These are my comments on the manuscript

1. The author has a problem with the usage of the word "the"

2. Page 2, line 12 "Trust is considered as the basis of adoption of many emerging technologies, such as mobile payment (Lu et al. 2011)and mobile health services (Akter et al. 2013) etc.

3. Cannot use "etc" in academic writing.

4. Many are found to be poor in English structure.

5. Page 3, lines 41-43 "The Social exchange theory has been adopted in several studies that attempted to comprehend human social behavior in economic efforts (Homans ,1958).

6. The LR, starting from line 11, the sentence is discussing on Malaysian HEI context. It should be renamed to a new sub-topic of "Malaysian Higher Education Institution"

7. Page 4, line 16-21 "The Malaysian government views the higher education sector as a key component in transforming the country from a middle-income or average-income nation into a high-income nation by 2020 (Annual Report of the Economic Transformation Programme, 2014)."

8. This statement is no longer valid in the Malaysian context.

9. The discussion on RU can be enhanced by including the following references: i- Thien, L. M., & Jamil, H. (2020). Students as ‘Customers’: unmasking course experience and satisfaction of undergraduate students at a Malaysian Research University. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 42(5), 579-600. ii- Fauzi, M. A. (2021). Research vs. non-research universities: knowledge sharing and research engagement among academicians. Asia Pacific Education Review, 1-15.

10. The LR is too long, there should be a section specifically elaborating knowledge sharing, organizational citizenship behavior.

11. Page 6-7, 53-50, line 4-5 "According to Khadivi et al. (2013) carried out a study to predict teachers' organizational citizenship behavior based on their trust. According to Zhang (2011) argued that trust is very important to enhance citizenship behavior. According to Guh, et al. (2013) trust and commitment was shown to have a positive effect on organizational citizenship behaviors. According to Thomsen et al. (2016) trust and commitment had a positive effect on organizational citizenship behavior. According to Wong et al. (2012) organizational citizenship behavior considered as outcome of organizational support trust."

12. Can the author see the problem in this sentence? All the references to a study start with "according to". This sentence is monotonous. Furthermore, there is no author voice on these findings on OCB toward trust. What would you conclude/deduce from these findings?

13. The hypotheses development section is missing. The later part of the LR should be constructed as a hypotheses development section. Please refer to a good publication on the way to write the hypotheses development.

14. The hypotheses should be developed based on each hypothesis, not lump it at the end.

15. Was trust and knowledge sharing modelled as second-order construct? What is the reason for this?

16. Page 11, line 45-57 "Table 2 above demonstrates that the conduct of organizational citizenship has a positive relationship with trust. The correlation coefficient is 0.288, indicating that the relationship is small. Table 2 above indicates that knοwledge sharing has a significant positive relationship with trust. The correlation coefficient is 0.675, which suggests that the relationship is moderate. Table 2 above indicates that sharing of knowledge has an interdependent relationship with organizational citizenship behavior. The correlation coefficient was 0.614 and this demonstrates that there is a moderate relationship." -- I am not sure whether this is wrongly written or a mistake by the author. What is explained do not represent table 2. Why the author is explaining the correlation coefficient that should be explained in the structural model analysis, where the table is only on descriptive analysis.

17. table 4 does not report the Confidence interval value. How can the author explain the LL and UL?

18. Starting from page 14 should be a section "discussion"

19. There was no hypothesis on mediation, but the author is discussing on mediating effect. Table 4 even did not report the result of the mediation analysis.

20. Page 15, line 26 "Accordingly, the present study hoped to identify some critical influences expected to enable trust among academics in knowledge sharing....."

21. Insert section "Implication"

22. In the implication section, there is no need to mention "Therefore, H1 and H2 were supported"

23. The limitations and future work are not enough. Include limitations on other types of universities in Malaysia. Private universities, college universities were not stated.

24. This manuscript require extensive editing and proofreading. Many mistakes in terms of grammar, spelling and sentence structure make the current version unacceptable for publication. Suggest to send for professional proofreading service.

Thank you