In the Results section (Page 7), the author present a correlation matrix (Table 2) with the following values:
IoT Implementation — Organizational Behavior: r = 0.10
IoT Implementation — Decision-Making: r = 0.26
IoT Implementation — Real-Time Data Analytics: r = 0.10
However, in the Abstract and throughout the paper, the authors repeatedly claim: “The findings indicate that enhanced organizational behavior ( r = 0.1101 r=0.1101), decision-making ( r = 0.269 r=0.269), and real-time data analytics ( r = 0.1888 r=0.1888) are all strongly associated with the IoT. A correlation of 0.10 means the IoT implementation explains barely 1% of the variation in organizational behavior. In the real world, that’s a rounding error. It could be caused by random chance or other, unmeasured factors. To call this a “strong association” is, frankly, misleading. It makes you wonder if they’re trying to spin a negative or neutral finding into a positive one.
It Makes Their Main Point Untrustworthy: The whole paper is about how the IoT brings “real-time sustainability to organizational behavior.” But their own data shows the direct link between the IoT and organizational behavior is practically zero. So, their central claim is built on a foundation that isn’t really there. If the connection is this weak, you can’t credibly argue that the IoT is a game-changer for changing how organizations behave. This isn’t a subtle statistical nuance. Describing a 0.1 correlation as “strong” is a basic misstep. If they got this fundamental part of interpreting their results wrong, it makes you question the rigor of their entire analysis. What else did they misinterpret? Can we trust their fancy SEM model if they can’t correctly label a simple correlation?
So, in a nutshell, the error isn’t just a typo or a minor slip. It’s a fundamental misrepresentation of their findings that inflates the importance of their results and compromises the entire argument they’re trying to make. The study sets out to prove a strong link, the data shows a weak one, and they just decided to call it “strong” anyway. That’s a critical flaw.