Abstract

Purpose - The present study aims to examine the use of open access (OA) scholarly communication in India and investigate the factors affecting the adoption and use of OA scholarly communication among researchers.Design/methodology/approach - The study adopted a quantitative research approach using a survey method. Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) of Web of Science database was selected as a source for identifying potential researchers and researchers' contact details. A web-based questionnaire was designed using Google Forms, and a link to the questionnaire was sent by email to 4,237 researchers belonging to Science and Technology. Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) is the primary basis for formulating the present study's conceptual model. Hierarchical multiple regression (HMR) was applied for identifying the factors that influence the adoption and use of OA scholarly communication.Findings -The study found that researchers have limited knowledge of different OA concepts, initiatives and resources, resulting in a deficient level of participation in OA publishing. The HMR analysis authenticates that attitude, facilitating conditions, Internet usage self-efficacy, article processing charge (APC) and researchers' working experience significantly influence the adoption and use of OA scholarly communication. Based on the findings, the study proposed a validated model to investigate the adoption and use of OA scholarly communication in different institutions, research disciplines and developing countries with similar conditions.Practical implications - The findings have several practical and policy implications for improving OA publishing in India, formulating OA policies and providing directions for further research.Originality/value - This is the first study focusing on adopting and using OA scholarly communication in India. Findings may be helpful in planning and implementing OA initiatives. The influencing factors and the relative importance identified in the present study offered empirical evidence to demonstrate the researchers' attitudes and perceptions for adopting and using OA scholarly communication.


Authors

Nazim, Mohammad;  Ashar, Mohammad

Publons users who've claimed - I am an author
Contributors on Publons
  • 2 authors
  • 1 reviewer
  • pre-publication peer review (FINAL ROUND)
    Decision Letter
    2022/05/03

    03-May-2022

    Dear Nazim, Mohammad; Ashar, Mohammad

    It is a pleasure to accept your manuscript OIR-05-2021-0265.R2, entitled "Factors influencing the adoption and use of Open Access scholarly communication among researchers in India" in its current form for publication in Online Information Review. Please note, no further changes can be made to your manuscript.

    Please go to your Author Centre at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/oir (Manuscripts with Decisions for the submitting author or Manuscripts I have co-authored for all listed co-authors) to complete the Copyright Transfer Agreement form (CTA). We cannot publish your paper without this.

    All authors are requested to complete the form and to input their full contact details. If any of the contact information is incorrect you can update it by clicking on your name at the top right of the screen. Please note that this must be done prior to you submitting your CTA.

    If you have an ORCID please check your account details to ensure that your ORCID is validated.

    By publishing in this journal your work will benefit from Emerald EarlyCite. As soon as your CTA is completed your manuscript will pass to Emerald’s Content Management department and be processed for EarlyCite publication. EarlyCite is the author proofed, typeset version of record, fully citable by DOI. The EarlyCite article sits outside of a journal issue and is paginated in isolation. The EarlyCite article will be collated into a journal issue according to the journals’ publication schedule.

    FOR OPEN ACCESS AUTHORS: Please note if you have indicated that you would like to publish your article as Open Access via Emerald’s Gold Open Access route, you are required to complete a Creative Commons Attribution Licence - CCBY 4.0 (in place of the standard copyright assignment form referenced above). You will receive a follow up email within the next 30 days with a link to the CCBY licence and information regarding payment of the Article Processing Charge. If you have indicated that you might be eligible for a prepaid APC voucher, you will also be informed at this point if a voucher is available to you (for more information on APC vouchers please see http://www.emeraldpublishing.com/oapartnerships

    Thank you for your contribution. On behalf of the Editors of Online Information Review, we look forward to your continued contributions to the Journal.

    Sincerely,

    Prof. Kalpana Shankar
    Co-Editor
    kalpana.shankar@ucd.ie


    Tell us how we're doing! We’d love to hear your feedback on the submission and review process to help us to continue to support your needs on the publishing journey.

    Simply click this link https://eu.surveymonkey.com/r/F8GZ2XW to complete a short survey and as a thank you for taking part you have the option to be entered into a prize draw to win £100 in Amazon vouchers. To enter the prize draw you will need to provide your email address.

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2022/04/16

    As I said, it is a wonderful study and would help the reader see the progress of open access in India. The only requirement is the proofreading of this paper to remove minor language issues.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2022/03/13

    Reviewer 1
    Relationship to Literature:
    Comment- However, if they put the literature under specific headings, it might be easier for the reader to understand and give them more clarity about what they are reading.

    Response- Review of the literature section has been organized under specific headings.

    Comment- I suggest authors make relevant headings and particularly a separate heading for 'conceptual framework'.

    Response- 'Conceptual framework' has been separated from the literature review.

    Comment- A summary of the critical aspects of the literature review must be added to provide rationale or justification for the study.
    Response- A summary of the literature review has been added at the end of the literature review.

    Methodology:

    Comment- "The questions in the questionnaire were developed based on existing, tested, and verified instruments of previous similar studies (Bashorun et al., 2016; Dulle, 2010; Lwoga & Questier; 2015; Venkatesh et al., 2003)" but there was no citation of Dulle, 2010.

    Response- The correct citation has been added

    Comment- The starting sentences are poorly written (p. 6, line 23-28). They need to replace questions with items. The reliability value of each construct is missing (though it is written that it was attached as Annexure-1). I recommend that you only write the reliability value of each construct and remove the composite reliability.

    Response- Revised as suggested.

    Implications for research, practice and/or society:
    Comment- Implications are written under 'Conclusion', better if it could written separately after the Discussion. I suggest to write practical and policy implications to improve OA in India.

    Response- The implications have been rewritten and placed after the Discussion.



    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 2)
    Decision Letter
    2022/03/11

    11-Mar-2022

    Dear Dr. Nazim,

    Manuscript ID OIR-05-2021-0265.R1 entitled "Factors influencing the adoption and use of Open Access scholarly communication among researchers in India" which you submitted to Online Information Review, has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.

    The reviewer(s) have recommended publication, but also suggest some minor revisions to your manuscript. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments and revise your manuscript. Please also ensure that in doing so your paper does not exceed the maximum word length of 10000 words and that it meets all the requirements of the author guidelines at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=oir&PHPSESSID;=ubl727mru90lg3hc8sa5p5qrt2."

    To revise your manuscript, log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/oir and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.

    You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.

    Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Centre.

    When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).

    IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.

    Because we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submitted to Online Information Review, your revised manuscript should be uploaded as soon as possible. If it is not possible for you to submit your revision in a reasonable amount of time, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.

    Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Online Information Review and I look forward to receiving your revision.

    Yours sincerely,

    To help support you on your publishing journey we have partnered with Editage, a leading global science communication platform, to offer expert editorial support including language editing and translation.
    If your article has been rejected or revisions have been requested, you may benefit from Editage’s services. For a full list of services, visit: authorservices.emeraldpublishing.com/
    Please note that there is no obligation to use Editage and using this service does not guarantee publication.

    Prof. Kalpana Shankar
    Co-Editor
    kalpana.shankar@ucd.ie

    Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
    Reviewer: 1

    Recommendation: Minor Revision

    Comments:
    Notably, this version is improved from the earlier version. Lots of new sections / text have been added to the paper. I still believe it is a wonderful study and want to see this wonderful piece of work. Therefore, i suggest the authors further improve a few weak sections of the study.

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: Yes, this is very timely and important paper in context of Indian context investigating the factors influencing the adoption and use of Open Access scholarly communication.

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: The authors added sufficient, significant, and recent literature, which was missing previously. However, if they put the literature under specific headings, it might be easier for the reader to understand and give them more clarity about what they are reading.Simply writing 'Literature review and conceptual framework' without a single heading is something unusual for a quality paper. I suggest authors make relevant headings and particularly a separate heading for 'conceptual framework'. A good literature review is one in which critical aspects of cited studies should be added by the researcher, and at the end of this section, a summary of the critical aspects of the literature review must be added to provide rationale or justification for the study.

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: This section improved, but again there were some mistakes. For example, it has been written that "The questions in the questionnaire were developed based on existing, tested, and verified instruments of previous similar studies (Bashorun et al., 2016; Dulle, 2010; Lwoga & Questier; 2015; Venkatesh et al., 2003)" but there was no citation of Dulle, 2010.

    The starting sentences are poorly written (p. 6, line 23-28). They need to replace questions with items. The reliability value of each construct is missing (though it is written that it was attached as Annexure-1). I recommend that you only write the reliability value of each construct and remove the composite reliabiity.

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: This section looks fine to me. The results are clear.

    Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: The results are discussed well. Looks fine to me.

    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: Implications are written under 'Conclusion', better if it could written separately after the Discussion. I suggest to write practical and policy implications to improve OA in India.

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: This is fine.

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?:

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no.All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: Yes, I would like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2022/03/10

    Notably, this version is improved from the earlier version. Lots of new sections / text have been added to the paper. I still believe it is a wonderful study and want to see this wonderful piece of work. Therefore, i suggest the authors further improve a few weak sections of the study.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2022/01/29

    Reviewer 1
    General comments:
    Comment-The local context (Indian) should be written in a separate paragraph for clarity and better understanding of the reader.

    Response-Research problem and literature review in the Indian context have been rewritten at the end of the introduction.

    Comment-The implications and future research directions should be added in the paper.

    Response-Implications for theory and future research directions have been added in the last paragraph of the discussion of findings and at the end of the conclusion.

    Relationship to Literature:
    Comment-In review of literature, it has been written ‘Previous studies' findings showed a significant gap between researchers' attitudes toward OA and their actual practice’ (page 3, line 5). This clam needs citations.

    Response-Review of literature section has been completely revised by adding more recent studies related to the topic.

    Methodology
    Comment-The authors used the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use ofTechnology (UTAUT) of Venkatesh et al. (2003). My suggestion is to shift theoretical framework under ‘review of literature’ and provide the rationale for the selection of this framework.

    Response- The theoretical framework has been shifted under review of literature along with the justification for the selection of the UTAUT model.

    Comment-The search was performed on 28 May 2018 and timespan was 2014-2016. I suggest authors to
    provide justification of this date and time span.

    Response- The justification for this comment has been added to the methodology.

    Comment- There is no detail about the construction and development of adopted instrument. Is the adopted instrument was valid and reliable? Any expert opinion was taken?

    Response- Details of construction and development of the adopted instrument have been added in the methodology along with the proper justification.

    Comment- What was the Cronbach’s alpha value of the instrument?

    Response-Cronbach’s alpha value of the instrument/items have provided in the methodology

    Comment- The authors can attach the instrument at the end as an appendix.

    Response-The instrument (questionnaire) has been attached as appendix II.

    Results:
    Comment- I suggest authors to add demographic details of the respondents in a table.

    Response Demographic details of the respondents have been added to the results. Due to the limitation of 10000 words, the table has not been added. However, Demographic details have been provided as an Appendix (Appendix III)

    Comment-In page 6 (line 32), don’t start the sentence with Arabic numbers. Please start with the text such as majority of the respondents (87.22%)…….

    Response- This has been corrected.

    Comment-For goodness of fit for the selection of model (Tables 1 and 3), R2- adjusted is more appropriate as compared to R2 (if we keep adding the variables / steps, the R2 value will continue to increase and it did not predict the fitness of the model. R2 – adjusted is more appropriate and shows the fitness of the model).

    Response-Both R2 values and R adjusted values are shown with justification in the results.

    Discussion
    Comment- The discussion looks fine; however, once the literature review will improve and update, this section will further enriched.

    Response-Discussion has been updated in the light revised literature review.

    Implications for research, practice and/or society
    Comment-This is very important study and I recommend authors to add implications of the study focusing on policy and practical implications (institutional and national levels) for the awareness and adoption of OA in India.

    Response-Implications for theory, practical implications, and future research directions have been added in the last paragraph of the discussion of findings and at the end of the conclusion.

    Reviewer 2
    No comment from the Reviewer 2



    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 1)
    Decision Letter
    2022/01/10

    &PHPSESSID10-Jan-2022;

    Dear Dr. Nazim,

    Manuscript ID OIR-05-2021-0265 entitled "Factors influencing the adoption and use of Open Access scholarly communication among researchers in India" which you submitted to Online Information Review has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.

    The reviewers have recommended that you make some revisions to your manuscript prior to it being considered for publication, particularly with respect to the literature review.

    Please read their suggestions and if you choose to prepare a revised manuscript ensure that any changes that you make to your manuscript are highlighted, as well as described in your response to reviewers.

    Please also ensure that in doing so your paper does not exceed the maximum word length of 10000 words and that it meets all the requirements of the author guidelines at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=oir=ubl727mru90lg3hc8sa5p5qrt2."

    To revise your manuscript log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/oir and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions". Under "Actions" click on "Create a Revision". Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.

    You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.

    Once the revised manuscript is prepared you can upload it and submit it through your Author Centre.

    When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).

    IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.

    Because we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submitted to Online Information Review, your revised manuscript should be uploaded as soon as possible. If it is not possible for you to submit your revision in a reasonable amount of time, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.

    To help support you on your publishing journey we have partnered with Editage, a leading global science communication platform, to offer expert editorial support including language editing and translation.
    If your article has been rejected or revisions have been requested, you may benefit from Editage’s services. For a full list of services, visit: authorservices.emeraldpublishing.com/
    Please note that there is no obligation to use Editage and using this service does not guarantee publication.

    Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Online Information Review. I look forward to receiving your revision.

    Yours sincerely,

    Prof. Kalpana Shankar
    kalpana.shankar@ucd.ie

    Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
    Reviewer: 1

    Recommendation: Major Revision

    Comments:
    This is good and timely topic to be investigated. However, there are certain improvements are needed especially the addition of latest literature review. The local context (Indian) should be written in a separate paragraph for clarity and better understanding of the reader. The implications and future research directions should be added in the paper.

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: Yes, this is good and timely topic. .

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: In review of literature, it has been written ‘Previous studies' findings showed a significant gap between researchers' attitudes toward OA and their actual practice’ (page 3, line 5). This clam needs citations.
    In page 3 (line18-21), the researchers stated, “In describing the importance of awareness of OA content to its actual use, studies, like Swan and Brown (2004), Kim (2007), Christian (2008), and Gbaje (2010) indicated that researchers were alien to the concept of OA and found a deficient level of OA awareness in higher educational institutions”. All the four citations in this sentence are ten-fifteen years old. I believe the reality would be different now especially in the developed world. The authors need to cite latest literature. It would be better if international context and local context (Indian) would be presented separately so the reader can better understand both viewpoints. Additionally, the citation (Kim 2007) was not given in the references or perhaps it was Kim 2017. It is notable that ‘Kim 2017’ is the book review of two pages (DOI: 10.6087/kcse.91) and there is no such claim that researchers were alien to the concept of OA. Moreover, the studies (Christian 2008 and Gbaje 2010 were conducted in Nigeria) and it did not give the version from the developed world. I strongly recommend the authors to read and cite the original source, a book containing 14 chapters published in 2016 (Open Access and the Future of Scholarly Communication: Policy and Infrastructure (Volume 9) (Creating the 21st-Century Academic Library, 9) Reprint Edition by Kevin L. Smith (Author), Katherine A. Dickson (Author).
    In page 3 (line 23-55) and page 4 (line 3-34), almost all the citations were 10-15 years old and did not present the latest OA influencing factors. Furthers, the authors require to add various types of OA publishing, major OA resources, OA outlets, OA initiatives or movements, as they indicated these types in 5.1-5.3 (under Results).
    Overall, the literature review section is outdated and does not present the progression and current scenario of OA / OA movements in the developed and developing countries. Hence I recommend, the authors need to revise this section, adding latest literature and present international context as well as local context (Indian context) separately for clarity and better understanding of the reader.

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: The authors used the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) of Venkatesh et al. (2003). My suggestion is to shift theoretical framework under ‘review of literature’ and provide the rationale for the selection of this framework.
    The search was performed on 28 May 2018 and timespan was 2014-2016. I suggest authors to provide justification of this date and time span.
    There is no detail about the construction and development of adopted instrument. Is the adopted instrument was valid and reliable? Any expert opinion was taken? What was the Cronbach’s alpha value of the instrument? The authors can attach the instrument at the end as an appendix.

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: I suggest authors to add demographic details of the respondents in a table. In page 6 (line 32), don’t start the sentence with Arabic numbers. Please start with the text such as majority of the respondents (87.22%)…….
    For goodness of fit for the selection of model (Tables 1 and 3), R2- adjusted is more appropriate as compared to R2 (if we keep adding the variables / steps, the R2 value will continue to increase and it did not predict the fitness of the model. R2 – adjusted is more appropriate and shows the fitness of the model).

    Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: The discussion looks fine; however, once the literature review will improve and update, this section will further enriched.

    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: This is very important study and I recommend authors to add implications of the study focusing on policy and practical implications (institutional and national levels) for the awareness and adoption of OA in India.

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: this is fine.

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?:

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no.All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: Yes, I would like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Reviewer: 2

    Recommendation: Accept

    Comments:
    Congratulations

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: Yes

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: The paper demostrates an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cites an appropriate range of literature.

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: The methodolody that the auhtor has used is correct.

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: Yes

    Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: All answers yes.

    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Yes
    Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? Yes
    How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? The results can be applied in e-learning.
    What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Open Access helps to Education during pandemic.
    Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper? Yes

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Yes

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?: Yes

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no.All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: Yes, I would like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2021/12/31

    Congratulations

    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2021/08/07

    This is good and timely topic to be investigated. However, there are certain improvements are needed especially the addition of latest literature review. The local context (Indian) should be written in a separate paragraph for clarity and better understanding of the reader. The implications and future research directions should be added in the paper.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
All peer review content displayed here is covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.