Recommendation Agent Adoption: How Recommendation Presentation Influences Employees’ Perceptions, Behaviors, and Decision Quality

What is the reason for having similar-age experiment attendees? If the age range is narrow, will the results obtained be general?

The main recruitment criterion was experience with task, not age. Thus, we have recruited participants with previous experience in using application software to perform the product assortment task involved in this experiment. While the age range is narrow, we have no reason to believe that it would not be representative of professionals that would usually use those recommendation agents.

We have modified the sentence to clarify the inclusion criteria on line 237 : “A total of twenty professionals (11 men and nine women) participated in the study; all participants had previous experience in using application software to perform the product assortment task involved in this experiment. »

An “artificial intelligence (AI) based recommendation agent” is mentioned, however, there is little knowledge about the AI method provided. Basically this manuscript seems to have nothing to do with the AI.

More details have been provided on how the product score were generated on line 269 : “The RA’s recommendation of each product was generated using AI and varied between 0 and 100; to ensure the authenticity of the recommendations, product score was generated from previous data from an analogous industry using JDA Luminate (Scottsdale, AZ), an artificial intelligence platform to predict market demand »

Please specify what insights the RA developers and UX designers can obtain from the results of this study.

The paper presents from line 451 to 463 a discussion on how the insights from the current paper can be leverage by UX designers. We have expended this discussion to clarify our results regarding the notion of “customized RA”.

Some contexts in table 3 are missing or not shown.

There was a formatting issue with Table 3. It is now fixed.

In the last sentence of the abstract, I am not sure whether the “comparative” can be used as a noun.

We agree and have removed this sentence from the abstract.

And please comment on what is the novelty of this study on methods and what is the core merits. 

We reworked the Discussion section to highlight the core findings, main contributions, and managerial implications of these findings.

I found the study very interesting and easy to read and to understand. I have some recommendations that I think that can improve the paper quality for the readers.

Thank you!

Abstract: I would include more information about the results in the abstract, the results sentence gives just general information.

The abstract was expended to provide more information about the findings.

The information of this section and the literature review section is complete and help the readers to understand the topic and all the previous research. The justification of the study is excellent.

Thank you.

In line 42 there is a mistake. It says "(e.g., [7,8])". Citations are not an example.

We have removed the “e.g.”and we now simply cite the relevant research.

I would rename the "literature review" section as "background" because some readers may think that the study is a review.

Thank you for this comment. We have renamed the section accordingly.

The methods clearly inform about the experiment and the data collection.

Thank you.

It should be good to include the name of the statistical test used for data analysis in the "data analysis" section.

The name of each statistical test is now clearly presented before each result in the Results section.

Results are easy to understand and tables help the reader to understand everything.

Thank you.

The discussion included everything needed: discussion of the results, practical implications, limitations and future research.

Thank you.

I do not see a clear conclusion, because the last paragraph of the discussion includes citations of other studies. A conclusion of 4-5 lines without any citation and stating clearly the main findings should be included before the references.

A separate conclusion (Section 7.) was added to better highlight the findings of this research.