A Qualitative Study of Legacy Systems Modernisation for Citizen-Centric Digital Government
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author(s),
The topic of the research proposal is very interesting and I congratulate for your efforts. In order to publish the paper, I recommend you several improvements:
1. The abstract should give a clear(er) picture of the research approach. I strongly recommend to improve it. You should present also the used methodology and the results of your research. You can use the following structure: Purpose of the study, Methodology, Findings and Practical Implications/Originality/Value.
2. You can structure the introduction as follows: (1) Framing the reader, (2) Problematics of the topic under analysis, (3) Evidencing the GAP of the literature based on the literature, (4) Purpose of the study, (5) Originality of the study, (6) What are the expected results (to captivate the reader), (7) The last paragraph should briefly describe what the reader can read in the following sections.
3. The Literature review section needs a short contextualization. At this time, this section beginning is quite steep.
4. How the exposed literature can contribute in achieving your goal? Please specify this at the end of the Literature review section, in order to create a clear picture of the analyzed topic because, now, the structure is relatively fragmented.
5. Row 229: Multiple online databases? What does it means? Please reconsider.
6. Shortly explain figure 1.
7. The results of the study are interesting but, the section Results & Discussions ends quite steep. I recommend you to introduce a short paragraph after the table to synthesize the results.
8. Strongly recommend a development of Conclusion section, with focus on results but, also, on the limits of the study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I am really pleased to provide my comments on this submission, where the author(s) has/have highlighted adequately in this area. The contribution is well-written and critically analyzes legal system modernization for citizen-centric digital governance, as well as develops comprehensive guidelines for the public sector. The facts are nicely presented, and appropriate news articles/reports have been cited, however, I'd want to make a few minor suggestions to enrich the relevance of your paper.
1. The Introduction section nicely explains the rationale for the study, however, it is recommended to include a paragraph summarizing the study's significant contributions, as well as the theoretical and practical implications. In addition, explicitly state the objective of your research in the introduction section.
2. Lines 42-44 of the manuscript are open statements; please provide relevant literature.
3. Cite no more than three papers/reports in a single line (as in lines 60, 72, 124, 137, 138), but rather distribute them across the paragraph.
4. There is some misalignment in the conclusion part; please correct it, and I would also propose to include the theoretical/practical implications in the conclusion section, which may also be discussed individually in a different section.
5. The study's topic is quite intriguing, and the authors have done an excellent job in offering guidelines for the public sector, but I would like to urge that they build future research agendas for incoming scholars in this field.
6. The study has just two publications from 2022 and four from 2021; I would recommend the authors to include more recent literature to strengthen their paper.
7. There is inconsistency in the reference style. The year is bold in some references but not in others. The citation and referencing style must follow the guidelines of the sustainability journal.
8. Lastly, the author shall take professional proofreading services. The citations and references must be done with bibliography software like Mendeley or Endnote for better accuracy and consistency.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Congrats for all your efforts! From my point of view, the paper can be published in the present form.
