Dear Jonas and Bjorn,

can you help me adress some of the provided feedback so that our article passes in the Open Sym 2019? See forwarded e-mail. Attached I send you our submitted article. What do you propose that I change so that it passes? Which are the most critical parts that need to be updated from my side? If I ignore the feedback, are we out?

My deadline is 6.6.19. Thanks for helping the project reach more publications.

Best, Katerina

---------- Forwarded message --------- Από: OpenSym 2019 opensym2019@easychair.org Date: Πέμ, 30 Μαΐ 2019 στις 12:23 μ.μ. Subject: OpenSym 2019 review response (submission [*NUMBER*]) To: Katerina Tsinari tsinari@abe.gr

Dear Katerina,

Thank you for your submission to OpenSym 2019. The OpenSym 2019 review response period will end June 6th (AoE). This is a hard deadline.

During this time, you will have access to the current state of your reviews and have the opportunity to submit a response of *up to 750 words*. Please keep in mind the following during this process:

* The response must focus on any factual errors in the reviews and any questions posed by the reviewers. It must not provide new research results or reformulate the presentation. Try to be as concise and to the point as possible.

* The review response period is an opportunity to react to the reviews, but not a requirement to do so. Thus, if you feel the reviews are accurate and the reviewers have not asked any questions, then you do not have to respond.

* The reviews are as submitted by the PC members, without any coordination between them. Thus, there may be inconsistencies. Furthermore, these are not the final versions of the reviews. The reviews can later be updated to take into account the discussions at the program committee meeting, and we may find it necessary to solicit other outside reviews after the review response period.

* The program committee will read your responses carefully and take this information into account during the discussions. On the other hand, the program committee will not directly respond to your responses, either before the program committee meeting or in the final versions of the reviews.

* Your response will be seen by all PC members who have access to the discussion of your paper, so please try to be polite and constructive.

The reviews on your paper are attached to this letter. To submit your response you should log on the EasyChair Web page for OpenSym 2019 and select your submission on the menu.

----------------------- REVIEW 1 --------------------- SUBMISSION: 5 TITLE: Free and Open Source Software for European SMEs in the frame of EU funded research AUTHORS: Katerina Tsinari

----------- Overall evaluation ----------- SCORE: 2 (accept) ----- TEXT: First of all, thank you for the opportunity to review this paper whose purpose is to identify opportunities to foster the use of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) by European Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). The authors state that this study is relevant because there is a lack of research on the topic and a new European initiative requires this information. The main contribution of the paper is the development of the conceptual and curricular structure of the training course to adopt FOSS by European SMEs. The narrative goes smooth and the context is well conveyed. Finally, the motivation of the research is explained with a real-life case.

The paper is focused on the development of an instrument rather than test a formal theory. Consequently, there is not a theoretical contribution to evaluate. Nevertheless, during the second paragraph of the Introduction, the study claims that there is a lack of information about the topic. This is hard to believe first because FOSS is not a new topic. Second, because the authors do not explain the process to research previous literature or similar cases. It may be argued that the lack of information responds to the new initiative from the European government, still, it is possible that other countries could have similar initiatives. Consequently, it is important the description of the literature review.

In terms of methodology, the biggest threat is the fact that around 120 representatives were asked in 6 different countries. If divided, that means that it was about 20 representatives per country which is a very small sample for any inference. Furthermore, the instrument was translated into four different languages. Nonetheless, the author does not report the execution of pilot test to evaluate the instruments. Neither whether the respondents answered the instrument in their first or second language. The author does not explain the process to validate the translation of the questionnaires. For example, The instrument was developed in language A, then a native speaker of language B translate it to language B. Next, a native speaker of language A translates the instrument B back to language A. Finally, both instruments in language A were compared to evaluate the similarities.

In general terms, the paper is good. Nevertheless, the above-mentioned points must either be explained throughout the document or discussed in a section "Limitations of the paper". A diagram of a) the literature review, b) the methodology, and c) the definition of the curriculum will enhance the value and narrative of the paper. Finally, I suggest the paper: Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A. & Chatterjee, S. (2007) A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. This paper provides a formal methodology for developing artefacts such as your instrument. This may enhance the description of the method conducted.

Hope this helps.

----------------------- REVIEW 2 --------------------- SUBMISSION: 5 TITLE: Free and Open Source Software for European SMEs in the frame of EU funded research AUTHORS: Katerina Tsinari

----------- Overall evaluation ----------- SCORE: 2 (accept) ----- TEXT: This paper (poster) presents an EU project called FOSS4SMEs that will develop a training toolkit for SMEs wishing to adopt FOSS. The toolkit comprises 5 units that will be offered as an Open Educational Resource. The outcomes of this research will fill an educational and training gap that has been identified, which is the lack of knowledge about FOSS that exists in European SMEs and this lack of knowledge they don’t know how FOSS can be used to improve their competitiveness.

I would suggest that the following 8 points are addressed in order to clarify and strengthen the contribution of this paper:

1. Define acronym VET when it is first used.

2. In the Introduction, I would say that the following statement is not broadly true: “Concerning the use of FOSS by European SMEs there are no existing studies, researches or surveys available, focused specifically on this matter, nor transnational studies on the motivations and barriers on the uptake of FOSS within businesses." Perhaps it is true that the educational/European focus is limited but not that barriers, motivations and adoption have not been studied - see e.g. Stefanou, C. J. (2014). Adoption of free/open source ERP software by SMEs. In Information Systems for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (pp. 157-166). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. And in the UK context: D Macredie, R., & Mijinyawa, K. (2011). A theory-grounded framework of Open Source Software adoption in SMEs. European Journal of Information Systems, 20(2), 237-250.

3. Are there different education requirements when considering different application areas (.e.g operating systems, ERP systems, productivity suites, etc.) or when considering the type of business/business model, or type of organisational structure? Does the project anticipate any? Clearly a SME interested in implementing server technology would not receive the same training as a SME that only requires OpenOffice.

4. How has existing work on FOSS adoption by SME informed the research? What about existing theories or frameworks of ICT adoption (e.g. Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), or the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)?

5. Point 2 page 3: “However, this concept seemed to be still somewhat misleading, as some of them wouldn’t be able to tell FOSS apart from proprietary software.” In what way can they not tell the difference? Is it that they don’t know whether the software is FOSS or that they don’t know the meaning behind the concept of FOSS?

6. Is the ECVET curriculum future work or does it exist already?

7. What is meant with “the non-formal training course”? Is this the ECVET curriculum or something else?

----------------------- REVIEW 3 --------------------- SUBMISSION: 5 TITLE: Free and Open Source Software for European SMEs in the frame of EU funded research AUTHORS: Katerina Tsinari

----------- Overall evaluation ----------- SCORE: 0 (borderline paper) ----- TEXT: This poster submission describes an EU funded project for developing online training materials for small and medium sized businesses to learn about using open source.

The project is noteworthy. Commercial open source is fast evolving. More and more companies are engaging in open source projects, which research has shown to change the nature of open source projects. Updated EU-oriented training materials would be helpful to supplement the work in the Linux Foundation and OpenChain project, which lack the European focus.

A strong point of the paper are the presentation of preliminary findings regarding the need and demand for such training.

A major issue with this submission is the lack of academic references. The claim that no research relating to the matter of open source adoption in companies exists is not true. The business case of open source has been discussed in literature for two decades now. I can recommend the works of Joseph Feller, Brian Fitzgerald, Linus Dahlander, and Matt Germonprez.

I suggest also providing a link to the project website. Googling it is easy enough, but the archived paper may outlive the website.

I would have liked to see references to the "six national reports" (p. 3).

My overall evaluation borderline because the paper is overall well written and adds to the conversation of open collaboration, but the paper misrepresents existing literature on the subject.

------------------------------------------------------

Best wishes, Lorraine and Gregorio OpenSym 2019 PC co-chairs