Unlocking Inclusive Growth: The Mediating Role of E-Commerce in MSME Digitalization for Economic Development and SDGs’ Achievement in Jambi Province, Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has presented a good research, however, following comments must be incorporated or considered prior to the acceptance of the manuscript.

1. Please provide full-form of abbreviations at their mention in the article. For instance, MSMEs, SDGs, PLS-SEM/ SEM-PLS.
2. If the keyword is E-commerce, why is it not mentioned in the abstract?
3. Abstract mentions "for the first time", I disagree. It might be studied for the first time in Jambi.
4. The definition of MSMEs, SMEs and MEs are different in each country, please provide the official definition in Indonesia.
5. Where is the reference about post pandemic poverty reduction figures?
6. Similar patterns? please give citations, references.
7. When was the article written? why there is no 2025 reference? What are the main objective of this research?
8. Similarly, Page 3 is part of literature review and background and aim of the research, please provide references. Same for 2.1 and 2.2.
9. Seeks? The authors mean aim or objective or overall aim.
10. What is the population of MSMEs in Jambi? What is criteria for selection of these 250 MSMEs? Which formula was utilized to ascertain the sample size?
11. What about reliability and validity of the data?
12. Page 9, the results show.... please explain.
13. Please provide the discussion section for each finding. For Instance, Page 12, Line 375 onwards.
14. Who are the direct and indirect beneficiaries of this research?
15. How can we replicate this research design in countries where poverty is increasing?
16. I am not sure that you do not need an ethical review board for this study. The final decision could be with the editorial team.
17. Good Luck !!

Author Response

Comments 1 : Please provide full-form of abbreviations at their mention in the article. For instance, MSMEs, SDGs, PLS-SEM/ SEM-PLS.

Response 1 : Thank you very much for pointing this out. We agree with the reviewer’s comment. Therefore, we have revised the manuscript to provide the full forms of all abbreviations at their first mention, including Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs), Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and Structural Equation Modeling-Partial Least Squares (SEM-PLS). This clarification aims to enhance readability for international audiences unfamiliar with these terms. The full forms of all abbreviations are now provided at their first mention in the revised manuscript. Example of revised text: Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (Page 1 line 14, 19, 22, 23, 25, 33, 36, 38; Page 2 line 58, 69, 79, 85, 87; Page 3 line 91, 94, 98, 101, 105, 107, 113, 116, 118, 121, 127; page 4 line 134, 147, 154, 157, 162, 164, 167, 170, 171, 174; Page 5 line 179, 184, 189, 193, 197, 201, 205, 209, 217; Page 6 line 223, 231, 233, 239, 242, 245, 253, 255, 256, 258, 263; Page 7 line 268, 276, 278, 294, 298; Page 8 line 313, 314, 329, 337, 348; Page 9 line 393; Page 12 line 435, 448; Page 13 line 463; Page 15 line 518, 548, 551; Page 16 line 558, 578; Page 17 line 612; Page 18 line 616, 642; Page 19 line 645, 648, 651, 652, 655, 658, 662, 667, 672, 676, 677, 679, 681, 683, 685, 689, 692, 694; Page 20 line 698, 700, 703, 716, 718, 720, 725; Page 21 line 727, 731, 734, 736, 746, 748, 751, 754, 759, 761, 763, 766, 771; Page 22 line 777, 778, 781, 787, 790, 795, 798, 801, 803, 805, 811, 816, 820, 826; Page 23 line 829, 835, 841, 844, 848, 850, 853, 855, 859, 861, 863, 868, 875; Page 24 line 878, 884, 885, 890, 891, 894, 898, 904, 906, 913, 915, 923, 925; Page 25 line 933, 937, 942, 943, 951, 954, 957, 959, 962, 968, 971, 979; Page 26 line 980, 986, 992, 994, 996, 1000, 1002, 1008, 1011, 1013, 1018, 1023. 1026, 1029, 1030; Page 2 line 1033, 1036, 1044, 1046, 1048, 1053, 1057, 1061, 1064, 1065, 1071, 1076; Page 28 line 1084, 1095, 1098, 1101, 1104, 1106, 1109, 1111, 1113, 1115, 1116, 1120), Sustainable Development Goals (Page 1 line 21, 26, 32; Page 3 line 102; Page 4 line 168, 177; Page 8 line 335, 336, 342, 343; Page 9 line 398; Page 10 line 399. 417; Page 12 line 437, 450; Page 13 line 464, 465; Page 15 line 520, 522, 526, 527, 544. 549, 552; Page 16 line 557, 580, 58; Page 18 line 617; Page 19 line 690; Page 20 line 691, 699; Page 21 line 735, 747, 755, 760, 765; Page 24 line 896, 905; Page 26 line 1024; Page 28 line 1099, 1100), and Structural Equation Modeling-Partial Least Square (Page 1 line 21; Page 7 line 269; Page 8 line 351; Page 9 line 358, 381; Page 10 line 405; Page 14 line 498, 501; Page 16 line 563; Page 17 line 597).

Comment 2 : If the keyword is E-commerce, why is it not mentioned in the abstract?

Response 2 : Thank you very much for highlighting this important point regarding the consistency between the keywords and the abstract. I fully agree with the suggestion. Therefore, I have revised the abstract to explicitly and clearly mention "e-commerce" in both the research focus and findings, on page 1, lines 19 and 25 of the revised manuscript. This ensures that the mediating role of e-commerce is clearly communicated and aligns with the listed keywords. Update text in the abstract:  "...how e-commerce adoption mediates the link between MSME quality and the achievement of economic growth, innovation, and SDGs 1 and 9..."
"...do not drive growth or reduce poverty unless they are accompanied by the effective adoption of e-commerce..." All changes are marked in red for clarity.

Comment 3 : Abstract mentions "for the first time", I disagree. It might be studied for the first time in Jambi.

Response 3 : Thank you very much for this valuable comment. I agree with your observation. While e-commerce adoption as an independent factor has been widely discussed in previous literature, the explicit role of e-commerce as a mediating variable linking internal MSME quality (such as human capital, skills, and digital readiness) to economic growth, poverty alleviation (SDG 1), and innovation (SDG 9) has not been empirically tested in this integrated manner before. Most prior studies tend to analyze these dimensions separately or only examine the direct effects, without modeling the mediation mechanism at the regional level. Therefore, the novelty of our research lies in empirical evidence, for the first time in the context of Jambi Province, that e-commerce adoption mediates the relationship between MSME quality and key development outcomes. We have clarified this in the revised abstract (page 1, lines 18–24) and (page 24, lines 1033–1041). All changes are marked in red in the revised manuscript for clarity.

Comment 4 : The definition of MSMEs, SMEs and MEs are different in each country, please provide the official definition in Indonesia.

Response 4 : Thank you for raising this important point. I fully agree with the reviewer’s observation. Therefore, I have revised the methodology section to include the official Indonesian definition of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs), as stipulated by Indonesian Law No. 20/2008. Specifically, I have added the following text on page 6, lines 222–229 of the revised manuscript: "According to Indonesian Law No. 20/2008, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) are officially defined as follows: micro enterprises have assets up to IDR 50 million and annual sales up to IDR 300 million; small enterprises have assets up to IDR 500 million and sales up to IDR 2.5 billion; medium enterprises have assets up to IDR 10 billion and sales up to IDR 50 billion (Kementerian Koperasi & UKM, 2024). This legal framework ensures conceptual clarity and comparability with international standards (World Bank, 2025).". All changes are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript for clarity.

Comment 5 : Where Is the reference about post-pandemic poverty reduction figures?

Response 5 : Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and have addressed it by providing a direct reference for the post-pandemic poverty reduction figures. The data specifically the decline in poverty from 8.19% to 7.10% in Jambi Province between 2020 and 2024 are now explicitly attributed to the most recent publication from the Central Statistics Agency (Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Jambi, 2025). Revision location: Introduction, Page 1 line 39-42. “…poverty reduction has remained sluggish, dropping only from 8.19% to 7.10% (Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Jambi, 2025a, 2025b). This divergence suggests that growth has not trickled down to vulnerable groups, a phenomenon that challenges the conventional ‘trickle-down’ theory (Todaro & Smith, 2020).”. All changes are clearly highlighted in red in the revised manuscript for easy reference.

Comment 6 : Similar patterns? Please give citations, references.

Response 6 : Thank you for your observation. I fully agree with this comment. To address your suggestion, I have added explicit supporting citations including Ochi (2023), Thorbecke & Ouyang (2022), and Cosa (2025) 0to demonstrate that slow poverty reduction despite GDP growth is a trend widely observed across low- and middle-income countries, not unique to Indonesia. Revision location: Introduction, Page 2 paragraph 2, line 45-55 of the revised manuscript. "Recent international evidence underscores that the disconnect between GDP growth and poverty alleviation is not unique to Indonesia. Studies in India, China, Africa, and Latin America reveal similar patterns, where economic expansion does not always translate into broad-based social progress or poverty reduction (Babber & Mittal, 2025; Cosa, 2025; Ochi, 2023; Thorbecke & Ouyang, 2022). For instance, Cosa (2025) found that in several Latin American economies, MSME-driven growth did not significantly reduce inequality without supportive digital and policy ecosystems. In China, Ding et al. (2022) and Liu et al. (2021) highlight the mediating role of digital adoption in transforming macroeconomic gains into concrete welfare improvements...". All additions and changes are marked in red in the revised manuscript for clarity.

Comment 7 : When was the article written? Why there is no 2025 reference? What are the main objectives of this research?

Response 7 : Thank you for this important comment. I agree with your observation. Therefore, I have updated the manuscript as follows: (1) The article was finalized in May 2025, and the reference list has been thoroughly updated to include the latest sources from 2024 and 2025. (2) The main objectives of the research are now stated explicitly at the end of the Introduction on page 4, lines 163–167 of the revised manuscript. "The main objectives of this research are (1) to examine how MSME quality and e-commerce adoption jointly affect economic growth, poverty reduction, and innovation in Jambi Province; and (2) to test the mediating role of e-commerce in linking MSME quality to SDGs achievement.". All changes are clearly marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 8 : Page 3 is part of literature review and background and aim of the research, please provide references. Same for 2.1 and 2.2.

Response 8 : Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with the reviewer’s comment. Therefore, I have thoroughly revised the manuscript to include additional references supporting the literature review, background, and research aims on page 3, as well as in sections 2.1 (Research Design) and 2.2 (Population and Sampling Technique). On lines 35–63, I have added and clarified several references where statements regarding the role of MSMEs, digitalization, and the link between growth and poverty were previously lacking citations. For example, references such as (Kamila & Pal, 2024; Sharma, 2021; Todaro & Smith, 2020; Babber & Mittal, 2025; Thorbecke & Ouyang, 2022; Ding et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2021) are now cited directly after the corresponding sentences. “Micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) play a pivotal role … (Kamila & Pal, 2024; Sharma, 2021). … a phenomenon that challenges the conventional ‘trickle-down’ theory (Todaro & Smith, 2020). … where economic expansion does not always translate into broad-based social progress or poverty reduction (Babber & Mittal, 2025; Thorbecke & Ouyang, 2022). … highlight the mediating role of digital adoption … (Ding et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2021).”]. In section 2.1 lines 215–220, I have included additional references to support the choice of research design and methodological approach, citing (Creswell & David Creswell, 2018). In section 2.2 lines 222–243, I have provided direct references to the legal definitions and sampling methodology, now citing (Kementerian Koperasi & UKM, 2024; World Bank, 2025; Cheah et al., 2021; Etikan, 2016; Sarstedt et al., 2021) as well as the statistical data source (Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Jambi, 2025). All revisions and new references in these sections are highlighted in red font in the revised manuscript.

Comment 9 : Seeks? The authors mean aim or objective or overall aim.

Response 9 : Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with the reviewer’s suggestion. Therefore, I have replaced all instances of the word “seeks” with “aims,” “objective,” or “overall aim” as appropriate throughout the revised manuscript to ensure greater clarity and precision. Changes can be found in the Introduction page 4 lines 167 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 10 : What is the population of MSMEs in Jambi? What is criteria for selection of these 250 MSMEs? Which formula was utilized to ascertain the sample size?

Response 10 : Thank you for your valuable comments. I agree with the reviewer’s suggestions. Therefore, I have revised the manuscript to clarify the population, sample criteria, and sample size formula as follows: On page 6, section 2.2 “Population and Sampling Technique”, lines 230–281, I have provided detailed information regarding the total number of MSMEs in Jambi Province, the specific inclusion criteria for the selected 250 MSMEs, and the basis for determining the sample size using the “ten-times rule” for SEM-PLS as recommended by Hair et al. (2021). “Based on the most recent figures from the Central Statistics Agency (Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Jambi, 2025), there are approximately 265,843 Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) operating in Jambi Province. However, as of this writing, no official registry or publicly available dataset specifically identifies the subset of MSMEs in Jambi that have adopted digital platforms or engaged in e-commerce. Given this limitation, the study employs non-probability purposive sampling, a technique widely recommended for research targeting specialized or hard-to-reach populations whose true size cannot be precisely determined (Cheah et al., 2021; Etikan, 2016; Sarstedt et al., 2021). The sample of 250 MSMEs was determined using the “ten-times rule” for Partial Least Squares-Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM), which requires the minimum sample size to be at least ten times the number of indicators for the most complex construct in the model (Hair et al., 2021). The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) MSMEs must be actively operating in the food and beverage sector in Jambi Province, (2) have utilized e-commerce platforms for at least the last three months, (3) the respondent must be the owner or manager with direct experience and adequate knowledge regarding digital business operations, and (4) willing to participate and provide reliable information. Only respondents who fulfilled all these criteria were included in the final sample.”. All changes and clarifications have been marked in red font in the revised manuscript.

Comment 11 : What about reliability and validity of the data?

Response 11 : Thank you for raising this important point. I fully agree with the reviewer’s comment. Therefore, I have clarified and emphasized the procedures for validity and reliability testing in the revised manuscript. On page 9–13, section 3.1 “Outer Model Evaluation Results” (lines 378–469), I have strengthened the explanation regarding the reliability and validity assessment of the measurement instruments, including: Convergent validity (outer loadings > 0.70), Table 1, Average Variance Extracted (AVE > 0.5), Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha and Composite Reliability > 0.7), Discriminant validity (Fornell-Larcker criterion, Table 2), Reference to Hair et al. (2021) for threshold standards. These clarifications are now presented in the Results section (pages 9–13) and are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript. Thank you again for your constructive feedback, which has helped ensure the methodological rigor and transparency of our research.

Comment 12 : Page 9, the results show.... please explain.

Response 12 : Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with the reviewer’s suggestion. Therefore, I have revised the Results section to provide a more detailed explanation and interpretation of the findings on page 9, particularly regarding the validity and reliability of the measurement model. Section 3.1 “Outer Model Evaluation Results”, lines 389–401, I have expanded the narrative to clarify what the outer loading, AVE, Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, and discriminant validity results imply, and why these results support the robustness of the measurement instruments used in this study. “The results show that all indicators are valid and effectively represent their respective latent constructs. For instance, all outer loading values are above 0.70, indicating that each indicator has a strong relationship with its underlying construct and confirming robust convergent validity. AVE values for all variables exceed 0.50, which means more than half of the variance in the indicators is captured by the construct itself, not by measurement error. Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability values for each variable are well above 0.70, which demonstrates high internal consistency and reliability of the measurement instruments. The Fornell-Larcker criterion results further confirm that each construct is empirically distinct from the others, indicating good discriminant validity. Overall, these results demonstrate that the measurement model is both valid and reliable, supporting the credibility and robustness of subsequent structural analysis in this study.”

Comment 13 : Please provide the discussion section for each finding. For Instance, Page 12, Line 375 onwards.

Response 13 : Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with the reviewer’s comment. Therefore, I have revised the manuscript by adding a dedicated discussion section for each major finding, explaining the meaning, significance, and contextualizing the results with recent Scopus-indexed literature (2020–2025). The revisions can be found on page 20–25, from line 767-962, following each set of results in the “Discussion” section. On page 18-20, from line 640- 702 and on page 20-21, from line 721-765, following each set of Result of Research Hypothesis Testing.

Comment 14 : Who are the direct and indirect beneficiaries of this research?

Response 14 : Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with the reviewer’s comment. Therefore, I have revised the manuscript to explicitly identify and explain the direct and indirect beneficiaries of this research. The changes can be found on page 26, lines 1019–1027, in the Practical Implications section, and are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.Thank you again for your feedback, which has helped clarify the societal and policy relevance of this research.

Comment 15 : How can we replicate this research design in countries where poverty is increasing?

Response 15 : Thank you for your suggestion. I agree that it is important to clarify how this research design can be replicated in other countries, especially where poverty is increasing. Therefore, I have revised the “Generalisability of Findings” section (page 28, lines 1088–1100) to provide step-by-step guidance on how to adapt the research design. This addition is highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 16 : I am not sure that you do not need an ethical review board for this study.

Response 16 : Thank you for raising this important ethical concern. I agree with the reviewer’s comment and appreciate the need for transparency and adherence to international standards. Accordingly, I have clarified and expanded the ethical considerations in the manuscript to explicitly state that, while the study involved minimal risk, no personal or sensitive data were collected, participation was fully voluntary and anonymous, and informed consent was obtained from all respondents. I also confirm that we are prepared to submit the research protocol for ethical review should the editorial team require it. The revised text can be found on page 9, section 2.6 “Ethical Considerations”, lines 369–378, and is highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 17 : Good Luck

Response 17 :Thank you very much for your kind words and encouragement. I sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s time, thoughtful comments, and support throughout the review process. Your feedback has been invaluable in improving the quality of this manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript explores an important topic: the mediating role of e-commerce in linking MSME quality to economic growth, poverty reduction (SDG 1), and innovation (SDG 9) in Jambi Province, Indonesia. The focus on a regional context in an emerging economy, using SEM-PLS on data from 250 food and beverage MSMEs, provides valuable empirical insights. The hypotheses are well-grounded in theories like endogenous growth, structural poverty, and the digital economy, and the results highlight e-commerce as a key mediator—MSME quality alone has limited direct effects on growth but significant indirect impacts via digital adoption. This aligns with broader literature on digital transformation in MSMEs and offers practical recommendations for policymakers.

However, several areas require improvement to strengthen the paper for publication:

1. Introduction and Literature Review: The introduction is repetitive, with entire paragraphs duplicated (e.g., discussions on internal MSME factors and e-commerce studies appear multiple times across pages 2-3). This makes the section feel disorganized and inflated. Streamline it to eliminate redundancy, ensure logical flow, and clearly articulate the research gap. For instance, emphasize how this study uniquely integrates mediation analysis at the regional level, rather than repeating citations. Additionally, expand the discussion of regional disparities in Indonesia (e.g., why Jambi's high internet penetration hasn't translated to poverty reduction) with more recent data or comparisons to other provinces.
2. Methodology: The use of CAPI without face-to-face interviews is innovative for efficiency but could be clarified further—explain how "field research character" was maintained (e.g., via on-site questionnaire distribution). The purposive sampling is appropriate given the lack of a comprehensive database, but discuss potential biases more explicitly (e.g., over-representation of digitally active MSMEs). The measurement variables are well-operationalized with Likert scales and grounded in theory, but provide the full questionnaire items in an appendix for transparency. Also, justify the 4-point Likert scale over a 5- or 7-point one, as it may limit response nuance.
3. Results: The presentation is clear, with tables and figures effectively illustrating outer/inner model evaluations, path coefficients, and mediation effects. However, some interpretations could be more nuanced—for example, the low R² for e-commerce utilization (0.284) and SDG 1 (0.196) suggests external factors (e.g., infrastructure, policy) play a large role; discuss these in the results section rather than deferring entirely to discussion. Additionally, the linearity test shows nonlinear tendencies in some paths (e.g., MSME quality to e-commerce/SDGs)—explore this further, perhaps with post-hoc analyses or suggestions for quadratic modeling in future work.
4. Discussion: This section effectively ties results to theory and prior studies, but it could better address contradictions. For instance, while you cite studies showing direct MSME impacts on growth/poverty, your findings show limited direct effects—elaborate on why (e.g., contextual factors in Jambi like post-pandemic recovery). The novelty claim is strong but overstated; similar mediation models exist in literature (e.g., Amornkitvikai et al., 2022; Wahyuni et al., 2023)—highlight how your regional, SDG-focused approach adds specificity. Expand practical implications with concrete examples, such as targeted training programs for digital skills in Jambi's food sector.
5. Conclusions and Limitations: The conclusions succinctly summarize findings but could more explicitly link to SDGs beyond 1 and 9 (e.g., implications for SDG 8 on decent work). Limitations are acknowledged, but add suggestions for overcoming them, like multi-sector surveys or mixed methods. The generalizability section is brief—discuss applicability to other Indonesian provinces or ASEAN contexts with similar MSME reliance.
6. References and Citations: The reference list is comprehensive and relevant, but ensure consistency in formatting (e.g., some DOIs are missing, and abbreviations like "N/A" for page ranges should be resolved). Several citations are from 2025 (future-dated), which may be pre-prints—verify publication status. Avoid over-citing similar sources (e.g., Wahyuni et al. appears multiple times); diversify to include more global perspectives.
7. Overall Presentation and English: The manuscript has grammatical issues (e.g., awkward phrasing like "strentgthened by the digital economy perspective," typos like "endogeneous" instead of "endogenous," and inconsistent capitalization). Proofread thoroughly or use professional editing. Figures (e.g., outer loading diagrams) are clear but could include captions explaining key thresholds (e.g., >0.70 for loadings). Tables are well-structured, but ensure all are numbered sequentially and referenced in-text.

Author Response

Comment 1.

Introduction and Literature Review: The introduction is repetitive, with entire paragraphs duplicated (e.g., discussions on internal MSME factors and e-commerce studies appear multiple times across pages 2-3). This makes the section feel disorganized and inflated. Streamline it to eliminate redundancy, ensure logical flow, and clearly articulate the research gap. For instance, emphasize how this study uniquely integrates mediation analysis at the regional level, rather than repeating citations. Additionally, expand the discussion of regional disparities in Indonesia (e.g., why Jambi's high internet penetration hasn't translated to poverty reduction) with more recent data or comparisons to other provinces.

Response 1

Thank you for pointing out the issues of redundancy and lack of clear focus in the Introduction and Literature Review. I agree with your assessment. Therefore, I have undertaken a thorough revision to streamline these sections, eliminate duplication, and ensure a logical, focused flow. In the revised manuscript, the Introduction (pages 1-4) now:

• Removes repetitive language and citations, consolidating key points for clarity;
• Clearly articulates the unique research gap specifically, the mediating role of e-commerce between MSME quality and development outcomes at the regional level;
• Expands the discussion of regional disparities in Indonesia, using the latest data to explain why Jambi’s high internet penetration has not translated into poverty reduction, and providing comparison with other provinces for context.
• [Updated text can be found in the revised Introduction, pages 1–3, with changes marked in red.

We believe these revisions significantly improve the clarity, coherence, and contribution of our manuscript, and we appreciate your constructive feedback.

Comment 2

Methodology: The use of CAPI without face-to-face interviews is innovative for efficiency but could be clarified further—explain how "field research character" was maintained (e.g., via on-site questionnaire distribution). The purposive sampling is appropriate given the lack of a comprehensive database, but discuss potential biases more explicitly (e.g., over-representation of digitally active MSMEs). The measurement variables are well-operationalized with Likert scales and grounded in theory, but provide the full questionnaire items in an appendix for transparency. Also, justify the 4-point Likert scale over a 5- or 7-point one, as it may limit response nuance.

Response 2

Thank you very much for your constructive feedback regarding the methodology. I/we appreciate your suggestions and have made the following revisions to strengthen the clarity and transparency of the research design.

Use of CAPI and Maintenance of “Field Research Character”

we agree with the reviewer that clarification is needed regarding how field research characteristics were preserved despite using CAPI without face-to-face interviews. Therefore, we have added a detailed explanation to page 6 lines 247–260 of the revised manuscript. This addition describes how questionnaires were distributed and completed on-site, with respondents filling out the digital survey at their place of business, often in the presence of a field enumerator to provide technical support when needed. This approach ensured that responses reflected actual field conditions and business realities, even though interviews were not conducted in person.

Purposive Sampling and Potential Biases

we appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to discuss sampling bias in more depth. Accordingly, we have expanded the discussion of potential biases on page 5 lines 198–207. Additionally, the manuscript discusses steps taken to mitigate this bias, such as using official networks and randomizing invitations within the target sector.

Full Questionnaire Items in Appendix

Thank you for highlighting the importance of transparency. As requested, the full set of questionnaire items has been included in Appendix of the revised manuscript to facilitate replication and allow for an in-depth assessment of the measurement process.

Justification for the 4-Point Likert Scale

we recognize the reviewer’s concern regarding the use of a 4-point Likert scale. To address this, we have added a justification for this choice on page 7, lines 283–297 in the revised manuscript. The decision was based on the desire to avoid the tendency of respondents to select a neutral midpoint (central tendency bias), which can be particularly common in collectivist cultures (Chomeya, 2010; Garland, 1991). The forced-choice format of the 4-point scale encourages respondents to provide a more definitive assessment of their agreement or disagreement with each statement, thereby enhancing response discrimination and data interpretability. Further, several previous studies in the MSME and social science literature have successfully utilized 4-point Likert scales (e.g., Amornkitvikai et al., 2022; Chomeya, 2010).

With these changes, we hope to have addressed the reviewer’s concerns and improved the methodological transparency and rigor of the study. All changes have been marked in red in the revised manuscript as per journal guidelines.

Comment 3

Results: The presentation is clear, with tables and figures effectively illustrating outer/inner model evaluations, path coefficients, and mediation effects. However, some interpretations could be more nuanced—for example, the low R² for e-commerce utilization (0.284) and SDG 1 (0.196) suggests external factors (e.g., infrastructure, policy) play a large role; discuss these in the results section rather than deferring entirely to discussion. Additionally, the linearity test shows nonlinear tendencies in some paths (e.g., MSME quality to e-commerce/SDGs)—explore this further, perhaps with post-hoc analyses or suggestions for quadratic modeling in future work.

Response 3

Thank you for your valuable feedback and for highlighting the need for more nuanced interpretations in the Results section, especially regarding the relatively low R² values for e-commerce utilization and SDG 1, and the nonlinear tendencies in certain paths. I/we fully agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have revised the Results section to address these points more explicitly. The revisions can be found on lines 370–642 of the revised manuscript.

With these revisions, the Results section now provides a more balanced and transparent interpretation of the empirical findings, acknowledging both the explained and unexplained variances, and openly addressing the complexity revealed by the data. These enhancements are intended to increase the scholarly rigor and practical value of the manuscript. All changes are marked in red for editorial review.

Comment 4

Discussion: This section effectively ties results to theory and prior studies, but it could better address contradictions. For instance, while you cite studies showing direct MSME impacts on growth/poverty, your findings show limited direct effects—elaborate on why (e.g., contextual factors in Jambi like post-pandemic recovery). The novelty claim is strong but overstated; similar mediation models exist in literature (e.g., Amornkitvikai et al., 2022; Wahyuni et al., 2023)—highlight how your regional, SDG-focused approach adds specificity. Expand practical implications with concrete examples, such as targeted training programs for digital skills in Jambi's food sector.

Response 4

Thank you for this insightful feedback. I/we agree with the reviewer’s observations. Therefore, I/we have revised the Discussion section to (1) address why direct effects of MSME quality on growth and poverty are limited in Jambi, (2) refine the novelty claim by situating this study relative to existing mediation models, and (3) expand the practical implications with concrete, context-specific examples relevant to Jambi’s food sector. These changes can be found in Section 4.1 (line 857-868), Section 4.2 (line 931-940), Section 4.3 (line 1006-1012), Section 4.5 (line 1078-1088), Section 4.6 (line 1125-1132) of the revised manuscript.

These revisions provide a more nuanced and context-sensitive interpretation of our findings, clarify the manuscript’s unique contribution in light of the latest literature, and offer practical, actionable recommendations for stakeholders in Jambi Province. We sincerely thank the reviewer for prompting these improvements.

Comment 5

Conclusions and Limitations: The conclusions succinctly summarize findings but could more explicitly link to SDGs beyond 1 and 9 (e.g., implications for SDG 8 on decent work). Limitations are acknowledged, but add suggestions for overcoming them, like multi-sector surveys or mixed methods. The generalizability section is brief—discuss applicability to other Indonesian provinces or ASEAN contexts with similar MSME reliance.

Response 5

Thank you for pointing this out. we agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the Conclusions and Limitations sections to: (1) explicitly link findings to SDGs beyond 1 and 9 highlighting the implications for SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and other relevant goals; (2) provide concrete suggestions for overcoming limitations, such as employing multi-sector surveys and mixed-methods approaches; and (3) expand the generalizability discussion to address applicability to other Indonesian provinces and ASEAN contexts with similar MSME characteristics. These changes can be found on Section Conclussions lines 1204-1220, Section Limitations line 1183-1189 of the revised manuscript.

We believe these revisions address the reviewer’s concerns comprehensively and enhance the manuscript’s clarity, practical value, and international relevance. All changes are marked in red as requested. Thank you for your constructive feedback, which has strengthened this work.

Comment 6

References and Citations: The reference list is comprehensive and relevant, but ensure consistency in formatting (e.g., some DOIs are missing, and abbreviations like "N/A" for page ranges should be resolved). Several citations are from 2025 (future-dated), which may be pre-prints—verify publication status. Avoid over-citing similar sources (e.g., Wahyuni et al. appears multiple times); diversify to include more global perspectives.

Response 6

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have carefully revised the reference list to ensure full consistency of formatting, including the addition of missing DOIs, the resolution of any placeholder abbreviations such as "N/A" for page ranges, and the correction of formatting discrepancies. we have also reviewed all future-dated (2025) citations to verify their publication status, removing pre-prints that are not yet publicly available or updating them with accurate details as appropriate. To address the issue of over-citation, particularly with recurrent sources like Wahyuni et al., I/we have reduced redundancy and included additional references that offer broader global perspectives.

Comment 7

Overall Presentation and English: The manuscript has grammatical issues (e.g., awkward phrasing like "strentgthened by the digital economy perspective," typos like "endogeneous" instead of "endogenous," and inconsistent capitalization). Proofread thoroughly or use professional editing. Figures (e.g., outer loading diagrams) are clear but could include captions explaining key thresholds (e.g., >0.70 for loadings). Tables are well-structured, but ensure all are numbered sequentially and referenced in-text.

Response 7

Thank you for pointing this out. we agree with this comment. Therefore,we have thoroughly revised the manuscript to address these presentation and language concerns. Specifically, we: Carefully proofread the entire manuscript to correct grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and typographical mistakes (e.g., “strentgthened by the digital economy perspective” changed to “strengthened by the digital economy perspective,” and “endogeneous” corrected to “endogenous”). Inconsistent capitalization and formatting have been standardized throughout the text; Improved the clarity and fluency of key sentences and paragraphs to ensure the manuscript meets international academic English standards; Enhanced the figure captions (e.g., for outer loading diagrams), now including brief explanations of key thresholds such as “Factor loadings above 0.70 indicate good convergent validity,” to guide readers’ interpretation; and Checked all tables to ensure they are numbered sequentially and properly referenced in the main text.

we have made every effort to improve the manuscript’s overall readability, accuracy, and presentation quality. Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and the opportunity to enhance the clarity and professionalism of this paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I appreciate the opportunity to review your manuscript. The paper addresses a timely and policy-relevant topic at the intersection of MSME development, digital transformation, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). By focusing on the mediating role of e-commerce in translating MSME quality into economic growth, poverty reduction (SDG 1), and innovation (SDG 9), the study contributes to ongoing debates on inclusive growth in emerging economies. The empirical focus on Jambi Province adds valuable regional evidence to a literature that is often dominated by national-level analyses.

However, in the following paragraphs you find the major shortcomings that I identify in the paper:

Overextension of the novelty claim:

While the mediation framework is valuable, the manuscript sometimes overstates its novelty (e.g., claims that no prior study has examined similar conditional relationships). Several existing studies have explored mediation or interaction effects between MSME capabilities and digital adoption, even if not in exactly the same configuration.

Conceptual breadth vs. depth:

The paper integrates multiple theories (endogenous growth, structural poverty, diffusion of innovation, digital economy), but the theoretical synthesis could be tighter. At times, theories are cited sequentially rather than deeply integrated into a coherent explanatory framework.

Measurement concerns:

Key outcome variables such as “economic growth” and “poverty reduction” are measured at the MSME/household level using perceptual indicators. While this is common in survey-based research, the implications of using subjective proxies for macro-level concepts are not sufficiently problematized.

Language and redundancy:

The manuscript is quite long, with substantial repetition across the introduction, discussion, and novelty sections. Some sections could be streamlined to improve readability and focus.

To strengthen the manuscript, I recommend the following revisions:

1. Refine the theoretical framework:
• Clarify how the different theoretical perspectives complement each other rather than appearing as parallel justifications.
• Consider explicitly stating which theory primarily explains the mediation mechanism and which theories play a supporting role.
• Adding a graph that unifies the different theoretical approaches would contribute to better elucidating a unified framework.
2. Moderate the novelty claims:
• Reframe novelty in more cautious terms (e.g., “extends,” “adds regional evidence,” or “integrates prior strands of literature”) to avoid overstating the contribution.
• Please be careful with the terminology used to describe causal mechanisms. E.g. in lines 71-73 you stated: “Amornkitvikai et al (2022) proved that e-commerce using devices such as mobile phones and websites along with the use of social media and digital devices will increase the sustainability of e-commerce use for MSMEs (Amornkitvikai et al., 2022).” Please make sure that you do not use “prove” in the context of social science research! Instead, use terminology such as “provide evidence” or “illustrate empirically” or suchlike.
3. Clarify measurement limitations:
• More explicitly discuss the limitations of using self-reported, perceptual measures for economic growth and poverty reduction, and how this affects interpretation and generalizability. In addition, provide the original survey in an appendix, so that the reader can better understand the elaborated indicators.
• In lines 370-371 you state: “The Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) is used to detect this issue. values below 5 are generally acceptable, though ideally not exceeding 3 to ensure independence among constructs.” For such a statement a reference to a textbook is in order to enhance legitimacy.
4. Reduce redundancy and improve structure:
• Condense overlapping sections in the discussion and novelty parts.
• Shorten repetitive explanations of SEM-PLS procedures that are already well established in the literature.

I hope that adding the suggested modifications strengthens the paper and lets if find a wider readership!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? (Can be improved)

Response: Thank you very much for highlighting this aspect. I have carefully revised the Introduction section (pages 1–5) to provide a more comprehensive background, further contextualization, and additional recent references to strengthen the theoretical basis and relevance of the study.

Comment 2: Point 2 : Is the research design appropriate? (Yes)

Response: Thank you for acknowledging the appropriateness of the research design. No further changes were necessary for this section.

Comment 3: Are the methods adequately described? (Can be improved)

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. I have expanded and clarified the Methods section (pages 5–9) by providing more detailed explanations regarding sampling procedures, measurement instruments, and data analysis steps, ensuring the methodology is transparent and reproducible.

Comment 4: Are the results clearly presented? (Can be improved)

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. I have reorganized and clarified the Results section (pages 9–21), supplemented the narrative with clearer descriptions of each finding, and ensured all tables and figures are referenced and explained in the corresponding text, to enhance readability and comprehension.

Comment 5: Are the conclusions supported by the results? (Can be improved)

Response: Thank you for your constructive input. I have revised the Conclusions section (pages 29–30), ensuring that all statements and implications are directly supported by the presented results and that the conclusions address the research questions and objectives in a balanced and evidence-based manner.

Comment 6: Are all figures and tables clear and well-Presented? (Can be improved)

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. I have improved the formatting, labeling, and clarity of all figures and tables throughout the manuscript (see pages 9–16), so that they are consistent, high-quality, and easy to interpret for readers.

I sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thorough and constructive comments, which have led to significant improvements in the manuscript. Please let me know if further clarification or revision is needed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I would like to congratulate you to a thoroughly revised and sizably improved manuscript! I am confident that your paper will receive a wide readership since it constitutes a valuable contribution to the discussion!