Acceptance of GIS within ERP System: Research Study in Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for your submission. This is an interesting view at how GIS is perceived within a broader enterprise environment. However, you have extensive work in revisions to do to clarify what your work means and what conclusions we can take from it as a broader community. Please see my notes below, organized per section, and I look forward to seeing your revision.

In the introduction, it would be useful to have a more robust set of references for all of the examples of what GIS does. As a GIS user, I of course know that GIS can do just about everything. But for those unfamiliar, or coming at this work from an enterprise perspective, it would be useful if you cited examples of each of the many uses of GIS you provide. This would serve to more robustly exemplify the connections of GIS to broader practice. 

I continue this encouragement in your section on theoretical background. You say that GIS does a lot, and that GIS is many things. I don't disagree with anything you say! But, you need a far more robust referencing/grounding of the literature and background of these things to help people unfamiliar with GIS, or TAM, or the other things you refer to. Please reference more. (For example, the paragraph starting section 2.1 has one reference. It needs several more to be linked appropriately to the literature).

This feedback is of course ironic as you have an entire bibliographic analysis as part of this section. Which is well founded! Extend your citation referencing abilities to the body of the paper.

I have little troubles with the research model and methods parts of section three. However, the trouble I do have is major: what human subjects protections were in place when conducting this research? Was an IRB or ethics committee consulted and approved this research? Since you conducted this study with students, how were they presented this research? Were they compelled to complete the survey? Told it was a requirement of the day of study? These missing components are essential for publication and publication should not proceed until answered.

Beyond the methods, the statistical reporting and results components are difficult for me to comprehend. I would broadly recommend editing and revisions of this section to be more clear and comprehensible to the lay reader. Nearly everything is too complex, or poorly introduced/defined, for understanding outside of deep experts in this method.

In addition, section 4 appears to be missing? Perhaps the contextualization provided in section 5 (discussion) would be better understood with a clear presentation of the model and results.

I will be interested in seeing how you clarify the presentation of your work.

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The proposed manuscript addresses an appealing topic (for me as a teacher and researcher in ERP systems and perhaps for other scholars, too), namely the acceptance of GIS integrated with ERP based on data collected from questionnaires, analyzed using PLS.

Before reviewing and article, I always use Turnitin or other software to check an article's similarity index. According to Turnitin (see the attached  .pdf file), there is a 25 % similarity with other sources.

Unfortunately, I noticed that there are many paragraphs and phrases in the article that appear to have been copied and pasted from other sources (without correct quotation marks or modifications). Even the text in the Results section appears mostly in color, which is a pity, because if the authors did the experiment themselves, then they should be able to explain it in their own words.

Although the paper presents an interesting experiment (this is the reason I am inclined to encourage the authors and accept it with modifications), it seems written in a hurry, with little attention to detail and without further verification (high degree of similarity, orderly numbering of the sections Methodology and Results have the same number 3.2, which one is section 4? etc.).

I would recommend the authors to try to reproduce using their own words these parts of text that appear as copied in anti-plagiarism software, and where it is not possible to put them in quotes “ “. Also, add next to them the corresponding referenced article/book so to avoid them to appear so obvious in Turnitin, iThenticate or other anti-plagiarism software. I recommend to the authors these changes and a final re-reading of the paper with more attention to details and possibly a correction by a native English speaker.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Paper is well written but need little improvement .

1. Diagrams are not clear, i would suggest the author redraw diagrams ( Fig-3,Fig-4)
2.  author did not consider previous work limitations
3. . tables should be explain clearly , most of tables did not well discuss
4. . Results of this paper needs more elaboration.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the author's revisions. Upon reflecting on the methodology notes, it has become clear that this is a project in the scholarship of teaching and learning - classroom research in some corners - yet the paper lacks any grounding in that. I base this conclusion on the revised methods, which say that "(students) participated in the lecture and presentations regarding the use of ERP-GIS systems.", and that "Students were introduced to several examples of the ERP-GIS system". 

So, students were taught things, and you are assessing their learning and attitudes of that teaching. This is of course fascinating but the manuscript is missing this connection.

I recommend reading Hopkins 2008 below for more guidance.

http://golshanlc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/A-Teachers-Guide-to-Classroom-Research.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Answers to your comments is in attached file.

Kind regards, 

Auhtors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate as positive the attitude of the authors, their good intentions and the extremely polite way of responding to the suggestions made (in fact, they were also made in a friendly manner, with good intentions, without the desire to hinder the authors).

The degree of similarity dropped considerably to 16% in Turnitin (the attached file) and a number of improvements were made to the manuscript. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for reviewing our article again.

We are very pleased that you assess positively the improvements that we made. Thank you again for your advice, which has helped a lot to improve the quality of the paper. We made minor changes in the text to improve the article.

Authors