Peer Review of “Information Technology Ambidexterity, Digital Dynamic Capability, and Knowledge Processes as Enablers of Patient Agility: Empirical Study”

This is a peer-review report submitted for the paper “Information Technology Ambidexterity, Digital Dynamic Capability, and Knowledge Processes as Enablers of Patient Agility: Empirical Study”

Round 1 Review

Specific Comments

Major Comments

1. Methods
   1. Describe the study [1] settings
   2. Move the highlighted (in the reviewed manuscript) content under Data Collection Procedures to a new subsection under subsection heading Study Population (see comments in the reviewed manuscript)
   3. The highlighted content should be under a new subsection heading Study Design
   4. Provide content on another two subsection headings:
      1. Sampling Techniques
      2. Sample Size
   5. Separate content under Data Collection Procedure into two new subsection headings
      1. Data Collection Tool and Procedure
      2. Data Analysis and Management
   6. Move Table 1 to Analyses & Results section
   7. Provide content under two new subsection headings:
      1. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
      2. Ethics Considerations

Minor Comments

1. Abstract
   1. Do not begin a sentence with abbreviation of figure
   2. Use past tense under Methods (eg, consider ‘used’ in lieu of ‘uses’)
   3. See comments in the reviewed manuscript
2. Introduction
   1. Use physicians in lieu of doctors
   2. Use health care providers not other medical professionals
   3. Keep in-text citation to the end of sentence
   4. Add health information management professionals among the key stakeholders
   5. Consider reducing the whole of section 2 (Theoretical Background) to 1-2 paragraphs and keep it within the Introduction section just before your study objective. This is to reduce readers’ boredom.
   6. Compress the content under research models and hypotheses
3. Results
   1. Make your findings more visible here
   2. Make your writing more readable to known and unknown readers
4. Discussion
   1. Plausible and insightful discussion but not a reflection of the content under the Results. Make the Results section more readable and meaningful to your audience.
5. Figure
   1. Use Fig not Figure
6. Acknowledgement
   1. It is scientifically necessary that you acknowledge the numerous (n=107) participants, who are the major stakeholders in your research.
7. Reference
   1. List at least 3 authors before et al
   2. Follow the Referencing Style consistently
8. Others
   1. Use participants not respondents