Optimizing the Systematic Characteristics of Online Learning Systems to Enhance the Continuance Intention of Chinese College Students
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The literature review should be enlarged to make more explains on why you offer so many hypotheses. there are 18 pypotheses in your study without any evidences;
2. why you propose the research model? any references from previous studies? you need to explain;
3. In the method, you need IRB approval from you institution and pleases add the approval ID;
4.Please discuss your findings comprehensively in the last;
5. You need add more references in the text to explain your results and the limitations of your study.
6. You need to compare your study and previous studies on this theme and make more explains on the results.
7. The foundation of this study could be added in the study.
8. How this study meet the goal of this journal?
9. More recent 3 years publication could be added in the study.
10. Please proofread your paper with native speakers.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Interesting paper on the application of SEM to the issue of the optimization of flow experience in online learning systems.
Some clarification are needed at some points of the paper.
The abstract should reflect better the paper and its results.
What do you mean by assessment scale (see abstract)?
Figure 1 should be improved in terms of visibility and the coments on the right.
Why do you se so many hypothesis, what is the justification? There is some clarification needed as to how you measure each variable, for example system functionality.
How do you define learning effect? Is it similar to learning outcomes in the literature on education?
Is it continued intention of continuance intention? It is the willingness to pursue the studies.
What do you mean by PPS sampling?
In section 4.1 you use the SEM to test the theoretical model. Why? Availiability?
I would expect a longer 4.2 section with more comments and explanations.
The clarity of the explanation of the method used as well as the results obtained could be improved.
Final conclusions could be improved for clarity.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is interesting work with a lot of substance that could potentially create impact.
A couple of things that need work. More referencing to compare this work with other similar studies. For example, how does your work compare with this: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.807084/full .
There is a need for emphasizing the conclusions if this study and its impact on the system design of an information system. It is not clear from the current script what would be the additions to a learning information system due to taking into account the flow experience. A text documenting the recommendation would be adequate at this stage.
Author Response
please check the attached file, thanks
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
I would like to thank the editors for the opportunity to read the article. Congratulations to the authors of an interesting research topic.
I appreciate the efforts in preparing the text. In my opinion, this is a significant article. The research focuses on a very actual topic that is worth publishing. I wonder if the text would not be more suitable for another MDPI journal, "Education Science." However, the topic of the special issue of the "Sustainability" journal does not exclude this article.
I only have a few suggestions for the authors. Please consider whether the description of the tool and its genesis should be extended in part describing the method and the questionnaire used. In my opinion, it should be described in more detail.
In the Discussion - section, I would propose to extend the scientific considerations by referring to the scientific literature even more.
Besides, I have no major comments and recommend the text for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept in the current form.
Author Response
Thank you for approving all authors' modifications and this paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
All points requested were mainly addressed except the last one. The technology related recoomendation that I was expecting to see was not there. A page of describing how the inclusion of flow will impact the technological - system design part of elearning systems to include the optimisation that is expected from the inclusion of flow is still missing. For example, what is the current system design of an elearning system that is not using flow and how this will converted by using flow.
The paper has a lot of experiential research to justify the conclusion of the importance of flow and that is really good. However, its connection to the technology part of elearning systems is very weak.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
