better tell a chronological narrative of technostress as a term. I believe the concept was first coined within organizational studies contexts and workplaces, not education-- though that area of research did eventually emerge. Emphasizing education does not seem to fit with the more general stance of this paper. And what about other fields where technostress is studied, such as psychology and communication, etc.?
• In addition, I feel like this paper lacks nuance with engaging with technostress as a scholarly term because it does not fully engage with related concepts such as technostress creators, techno-uncertainty, invasion, etc. I'd be curious if certain dimensions of technostress are more frequently studied in certain disciplines, for instance. You mention the various dimensions of technostress in your discussion ("a cognitive overload, a psychosocial hazard, or a behavioral dysregulation") but this would be stronger if you specifically tied them to the language related to the concept itself.
• Your method seems appropriate, though as I noted before I am not super familiar with bibliometric analysis.
• Discussion: I would work on this section primarily in revisions. The method of this paper is unique and the idea that technostress is being studied in various disciplines in a siloed way certainly makes sense as well. However, what does this mean for social scientific scholarship beyond just "technostress"? Any takeaways for what we do as social science scholars? Adding some examples of other scholarly concepts that were siloed but then clarified and sythesized might help as well, to contextualize this study in broader knowledge.
• I'm also not sure why technostress can't be "a cognitive overload, a psychosocial hazard, or a behavioral dysregulation" all at once. It feels like if those are the dimensions that have appeared in scholarship in various disciplines, then those dimensions might all be part of this phenomenon. The idea of "boundary spanning" might be relevant here-- technostress may be a concept that is boundary spanning in nature, acting as a bridge between disciplines because it carries these overlapping dimensions.
• Again education research is mentioned in a whole paragraph out of nowhere in the discussion section-- I would reframe that to de-emphasize just that discipline, and mention other disciplines as well. This would help back up your argument that many different fields are studying this term without really working together
• Ending on some actionable recommendations for fixing this problem, as well, might be needed. Again, boundary spanning scholarship might help-- for instance, "communication" is a boundary spanning field that also connected highly to technostress. So, carrying out more communication research on technostress could bridge usually separate fields, such as psychology and engineering, etc. What might the "conceptual framework" for technostress that would better support unified scholarship look like?

Again, thank you for sharing this work. Technostress is a multi-faceted concept that does have a fractured scholarly legacy, so I applaud you for tackling this important research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. Your comments significantly strengthened the clarity, coherence, and scholarly contribution of our manuscript. Below, we provide a detailed, point‑by‑point response, indicating all revisions made to address your suggestions (The changes have been highlighted in light green).

1. Abstract length and interpretive clarity

Reviewer comment: “Your abstract is too long… keep the abstract no more than 200 words… Condensing your abstract… might also help with my other major critique: lack of interpretive clarity.”

Response: We fully agree. The abstract has been reduced to 200 words, sharpened to emphasize the main problem, theoretical concept, method, findings, and implications. We also improved interpretive clarity by explicitly stating what the bibliometric findings mean for technostress scholarship.

Changes made:

• Abstract rewritten (lines 13–30).
• Removed descriptive excess.
• Added explicit interpretive statement on socio‑technical evolution and conceptual fragmentation.

2. Introduction: chronological narrative and disciplinary balance

Reviewer comment: “Bringing up educational settings first feels out of place… reframe to tell a chronological narrative… emphasize organizational origins… mention psychology, communication, etc.”

Response: We agree and have substantially revised the introduction. The new version now:

• Presents a chronological narrative beginning with organizational studies (Brod, Arnetz & Wiholm, Tarafdar et al.).
• Moves sequentially to psychology, communication, and finally education.
• Clarifies that education is one of several later expansions, not the conceptual origin.

Changes made:

• Introduction reorganized (lines 36–113).
• Added explicit references to psychology and communication research.
• Repositioned education as a later development.

3. Engagement with technostress dimensions (creators, invasion, uncertainty, etc.)

Reviewer comment: “The paper lacks nuance… does not fully engage with technostress creators… tie dimensions to the language of the concept itself.”

Response: We agree and have strengthened conceptual grounding by:

• Explicitly integrating technostress creators (overload, invasion, complexity, insecurity, uncertainty) in the introduction and discussion.
• Connecting the clusters (“cognitive overload,” “psychosocial hazard,” “behavioral dysregulation”) to canonical technostress dimensions.
• Adding interpretive commentary on how different disciplines emphasize different creators.

Changes made:

• Introduction expanded (lines 36–56, and 67–89).
• Discussion revised to tie clusters to technostress creators (lines 430–434).
• Added disciplinary differentiation (IS → overload; psychology → anxiety; communication → invasion/overuse)

4. Discussion: need for broader social science implications

Reviewer comment: “What does this mean for social scientific scholarship beyond technostress? Add examples of other concepts that were siloed but later synthesized.”

Response: We agree and have added a new subsection to the discussion that:

• Explains implications for social science scholarships more broadly.
• Provides examples of previously siloed concepts (e.g., digital literacy, burnout, information overload) that later became integrated frameworks.
• Shows how technostress can follow similar integrative trajectories.

Changes made:

• New paragraph added (lines 210, 306, 312, 358, 372, 374, 382, 460).
• Added examples of cross‑disciplinary synthesis
• Clarified implications for social science theory building

5. Boundary‑spanning nature of technostress

Reviewer comment: “I’m not sure why technostress can’t be all three dimensions at once… boundary spanning might be relevant.”

Response: We agree completely. We revised the discussion to explicitly argue that:

• Technostress is a boundary‑spanning construct,
• simultaneously cognitive, psychosocial, and behavioral,
• which explains why multiple disciplines adopt it differently.

This strengthens the conceptual coherence of the manuscript.

Changes made:

• Discussion reframed (316–318)
• Added explicit definition of technostress as boundary‑spanning
• Clarified that fragmentation reflects disciplinary lenses, not conceptual incompatibility

6. Overemphasis on education in the discussion

Reviewer comment: “Education research is mentioned out of nowhere… de‑emphasize that discipline and mention others.”

Response: We agree. We revised the discussion to:

• Reduce emphasis on education.
• Integrate psychology, communication, organizational behavior, and information systems.
• Present education as one example among many.

Changes made:

• Discussion paragraph rewritten (lines 441–453, 459–461, 472–473, 490–492, 494–497).
• Balanced disciplinary representation.

7. Actionable recommendations and conceptual framework

Reviewer comment: “Ending on actionable recommendations… What might the conceptual framework look like?”

Response: We added a concluding section that:

• Provides actionable recommendations for interdisciplinary collaboration
• Proposes a boundary‑spanning conceptual framework integrating: technological demands, psychological resources, organizational conditions, AI‑mediated stressors, and population‑specific vulnerabilities.

Changes made:

• Final discussion paragraphs expanded (lines 523–525).
• Added explicit conceptual framework description.

 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the insightful comments. They significantly improved the clarity, coherence, and scholarly contribution of the manuscript. All suggested revisions have been incorporated.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper deals with the very current and scientifically relevant topic of technostress as one of the most important psychosocial risks of the modern digital society. The special value of the work comes from the bibliometric approach by which the authors systematically map the development of technostress research over more than four decades and identify the main authors, conceptual clusters, and development trends in the field. The paper is well structured, the methodology is transparently described, and the application of Price's, Lotkin's, and Zipf's Laws, together with science mapping techniques, provides a solid overview of the intellectual development of the field. The methodological procedure is clearly described, and the bibliometric tools and search criteria used are transparently presented, which enables the reproducibility of the analysis. The results represent a useful overview of the development of the literature and have the potential to contribute to further theoretical development in the field of digital well-being, organizational resilience, and social sustainability. The bibliography is generally relevant and includes key works in the field of technostress, including recent publications. The reference list is generally relevant and includes the key and most recent publications in the field of technostress. However, a minor formatting issue should be addressed. Some references (e.g., Akar et al., 2024) begin with an abbreviated in-text citation before the full bibliographic entry. This abbreviated citation is redundant, as the same information is already included in the reference itself. To ensure consistency with the journal's reference formatting guidelines, these duplicate citations should be removed, retaining only the standard bibliographic entries. Based on the above, I suggest that the authors strengthen the theoretical contribution, scientific value, and practical relevance based on the following recommendations:
• The reason for the additional strengthening of the theoretical contribution of the work is based on the fact that the discussion is still predominantly descriptive, even though the bibliometric analysis is extensive and well conducted. It would be useful to explain more clearly how the identified thematic clusters contribute to the development of technostress theory in relation to existing bibliometric reviews.
• It would also be desirable to elaborate the concepts of social sustainability and organizational resilience in more detail. Since these concepts are highlighted in the title and abstract of the paper, they should be more strongly included in the discussion. In this regard, although the paper includes relevant recent publications, I recommend further enriching the discussion with more recent literature specifically related to digital well-being, AI-supported work environments, and organizational resilience, in order to further strengthen the topicality and theoretical foundation of the discussion.
• It would be useful to offer more specific guidelines for future interdisciplinary research, especially in the field of digital well-being, responsible digital transformation, psychosocial risk management, and organizational resilience, as an extension of the recommendations for future research, as the paper well recognizes the conceptual fragmentation of the field.
• Furthermore, bibliometric visualizations should be further interpreted. Although tables and bibliometric visualizations adequately present the results and facilitate understanding of the development of the research field, co-authorship networks and keyword occurrences are very informative. A more detailed explanation of the relationships among the identified clusters would increase their scientific value and facilitate interpretation of the results.
• Given that the limitations of using the Web of Science database have been mentioned, I recommend a brief discussion of possible differences in the results if Scopus or other relevant bibliographic databases were included.
• I recommend that the authors emphasize more clearly in the conclusion what their bibliometric analysis brings in comparison to previous bibliometric surveys of the field. This would further emphasize the originality and scientific contribution of the paper.
Such additions would contribute to strengthening the theoretical interpretation of the results and further increase the practical and scientific value of an otherwise very well-conducted bibliometric study. In general, I believe that the paper is suitable for publication after minor changes.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We sincerely thank you for your positive evaluation and for the constructive recommendations that helped strengthen the theoretical contribution, scientific value, and practical relevance of our manuscript. Below, we provide a detailed, point‑by‑point response to each of your comments, indicating all revisions made (The changes have been highlighted in light green).

General Appreciation

We are grateful for your recognition of the methodological rigor, transparency, and relevance of our bibliometric approach. Your suggestions were highly valuable for enhancing the interpretive depth of the discussion, clarifying the contribution of thematic clusters, and reinforcing the connection to social sustainability, digital well‑being, and organizational resilience.

Point‑by‑Point Responses

1. Reference formatting issue (duplicate abbreviated citations)

Reviewer comment: “Some references begin with an abbreviated in-text citation before the full bibliographic entry… these duplicate citations should be removed.”

Response: We agree completely. All redundant abbreviated citations preceding full references have been removed to ensure consistency with the journal’s formatting guidelines.

Changes made:

• Reference list corrected (lines 596–791).
• Removed duplicated prefixes such as “Akar et al., 2024 – Akar, X., Y., Z. (2024)…”.

2. Strengthen theoretical contribution of thematic clusters

Reviewer comment: “The discussion is still predominantly descriptive… explain more clearly how the identified clusters contribute to the development of technostress theory.”

Response: We have substantially expanded the discussion to clarify how each thematic cluster contributes to technostress theory:

• Foundational cluster: anchors classical technostress creators and theoretical models.
• Work cluster: advances organizational interpretations (JD‑R, challenge–hindrance, ICT dependence).
• Consequences cluster: integrates psychological and behavioral outcomes (burnout, anxiety, discontinuance).
• Excessive use cluster: connects technostress with maladaptive digital behaviors and socio‑technical overload.

We also explicitly compare our findings with previous bibliometric reviews (Bondanini et al., 2020; Salazar‑Concha et al., 2021), highlighting how our larger corpus reveals deeper conceptual fragmentation and new socio‑technical trends.

Changes made:

• Discussion paragraph rewritten (lines 441–453, 459–461, 472–473, 490–492, 494–497).
• Added explicit theoretical interpretation of clusters.
• Added comparison with prior bibliometric studies.

3. Elaborate social sustainability and organizational resilience

Reviewer comment: “These concepts are highlighted in the title and abstract… they should be more strongly included in the discussion.”

Response: We agree and have strengthened these sections by:

• Elaborating how technostress affects SDG03 (health), SDG04 (education), SDG05 (gender), SDG10 (inequality), and SDG09 (digital infrastructure).
• Explaining how technostress undermines organizational resilience through resource depletion, cognitive overload, and AI‑mediated uncertainty.
• Integrating recent literature on digital well‑being, AI‑supported work environments, and resilience (Rani et al., 2026; Ubeda‑Garcia et al., 2025; Schmutzer & Vrabcová, 2026).

Changes made:

• New paragraphs added in discussion (lines 360–384, and 494–497).
• Strengthened conceptual links to sustainability and resilience.
• Integrated recent literature on AI anxiety, digital stress, and socio‑technical overload.

4. Provide more specific guidelines for future interdisciplinary research

Reviewer comment: “Offer more specific guidelines for future interdisciplinary research… digital well‑being, responsible digital transformation, psychosocial risk management, organizational resilience.”

Response: We have expanded the “Future Research” section to include concrete interdisciplinary directions:

• Cross‑disciplinary integration of IS, psychology, communication, education, and organizational studies.
• Development of AI‑aware technostress models incorporating algorithmic filtering, automation, and AI maturity.
• Research on responsible digital transformation, including digital ethics, transparency, and equitable access.
• Psychosocial risk management frameworks aligned with ISO 45003 and digital well‑being indicators.
• Organizational resilience strategies involving leadership, ICT infrastructure, and socio‑technical design.

Changes made:

• Future research section expanded (lines 528–530, 532–535, 557–559, and 568–571).
• Added interdisciplinary roadmap.

5. Deeper interpretation of bibliometric visualizations

Reviewer comment: “Co-authorship networks and keyword occurrences are very informative… a more detailed explanation of the relationships among clusters would increase scientific value.”

Response: We agree and have added detailed interpretive commentary:

• Co‑authorship networks now include explanations of how foundational authors anchor thematic development.
• Keyword co‑occurrence networks now describe how clusters interact, overlap, and diverge.
• Temporal evolution graphs are interpreted in relation to AI adoption, remote work, and information overload.

Changes made:

• Expanded interpretation of Figures 3A, 3B, 5A, and 5B (lines 262–286, & 334–359).
• Added explanation of cluster interrelationships.

6. Discuss potential differences if Scopus were included

Reviewer comment: “Recommend a brief discussion of possible differences if Scopus or other databases were included.”

Response: We added a paragraph acknowledging:

• Scopus’s broader journal coverage.
• Slightly different keyword distributions due to Scopus indexing practices.
• Justification for using WoSCC for classical bibliometric laws.

Changes made:

• Added methodological reflection (lines 133–136).

7. Clarify originality compared to previous bibliometric surveys

Reviewer comment: “Emphasize more clearly in the conclusion what your bibliometric analysis brings in comparison to previous surveys.”

Response: We revised the conclusion to highlight the originality of our study:

• Largest corpus to date (1,135 articles).
• First integration of AI‑related stressors, digital stress, and information overload into technostress mapping.
• First bibliometric study linking technostress to SDGs, social sustainability, and organizational resilience.
• Identification of four stable clusters with socio‑technical evolution.

Changes made:

• Conclusion expanded (lines 518–571).
• Added explicit originality statement.

 

We thank the reviewer for the highly constructive feedback. All suggested improvements have been incorporated, significantly strengthening the theoretical, methodological, and practical contributions of the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor,

As requested by you:

1: Detailed summary of the manuscript:

This article analyses technostress and the psychosocial risks present in contemporary digital environments. All of this is examined within the broader context of social sustainability and organisational resilience. In short, the study aims to shed light on the persistent tension between well-being and productivity.

The methodology employed was a bibliometric analysis using the Web of Science as a source up to October 20025.

The study’s results pointed to significant differences in the research, but a focus on the conceptual terminology of the topic was lacking, with only scattered references. The findings provide a basis for indicators of social sustainability, demonstrate the resilience of organisations, and support the formulation of public policies that promote healthier digital environments. In my view, this last point appears to be the contribution of this article, which should be made more explicit as such.

The authors, in my opinion, should have begun by setting out their concept of the topics under investigation. This forms the basis, and from there the authors could have made it easier for the reader to understand the study’s true implications and associated benefits.

The authors chose to begin by discussing the technological expansion linked to schools and businesses, and the excessive or poorly regulated use of the digital environment, as well as dependency, technostress, the digital divide, social change, fatigue, performance and well-being. It should be noted that the digital experience creates dependency, forces adaptation and can give rise to conflicts that lead to a decline in work performance. The authors outline some advantages and disadvantages, with the disadvantages including some previously listed, whilst the positive aspects are linked to efficiency and innovation. Personally, I feel that the authors could have included further disadvantages, such as the risk of information overload and the need to filter good from bad information or correct from incorrect information. Another very important factor is the connection that technology creates in the environments in which it is present, which, in certain cases, can cause problems by imposing a requirement for constant availability. Another aspect that the authors might have highlighted is the creation of isolation, constant surveillance and, consequently, a total loss of privacy, autonomy and even pressure.

In terms of well-being, the authors highlighted stress, anxiety, burnout and depression; I personally believe that the article would be even more valuable if it included aspects relating to job dissatisfaction, higher levels of absenteeism, etc.

When addressing the issue of organisational resilience, it is important to strike a balance between employees’ wellbeing and the normal or excessive use of technology. I would have liked to have seen this covered in the article, which is why I believe it is important to highlight aspects such as the trust that organisations can place in their employees, encouraging them to engage in organisational learning, thereby demonstrating a connection with the company culture and fostering a healthier bond. Good management and a balance between the digital and non-digital spheres are what can transform the fragile capacity of human beings, reduce the psychological strain on employees and boost their motivation and performance. Including this in the article would be very positive, as it would add value by providing the reader with further useful information.

 

2. Detailed assessment of the methodology, analyses and conclusions:

It is worth noting that the authors’ critical analysis is consistent with the research objective and the literature review, although I believe they could have provided more context regarding the concepts they intend to investigate and address throughout their research.

The authors chose to adopt a qualitative methodology utilising bibliometric analysis. I believe this approach was the most advantageous, and I wish to express my appreciation for the choice made, as it does indeed contribute more to a conceptual analysis, which is the focus of this study. To carry out this bibliometric analysis, the authors chose to apply various classical laws, including Price’s Law, which I believe is insufficient on its own. This is why I noted the inclusion of Lotka’s Law and Zipf’s Law. I believe the article would have been of higher quality in terms of content had the authors opted for Bradford’s Law. My view is that, of all the classical laws, this one is more effective because it can identify which journals are most relevant to the study. Therefore, whilst maintaining the laws followed by the authors, I believe the most appropriate course of action would be to properly justify this choice in comparison with other classical laws that may be more reliable.

Although the authors have not introduced a new topic for discussion – it has been studied since 1982 – I believe it was particularly important because technological progress has revealed many advantages and disadvantages, particularly within businesses and the family environment. I therefore consider that the time frame under study (2004 to 2024) is sufficiently broad to draw conclusions. As for the sample, I consider it to be adequate – comprising 865 articles – for a bibliometric review capable of yielding indicators and network analysis.

The results reveal a significant asymmetry in scientific output, concentrated amongst small groups of specific authors. The most important finding from this study was that this is a multidimensional social and psychological phenomenon. They showed that the period of the COVID-19 pandemic was the one that produced the most content for analysis, particularly regarding teachers and students. It was important to extend these findings to new population groups. In the discussion of the results, they referred to studies on students, teachers, older people and individuals suffering from anxiety or compulsive behaviour. I therefore ask: where do all the other members of society fit in? Have they been studied, or not?

The authors refer to ISO 45003 to demonstrate the usefulness of this methodology; however, in my view, they should have sought information on the Sustainable Development Goals and sought to show how social sustainability can be an important and visible aspect of this research. To this end, I suggest addressing topics such as SDG 3: good health and well-being, SDG 8: decent work and economic growth, SDG 9: industry, innovation and infrastructure, and finally SDG 10: reduced inequalities.

I believe it would be interesting to include some works from 2026; although the bibliography used is recent, it is important that the study’s relevance to the present day reflects a commitment to contemporaneity, which lends greater significance to the research carried out.

 

3. Feedback for the authors on areas for improvement:

The authors should have set out the article’s contributions more explicitly in the abstract, as they are present there but somewhat obscured.

The authors could have explored the concepts in greater depth at an early stage to broaden the scope of the research. This would have enriched the article not only in terms of content but also in terms of the reader’s understanding.

The authors could have explored the factors leading to the excessive use of technology in the workplace in greater depth.

The authors should set out the study’s limitations in a separate section rather than including them in the discussion of the article’s results.

The authors could have outlined avenues for future research.

I believe that these improvements, taken together, will help to increase the article’s impact.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

We sincerely thank you for your detailed and thoughtful evaluation. Your comments helped us strengthen the conceptual clarity, theoretical grounding, and practical relevance of the manuscript. Below, we provide a point‑by‑point response addressing each of your observations and indicating the revisions made (The changes have been highlighted in light green).

1. Clarify conceptual foundations earlier in the manuscript

Reviewer comment: “The authors should have begun by setting out their concept of the topics under investigation… This forms the basis.”

Response: We agree. The introduction has been revised to clearly define: technostress, psychosocial risks, digital well‑being, social sustainability, and organizational resilience.

These concepts now appear at the beginning of the introduction to provide a stronger conceptual foundation.

Changes made:

• Introduction expanded and reorganized (lines 36–113).
• Added explicit definitions and conceptual framing.

2. Expand disadvantages of digitalization (information overload, constant availability, surveillance, privacy loss)

Reviewer comment: “Authors could have included further disadvantages such as information overload, constant availability, isolation, surveillance, loss of privacy…”

Response: We agree and have incorporated these additional disadvantages. The introduction now includes.

These additions strengthen the socio‑technical framing of technostress.

Changes made:

• Introduction expanded (lines 36–113).
• Added explicit discussion of overload, surveillance, privacy, and isolation.

3. Expand negative outcomes (job dissatisfaction, absenteeism)

Reviewer comment: “Include aspects relating to job dissatisfaction, higher levels of absenteeism.”

Response: We agree. The introduction and discussion are now included.

These outcomes are now linked to technostress creators and psychosocial risks.

Changes made:

• Added negative outcomes in introduction and discussion (lines 36–113, and 441–453).

4. Strengthen organizational resilience discussion (trust, learning, culture, balance between digital and non‑digital)

Reviewer comment: “Important to highlight trust, organizational learning, culture, balance between digital and non-digital spheres.”

Response: We agree and have expanded the organizational resilience in the section

These additions clarify how organizations can mitigate technostress and strengthen resilience.

Changes made:

• Discussion expanded (lines 441–453, 459–461, and 472–473).
• Added explicit organizational resilience mechanisms.

5. Provide more context for concepts investigated

Reviewer comment: “Authors could have provided more context regarding the concepts they intend to investigate.”

Response: We revised the introduction to provide clearer conceptual context for:

• technostress creators,
• digital stress,
• AI‑mediated stressors,
• information overload,
• psychosocial risks.

Changes made:

• Introduction expanded (lines 36–56, and 67–89).

6. Justify use of classical bibliometric laws (Price, Lotka, Zipf, Bradford)

Reviewer comment: “Justify choice of classical laws… Bradford’s Law is more effective… authors should justify their choice.”

Response: We agree and have added a methodological justification explaining:

• Why Price, Lotka, and Zipf are essential for modeling growth, productivity, and conceptual concentration;
• Why Bradford’s Law was also included (as you recommended);
• How each law contributes uniquely to mapping the intellectual structure of technostress.

Changes made:

• Methodology section expanded (lines 163–170, and 179–184).
• Added explicit justification for all classical laws.

7. Clarify population groups beyond students, teachers, older adults

Reviewer comment: “Where do all the other members of society fit in? Have they been studied?”

Response: We added a paragraph clarifying that technostress research includes.

We also incorporated recent studies from 2026 that examine broader populations.

Changes made:

• Discussion expanded (lines 413–509).
• Added references to new population groups.

8. Strengthen SDG discussion (SDG3, SDG8, SDG9, SDG10)

Reviewer comment: “Authors should have sought information on the SDGs… address SDG3, SDG8, SDG9, SDG10.”

Response: We agree and have expanded the SDG section to explicitly address.

These SDGs are now directly linked to technostress outcomes and digital sustainability.

Changes made:

• SDG section expanded (lines 360–384, and 494–497).
• Added explicit SDG interpretations.

9. Include works from 2026

Reviewer comment: “Include some works from 2026 to strengthen contemporaneity.”

Response: We agree. We incorporated seven recent studies from 2026, including:

• Temur et al. (2026)
• Almakrob & Alduais (2026)
• Özmen & Yalçin (2026)
• Hossain et al. (2026)
• Rani et al. (2026)
• Ubeda‑Garcia et al. (2026)
• Schmutzer & Vrabcová (2026)

These studies reinforce the socio‑technical evolution of technostress.

Changes made:

• Discussion updated with 2026 literature (lines 413-509).
• References updated.

10. Make contributions more explicit in the abstract

Reviewer comment: “Contributions are present but somewhat obscured.”

Response: We revised the abstract to explicitly highlight:

• originality of the corpus (largest to date),
• integration of AI‑related stressors,
• socio‑technical evolution,
• implications for sustainability and resilience.

Changes made:

• Abstract rewritten (lines 13–30).

11. Explore excessive technology use in workplace more deeply

Reviewer comment: “Authors could have explored excessive use of technology in the workplace in greater depth.”

Response: We added discussion on: compulsive use, digital dependency, algorithmic pressure, ICT overuse, and constant connectivity norms.

Changes made:

• Discussion expanded (lines 413–509).

12. Move limitations to a separate section

Reviewer comment: “Limitations should be in a separate section.”

Response: We agree. Limitations have been moved to a standalone section immediately before the conclusions.

Changes made:

• New “Limitations” section added (lines 563–577).

13. Outline avenues for future research

Reviewer comment: “Authors could have outlined avenues for future research.”

Response: We expanded the future research on conclusion section.

Changes made:

• Future research section expanded (lines 525–577).

 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thorough and constructive feedback. All suggested improvements have been incorporated, significantly enhancing the conceptual clarity, theoretical depth, and practical relevance of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a strong paper with some compelling findings about technostress scholarship. The inclusion of more of technostress's nuances greatly adds to the merit of the paper, and I feel like the contribution to scholarship is much clearer.