An Organizational Perspective on Robotic Process Automation Adoption and Usage Factors
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I would like to thank you for having the opportunity to study your research and make a review.
The article is good, high-quality, scientific, has outputs, from my point of view the following revisions need to be made:
1. The figures are missing sources from where you drew and if you suggested something, you need to enter it that it is your suggestion.
2. The same needs to be done in the tables.
3. In my opinion, you should choose a different form of entering literary sources, in the form of cross-references. This is my opinion.
4. The tables should exceed one page to make it clear.
5. I would include the literature review in subsection 1.1, and shorten it.
6. Main chapter 4 needs to be made into subchapter 3.1
7. Main chapter 5 needs to be made into subchapter 3.2
8. I am missing some statistical processing in the submitted work.
Also, make the appendices clearer so that the reader does not have to scroll the table over two pages.
In conclusion:
The submitted publication is of high quality, has potential, the authors have focused on research from a long-term perspective and is suitable for publication after minor revisions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Attached, I am sending the file with the comments you mentioned, along with the respective explanations or actions taken.
Thank you in advance.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper addresses an intriguing research topic. The paper is firmly anchored in the existing literature on the subject. The article's logical structure is sound, and the arrangement of content is clear and well-ordered. Nevertheless, certain elements require elucidation and completion.
(62) The introduction presents a research question of a relatively general nature. Nevertheless, there is no indication of what the identified research gap is. Furthermore, the article does not indicate the extent to which the authors are attempting to address this research gap. Please provide a more detailed and concrete description of the article's objectives.
(148/149) In principle, the research gap and the scope/meaning of the research conducted should be described and defined in this section.
(176) Does the remainder of the article provide further clarification regarding these measures?
(178/185) Please describe the method used to select respondents for interviews. It would be beneficial to understand why these particular sectors were selected and not others. What was the rationale behind selecting such a large number of participants?
(192) Could the rationale behind the lengthy duration of the survey be elucidated?
(198) Please clarify the meaning of the term "referenced."
(203) These indicators can be quantified. It would be beneficial to ascertain whether the survey respondents documented their values in any way.
(227/335/343) Hypothesis H2 was subsequently demonstrated to be pivotal, although it was initially derived from preceding literature. What is the evaluation of the exploratory study? What evidence supports the conclusion presented in 343?
(227) All hypotheses are exclusively qualitative in nature. In the case of the quantitative study, the measures employed were not defined. Please provide an explanation.
(255) Was the study sample representative of the population under investigation? Please describe the distribution of companies in the sectors where interviews were conducted. The number of responses is relatively small. A comprehensive examination of the data collection methodology is essential.
(270) The measurement model encompasses a spectrum of boundary indicator values expressed in absolute terms. The opinions expressed by the literature paper authors are inherently subjective. A valuable contribution would be the normalization of these values to a 0-1 interval.
(344) The discussion is rather constrained in scope. The rationale behind these outcomes is not sufficiently elaborated. A thorough reevaluation of the results is necessary.
(366) It is unclear whether this addresses a research gap.
(371-) This is a discussion and not a conclusion.
(379) The citation of this 1982 paper is questionable. Was there not later research in this area?
(388) From what specific elements of the discussion is this statement based?
(398) This statement is very general and is not true in light of the results obtained.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Attached, I am sending the file with the comments you mentioned, along with the respective explanations or actions taken.
Thank you in advance.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research paper presents an interesting issue of implementing RPA technology in enterprises. The research was conducted in selected industries where the application of the technology is known and will develop in the coming years. Also interesting is the application of the two concepts of DOI and TOE to identify key factors in the context of RPA technology implementation.
The main objection to the presented manuscript is the lack of a clearly described impact of the study's results on verifying the formulated hypotheses. The paper contains minor findings. However, there is no detailed conclusion as to which hypotheses were verified positively and which negatively (the only exception to this situation is the verification of hypothesis 7).
Concerning the surveys conducted, it is worth adding additional characteristics of those who responded to the questions posed - for example, representatives of which industries they were, what is the % share of each industry in the survey, since the information thus obtained is essential for the conclusions formulated in the discussion and is fundamental for interpreting the results obtained. In some industries, the implementation of RPA technologies is higher than in others. It would also be worth investigating /interpreting whether the results obtained in the survey were related to the degree of Information Technology implementation. I assume so, and it would be worthwhile to show these correlations.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Attached, I am sending the file with the comments you mentioned, along with the respective explanations or actions taken.
Thank you in advance.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI would like to express my gratitude for the responses to the comments and additions to the paper. I have no further comments. However, I would like to suggest that there should be more clarification in the body of the paper, which was submitted in your response to the review.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2, thank you for your comments. They have contributed significantly to the improvement of the article.
Best regards,
Daniel Durão
