An Evaluation of Key Adoption Factors towards Using the Fog Technology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have highlighted fog computing and performed an empirical investigation on the factors that might influence the adoption of fog technology. The idea seems interesting. However, I have the following concerns. 

 

1. Please revise the grammatical errors in the paper. 
2. Fog is a densely explored area. Please highlight your novelty. 
3. Make a comparative analysis on that fog can perform better than the latest edge technology, like multi-access edge computing, dew computing, and so on. 
4. Make a summary at the end of each section for better readability. 
5. Make a table to highlight the summary and limitations of existing literature. 
6. Improve the quality of Fig. 3.

Author Response

Moderate English changes required.

As we mentioned in the previous comment (editor comment), before we submitted the manuscript to your journal we sent it to professional English editing agent (American Journal Experts). In addition to that, we sent it again to a native English speaking, and he made a new editing to the whole manuscript as you can see that in the version that has track changes.

Are the results clearly presented? No

We changed the presentation structure of the results. Instead of having three sub-sections to present the results (direct, mediation, moderation variables). We combined them as one section that present all the results related to the factors of the conceptual research framework. The new presentation of the results illustrated the direct, mediation, moderation impacts for each variable.

Are the conclusions supported by the results? No

Thanks for this comment, we think that we mentioned and briefly explained all the supported and not supported variables in the conclusion. Also, we summarized the main important implication in the conclusion.

Authors have highlighted fog computing and performed an empirical investigation on the factors that might influence the adoption of fog technology. 

Yes, we highlighted fog computing and performed an empirical investigation on the variables that might influence the adoption of fog technology. We added more information that explained why we performed an empirical investigation on the variables that might influence the adoption of this technology.

Please revise the grammatical errors in the paper.

As we mentioned in the previous comment, before we submitted the manuscript to your journal we sent it to professional English editing agent (American Journal Experts). In addition, we sent it again to a native English speaking, and he made a new editing to the whole manuscript as you can see that in the version that has track changes.

Fog is a densely explored area. Please highlight your novelty.

We added some details that described why we explored this research area, and highlighted the novelty of this research topic.

Make a comparative analysis on that fog can perform better than the latest edge technology, like multi-access edge computing, dew computing, and so on.

We provided very important details that explained how fog technology can perform better than the latest edge technology.

Make a summary at the end of each section for better readability.

Thanks to the reviewer for this comment. We want to let you know that, this is a journal paper not a thesis to make a summary at the end of each section. But, we added a short paragraph at the end of some sections to make a better link between these sections.

Make a table to highlight the summary and limitations of existing literature.

This is very significant comment that lead to increase the quality of the manuscript. Thanks to the reviewer 1 for this comment. We added a details table that highlighted a summary and limitations of existing literature. In this table we included the source details, summary of each study, and the limitation of each study as well.

Improve the quality of Figure 3.

We changed figure 3 to a table to make it more readable.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript proposes a framework to evaluate the factors affecting the adoption of fog technology. The article is well written and organized in appropriate sections. I have some comments, once addressed, the paper will be better:

1.    Figure 2 and Figure 3, add images as vector graphics. This is applicable to all the images in the manuscript for which vector graphics can be included. 

2.    Authors can mention a potential future direction of performing a qualitative case study with technology officials towards the validity of the proposed framework and should revise the framework accordingly. 

3.    As of now, it seems like only the positive factors have been included. It would be better to propose a study discussing the potential hinders/limitations delaying the implementation of fog technology. 

Author Response

Are the results clearly presented? No

We changed the presentation structure of the results. Instead of having three sub-sections to present the results (direct, mediation, moderation variables). We combined them as one section that present all the results related to the factors of the conceptual research framework. The new presentation of the results illustrated the direct, mediation, moderation impacts for each variable.

The manuscript proposes a framework to evaluate the factors affecting the adoption of fog technology. The article is well written and organized in appropriate sections.

Thanks to the reviewer 2 for this comment.

Figure 2 and Figure 3, add images as vector graphics. This is applicable to all the images in the manuscript for which vector graphics can be included.

We re-draw the figure 3 to increase the quality and made it clearer. Also, we changed figure 3 to a table to make it more readable.

Authors can mention a potential future direction of performing a qualitative case study with technology officials towards the validity of the proposed framework and should revise the framework accordingly.

Thank you for this important comment. We have changed the title of section 7.2 to Research Limitations and future work and explained this point as per your recommendation.

As of now, it seems like only the positive factors have been included. It would be better to propose a study discussing the potential hinders/limitations delaying the implementation of fog technology.

Thank you for this significant comment, but we already mentioned that the main focus of this paper is to investigate the adoption of this technology because there is a dearth of studies that investigate this topic. Table 1 in the revised manuscript summarizes all the previous research related to this technology and support the research gap.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am recommending to accept this paper.