From Skepticism to Adoption: Assessing Virtual Reality Readiness Among Emerging Architectural Professionals in a Developing Economy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study examines a current and relevant issue that pertains to the dissemination of inclusive technology within the architectural sector of developing countries. This study provides a substantial foundation for comprehending this intricate phenomenon, and the theoretical framework that has been proposed is novel. The subsequent remarks are intended to improve the manuscript in preparation for publication.

Concise Overview
The factors that influence the adoption of virtual reality (VR) among architectural professionals in Oman are the subject of this book. The authors synthesize the Theory of Presence with the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) to develop and evaluate a comprehensive model. This study, which surveyed 61 experts after their VR experiences, demonstrates that adoption intention is significantly influenced by perceived utility, previous exposure, and organizational support. The integration of innovative theory with the practical relevance of the findings, particularly the substantial moderating effect of organizational support, is a key strength.

General perspectives regarding the concept
The dual theoretical framework of this paper is its primary conceptual strength. Understanding VR technology is challenging due to its numerous diverse components. Combining a functional model (UTAUT) with an experiencing model (Theory of Presence) is one approach to accomplishing this. The results are particularly compelling in terms of the interaction between the institutional framework, perceived utility, and prior experience.

The sample characteristics are the primary shortcoming of this article, which substantially undermines the validity and generalizability of its conclusions. The demographic data in Table 4 indicates that the sample is primarily female (75%), and it is composed of youthful individuals (85% of whom are between the ages of 18 and 25). The authors acknowledge this in the results section; however, the analysis and discussion do not fully incorporate the implications of this departure. At present, this investigation elucidates the collective perspectives of comparatively young students or professionals, rather than the Omani architecture sector as a whole. This methodological issue must be addressed more explicitly, as it currently undermines the scientific legitimacy of an article that is otherwise well-reasoned. The specific observations that are described below, in conjunction with an adjustment to the study's parameters, suggest a viable path for advancement.

Additional remarks
Introduction • Lines 47–56: The justification for Oman's status as a representative example for the Gulf Cooperation Council and other developing economies could be fortified. You discuss topics such as the average BIM penetration and centralized decision-making. However, your argument for the transferability of your findings would be strengthened if you included additional comparable data, such as technology readiness indices, educational statistics, and the construction sector's share of GDP.

Methodology: The most critical aspect is found in lines 248–252 and 278–288. The sample's characteristics, which are elaborated upon in Table 4 and the following, are of considerable concern. The findings are not applicable to all individuals in the discipline. I strongly recommend that you modify the original language to emphasize that the subject matter is "VR Acceptance Readiness Among Novice Architectural Professionals in a Developing Economy." This transforms a significant issue into a relationship that is both beneficial and focused. The introduction, debate, and conclusion must be modified to align with the new, more focused subject matter. Additionally, it is imperative that you provide a detailed account of the process by which you selected your sample. For instance, did you select a convenience sample from a specific university or organization that recruits recent graduates? Outcomes: Lines 321–327: The model provides a solid explanation (R2=0.52 for adoption intention). This is a significant advantage and should be mentioned during the discussion to verify that the integrated framework is effective for the study group in question.

• Lines 380–383: It is intriguing that males believed they had superior virtual reality experiences than women, yet this was not addressed. We must conduct a more thorough examination of this matter. Is it possible that this is due to the fact that individuals have varying degrees of exposure with video games, which are frequently the first step into virtual reality? Or could it be due to the distinctive work in virtual reality? Important information is conveyed through a brief discussion of the varied reasons.

Discussion and Conclusion
• Lines 356–359: The most valuable and significant thing you learned from your research is that individuals can surmount technical challenges with the assistance of their organization. This assertion can be fortified by establishing a connection to pertinent literature regarding organizational culture or leadership in the Gulf Cooperation Council or other developing regions. Why is it that support from the top down is so effective in this position? • Lines 386 to 395: The results must be adjusted to ensure that they are consistent with the sample. It is not appropriate to suggest that the framework elucidates the reasons for the acceptance of virtual reality in the "Omani architectural sector." You should assert that this framework effectively elucidates the reasons why the subsequent generation of Omani architects will embrace virtual reality. Your data does not entirely substantiate the suggestion, despite the fact that this remains a significant claim.

• Lines 424–428: Your future research plans are commendable. I suggest that a comparative analysis be conducted to compare the professional and decision-making responsibilities of young professionals (your sample) with those of their elder counterparts. This plainly addresses the issues with the current study and builds upon the substantial work you conducted at the outset.

I trust that these observations will be beneficial. The potential for this study to contribute significantly to the field is significant; however, it must be meticulously examined to ensure that it is comprehensive and applicable to other situations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The hypotheses are clear and theoretically justified, but their testability could be improved. For example, the mediating and moderating effects are conceptually sound, yet the small sample size (n=61) raises concerns about statistical power and generalizability. The methodology (immersive VR experience + survey) is innovative but lacks certain controls: prior familiarity with VR or digital literacy is not fully operationalized as a covariate. The study is limited to Oman, but conclusions are sometimes generalized to “developing countries” broadly; this overgeneralization weakens the external validity. Some results are described as “critical insights” without strong empirical backing (e.g., line 338–340). The effect sizes are moderate, so claims should be tempered. The conclusions emphasize training and institutional support, but the paper does not present any longitudinal or implementation-based evidence—only intentions are measured. This restricts practical applicability.
2. The literature review is comprehensive and references many relevant works, but some key areas remain underexplored:
3. Studies on VR adoption in education and training in GCC countries could enrich the discussion.
4. Cross-comparison with other immersive technologies (e.g., AR, mixed reality) is only superficially mentioned.
5. References are generally recent (within 5 years), which is good, though some older seminal works dominate the theoretical sections.
6. Self-citations appear balanced, but the review occasionally lacks critical synthesis (lines 93–113): theories are presented sequentially rather than compared and contrasted.
7. The research gap is identified but could be articulated more clearly. Specifically, how this work differs from previous BIM-VR adoption studies (e.g., cited refs [3], [4], [9]) needs sharper emphasis.
8. Line 44–53 (Introduction): Over-reliance on Table 1 to explain adoption disparities. These arguments should also be textually developed in the introduction.
9. Line 63–68 (Hypotheses): Hypotheses are presented too early in the introduction. Better suited for the theoretical framework section.
10. Table 1 (Cross-National Comparison): Valuable, but the data sources for some percentages (e.g., “32–40% firms”) are not fully transparent—please clarify sample or context.
11. Figure 1 (Conceptual Model): The arrows are explained in the text (lines 199–219), but the figure itself is not visually clear about mediation vs. moderation effects. Consider redesign for clarity.
12. Lines 279–287 (Sample description): The sample is heavily skewed toward young professionals (85% aged 18–25). This limitation is acknowledged but deserves stronger discussion on representativeness.
13. Lines 350–360 (Organizational support findings): The moderation effect is interesting but perhaps overstated—effect size is modest, and other structural variables (e.g., policy environment) are not controlled.
14. Lines 385–396 (Conclusions): The gender and age differences are noted but discussed briefly; these could be expanded to reflect sociocultural adoption dynamics.
15. In Table 1, the reported percentages are not clearly linked to specific sources or samples, and the title “Developed vs Developing” is inconsistent with the limited examples given (“Oman, Malaysia”), creating a mismatch in scale and generalization.
16. In Table 2, the title does not match the content; while the table actually presents theoretical domains and hypotheses, it is misleadingly labeled again as “Cross-National Comparison.”
17. In Table 3, the measurement items do not fully align with the constructs; the “Immersion” question reflects ease of use, the item “I felt confident/enjoyed” conflates two emotions, and reverse-coded items are not clearly indicated.
18. In Table 4, although the total sample size is N=61, the table does not show a total row; moreover, the fact that 85% of respondents are aged 18–25 highlights a representativeness limitation not clearly emphasized in the table.
19. In Table 5, the operationalization of second-order constructs is unclear, outer loadings/collinearity statistics are missing, and HTMT is only presented as a range, which reduces transparency of the measurement model.
20. In Table 6, the measures and reliability of the moderator variables (barriers, organizational support) are not reported, the procedure for testing the interaction is unclear, and the significance legend includes ****p<0.0001, although no such result is shown in the table.
21. In Table 7, the sample sizes for “Prior VR Experience” groups are inconsistent with Table 4 (reported as 13/48 there vs. 14/47 here), creating a data reporting discrepancy.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is written in generally clear and fluent academic English. However, many sentences are overly long and dense, which reduces readability. Simplifying sentence structures and avoiding excessive use of technical jargon would improve accessibility. Minor grammatical refinements and stylistic adjustments (e.g., consistency in tense and smoother transitions between sections) are also recommended. Overall, the English is of acceptable quality but should be revised for clarity and conciseness before publication.Dear 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After a careful review, I find that while the paper presents a coherent structure and methodology, it exhibits clear logical shortcomings and limited academic contribution.

Although the authors emphasize “novelty,” the work largely remains a simple combination of existing frameworks, offering little true differentiation.

The research shows promise in advancing the argument for the adoption of Virtual Reality (VR) in the architecture industry. The study’s use of a quantitative methodology to evaluate readiness and perceptions of VR adoption among architectural professionals in a developing country context is commendable and provides useful insights.

However, we suggest that the discussion could be strengthened by situating the findings within a deeper context of the current level of Building Information Modeling (BIM) integration and the broader architectural digital culture. This would improve clarity and enhance the relevance of the study to ongoing digital transformation trends in architecture.

The case study of Oman is presented as the core contribution, yet the analysis is based on a small sample (61 respondents) with limited participant diversity, reducing its international and scholarly generalizability. Furthermore, since 78.7% of respondents reported no prior VR experience, the validity and practical relevance of assessing VR readiness in this context is questionable.

While the results and discussion provide strong validation of the research framework from a Virtual Reality (VR) adoption perspective, the architectural sector context is underdeveloped. The discussion does not sufficiently connect the statistical findings to the realities of architectural practice in Oman or in developing countries more broadly.

For instance, the implications for design workflows, client relations, or integration with existing BIM practices are only lightly touched upon. Expanding the discussion to explicitly address how these findings affect architectural culture, professional norms, and sector specific challenges would significantly strengthen the paper.

The findings converge on the rather obvious conclusion that “organizational support is important,” which restricts the paper’s practical contribution. The research design—VR demonstration, survey, and statistical analysis—appears oversimplified, lacking qualitative depth (e.g., interviews, real-world adoption cases) that could enrich interpretation.

The claim that organizational support mitigates technical barriers is framed as a causal mechanism, but in reality, the evidence only demonstrates correlation, making generalization problematic.

Overall, the paper falls short of the rigor and originality expected for an SCI-level journal, as its differentiation, practical applicability, and academic contribution remain limited. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to express my appreciation and gratitude to the esteemed authors for fully and satisfactorily implementing all the requested changes. You have not only made minor revisions but have also accepted my most important recommendation, "change the overall framework of the paper," and implemented it consistently throughout the text. The article has become significantly stronger, more accurate, and more focused in the new version (v2), and its main weakness has now become a strength. After this major revision, the article is suitable for publication. Hoping for your future research and studies in this field.

Author Response

Comment 1: I would like to express my appreciation and gratitude to the esteemed authors for fully and satisfactorily implementing all the requested changes. You have not only made minor revisions but have also accepted my most important recommendation, "change the overall framework of the paper," and implemented it consistently throughout the text. The article has become significantly stronger, more accurate, and more focused in the new version (v2), and its main weakness has now become a strength. After this major revision, the article is suitable for publication. Hoping for your future research and studies in this field.

Response: We are sincerely grateful for this positive feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have thoroughly reviewed the revised manuscript and confirm that all my comments and revision requests have been satisfactorily implemented. In my expert opinion, the manuscript is ready for publication after minor English language editing.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In my expert opinion, the manuscript is ready for publication after minor English language editing.

Author Response

Comment 1: I have thoroughly reviewed the revised manuscript and confirm that all my comments and revision requests have been satisfactorily implemented. In my expert opinion, the manuscript is ready for publication after minor English language editing.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. The manuscript has undergone a thorough English language edit to improve clarity, grammar, and flow. All changes have been tracked in the revised document to facilitate review.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research manuscript has been improved by addressing a theoretical gap through the integration of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) with Presence Theory. This dual-framework approach highlights both functional and experiential dimensions of Virtual Reality (VR) adoption, particularly in the context of developing economies. We recommend minor revisions based on the following points.

Strengths

1. Innovative Framework: The integration of UTAUT and Presence Theory provides a novel and comprehensive perspective on adoption studies, effectively bridging functional and experiential factors influencing VR use.
2. Contextual Contribution: By focusing on Oman, the study addresses a critical gap in VR adoption research within developing economies and produces findings that may be valuable for additional research in comparable contexts.
3. Methodological Appropriateness: The use of PLS-SEM is well justified for the focused sample size, and the analysis is rigorous, incorporating reliability, validity, mediation, and moderation testing.
4. Actionable Insights: The manuscript extends the theoretical discussion to propose practical strategies such as structured VR training programs and enhanced organizational support mechanisms that are relevant for both academia and industry.

Weaknesses

1. Sample Limitations and the Intention–Adoption Gap:

We acknowledge that the sample (N=61) is relatively small and limited to emerging professionals, which reduces generalizability and excludes senior practitioners who often play a central role in organizational decision-making.

While the study highlights organizational requirements as a driver of VR adoption, this research would benefit from a more detailed and critical discussion. The current perspective is valuable for understanding the readiness of the next generation. The research can benefit from a discussion about the adoption of VR in Oman compared to other countries beyond the GCC.

2. Context Specificity: The discussion section of the manuscript would benefit from greater depth and critical engagement with the findings. At present, the results are presented descriptively, but they lack a systematic interpretation that situates them within existing literature. While Oman is a highly relevant case study, the authors should explicitly acknowledge the context-specific nature of the findings, emphasizing that adoption drivers may vary significantly across different socio-economic, institutional, and cultural environments in other developing countries. This clarification will strengthen the manuscript’s contribution by avoiding overgeneralization and highlighting the unique insights the Omani context provides.

For instance, Oke et al. (2022) highlight organizational readiness as a critical driver of VR adoption in developing economies, while Noghabaei et al. (2020) examine adoption trends across the AEC industry more broadly, noting the influence of technological maturity.

A comparative analysis of these findings alongside the Omani case would provide a more systematic interpretation of the results. Such comparative analysis would also allow the authors to articulate clearer implications for emerging professionals in developing countries and to suggest directions for future research.

3. Limited Technical Focus: The discussion currently emphasizes organizational and behavioral factors effectively; however, it would be further strengthened by explicitly addressing the technical barriers that shape VR adoption. Issues such as interoperability challenges, hardware limitations, and varying levels of technical readiness remain significant constraints, even in developed economies. Acknowledging these factors would provide a more balanced and comprehensive perspective, demonstrating that VR adoption is not solely contingent on organizational culture and user acceptance.

Moreover, these technical barriers often generate social by-products that influence adoption in practice. For example, the complexity of VR software contributes to steep learning curves for professionals, interoperability issues make its application sporadic across projects, and the high costs of developing custom VR solutions for enterprise use, whether for training or collaboration, pose significant challenges. Recognition of these limitations will enhance the scope of the discussion and present convincing arguments on how the limitations might be addressed to facilitate VR adoption in developing countries.

Author Response

Comment 1: Sample Limitations and the Intention–Adoption Gap: We acknowledge that the sample (N=61) is relatively small and limited to emerging professionals, which reduces generalizability and excludes senior practitioners who often play a central role in organizational decision-making.

While the study highlights organizational requirements as a driver of VR adoption, this research would benefit from a more detailed and critical discussion. The current perspective is valuable for understanding the readiness of the next generation. The research can benefit from a discussion about the adoption of VR in Oman compared to other countries beyond the GCC.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this feedback. In the first round of revision, we addressed the point on sample limitations (lines 552-561, and 565-570). Regarding a comparative discussion of VR adoption in Oman and other countries, we have addressed it in our response to comment 2.

Comment 2: Context Specificity: The discussion section of the manuscript would benefit from greater depth and critical engagement with the findings. At present, the results are presented descriptively, but they lack a systematic interpretation that situates them within existing literature. While Oman is a highly relevant case study, the authors should explicitly acknowledge the context-specific nature of the findings, emphasizing that adoption drivers may vary significantly across different socio-economic, institutional, and cultural environments in other developing countries. This clarification will strengthen the manuscript’s contribution by avoiding overgeneralization and highlighting the unique insights the Omani context provides.

For instance, Oke et al. (2022) highlight organizational readiness as a critical driver of VR adoption in developing economies, while Noghabaei et al. (2020) examine adoption trends across the AEC industry more broadly, noting the influence of technological maturity.

A comparative analysis of these findings alongside the Omani case would provide a more systematic interpretation of the results. Such comparative analysis would also allow the authors to articulate clearer implications for emerging professionals in developing countries and to suggest directions for future research.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In response, we have integrated a new comparative paragraph into the Discussion section (subsection 4.3.3, lines 435-462). This revision provides a more systematic interpretation of the results and avoids overgeneralization while underscoring the value of the Omani case study.

Comment 3: Limited Technical Focus: The discussion currently emphasizes organizational and behavioral factors effectively; however, it would be further strengthened by explicitly addressing the technical barriers that shape VR adoption. Issues such as interoperability challenges, hardware limitations, and varying levels of technical readiness remain significant constraints, even in developed economies. Acknowledging these factors would provide a more balanced and comprehensive perspective, demonstrating that VR adoption is not solely contingent on organizational culture and user acceptance.

Moreover, these technical barriers often generate social by-products that influence adoption in practice. For example, the complexity of VR software contributes to steep learning curves for professionals, interoperability issues make its application sporadic across projects, and the high costs of developing custom VR solutions for enterprise use, whether for training or collaboration, pose significant challenges. Recognition of these limitations will enhance the scope of the discussion and present convincing arguments on how the limitations might be addressed to facilitate VR adoption in developing countries.

Response: We agree with the reviewer that explicitly addressing technical barriers would provide a more comprehensive perspective. While our integrated framework and results already implicitly address this (as measured by the "technical barriers" construct), we have added a dedicated sentence to the Discussion section (Subsection 4.3.3, Lines 435–462) to explicitly acknowledge their role.