Preprint (JMIR Preprints): https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/32336
Authors' Response to Peer-Review Reports: https://med.jmirx.org/2021/4/e34106/
Published Article: https://med.jmirx.org/2021/4/e32336/
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
- Describe the study [ settings
- 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)
- The highlighted content should be under a new subsection heading Study Design
- Provide content on another two subsection headings:
- Sampling Techniques
- Sample Size
- Separate content under Data Collection Procedure into two new subsection headings
- Data Collection Tool and Procedure
- Data Analysis and Management
- Move Table 1 to Analyses & Results section
- Provide content under two new subsection headings:
- Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
- Ethics Considerations
- Do not begin a sentence with abbreviation of figure
- Use past tense under Methods (eg, consider ‘used’ in lieu of ‘uses’)
- See comments in the reviewed manuscript
- Use physicians in lieu of doctors
- Use health care providers not other medical professionals
- Keep in-text citation to the end of sentence
- Add health information management professionals among the key stakeholders
- 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.
- Compress the content under research models and hypotheses
- Make your findings more visible here
- Make your writing more readable to known and unknown readers
- 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.
- Use Fig not Figure
- It is scientifically necessary that you acknowledge the numerous (n=107) participants, who are the major stakeholders in your research.
- List at least 3 authors before et al
- Follow the Referencing Style consistently
- Use participants not respondents
Conflicts of Interest
- van de Wetering R, Versendaal J. Information technology ambidexterity, digital dynamic capability, and knowledge processes as enablers of patient agility: empirical study. JMIRx Med 2021;2(4):e32336 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
Edited by E Meinert; This is a non–peer-reviewed article. submitted 06.10.21; accepted 06.10.21; published 06.12.21Copyright
©Ibrahim Taiwo Adeleke. Originally published in JMIRx Med (https://med.jmirx.org), 06.12.2021.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIRx Med, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://med.jmirx.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.