Packaging as an Offline Method to Share Information: Evidence from the Food and Beverage Industry in the Republic of Korea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title:  Packaging as an Off-line Method to Share Information: Evidence from the Food and Beverage Industry in the Republic of Korea

12th September 2019

Manuscript ID: sustainability-586961

 

The first remark concerns the abstract and the introduction - the same sentences cannot be included. The two elements are too similar. It has to be modified - I propose to change the content of the abstract to make it different from the introduction, which is much broader and that is a good approach.

Well-constructed research questions and goals of the work. Well chosen research methods.

Referring to research hypotheses: in what sense should the hypothesis be positive? In the sense of its verification? the very phrase "Helpful" also raises some doubts (what are they supposed to be helpful in?) - it seems that the hypotheses should be built in a different way with the use of other terms. Because the assumptions of the presented considerations are very good and useful for learning.

An interesting approach is presented by the Authors, indicating the consumer survey.

Very interesting research, useful for other researchers, interesting conclusions and interpretation of the research

 

the deliberations should include information concerning the strong scientific justification why we are talking about Korea

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. We have revised the manuscript based on your remarks and suggestions.

1. The first remark concerns the abstract and the introduction - the same sentences cannot be included. The two elements are too similar. It has to be modified - I propose to change the content of the abstract to make it different from the introduction, which is much broader and that is a good approach

(Response1) Thank you for your remarks. We have revised the abstract as you mentioned (see Abstract).

2. Referring to research hypotheses: in what sense should the hypothesis be positive? In the sense of its verification? the very phrase "Helpful" also raises some doubts (what are they supposed to be helpful in?) - it seems that the hypotheses should be built in a different way with the use of other terms. Because the assumptions of the presented considerations are very good and useful for learning.

(Response2) We agree that the term can be misleading. Thus, we modified the words used in the hypothesis. (see 2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development)

3. The deliberations should include information concerning the strong scientific justification why we are talking about Korea.

(Response3) The scope of research is Korea as the title shows. In the part of conclusion, additionally, we have described the limitations of this research in this point. Both the information priority and its relative effectiveness could depend on industry scope, country, and relationship levels among stakeholders. In future research, similar research can be performed in other countries. And, researchers will  compare various factors about information sharing to build the sustainability of logistics collaboration each country.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article concerns a topic known in the world. And his development is not revealing.
Unfortunately, the authors did not review the literature, so no research gap was found.
Although it must be assumed that the method used is correct, it adds nothing new.
Still, I think you can publish the article after the following corrections:
1. Introduction.
The introduction should introduce the reader to the topic and become familiar with the content and purpose. The purpose has been clarified, but a literature review should be excluded from a separate section.
2. Literature review section.
A literature review section should be added. At the moment, we do not know if there is a research gap that the authors are trying to fill.
3. The method of selecting a research sample should be explained (I do not fully understand what type of research was used - quantitative or qualitative).
4. The article is not about sustainable development. Sustainable development aspects - economic, environmental and social - or even one aspect should be included. Both at the beginning and the last part of the discussion.
5. I think the hypotheses are incorrect. They don't suggest. In their current form, they are theses, not hypotheses. Should they be verified by examination? Thesis is a theory.
6. Location conditions have not been described. It means. it is known that the model works in Korea, but are there implications for use in other conditions? How does this relate to sustainable development? should be justified. These are important issues when choosing a publisher.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. We have revised the manuscript based on your remarks and corrections.

1. Introduction.

The introduction should introduce the reader to the topic and become familiar with the content and purpose. The purpose has been clarified, but a literature review should be excluded from a separate section.

(Response1) We have added a new part “Literature Review and Hypothesis Development” as a separate section from introduction.

2. Literature review section.

A literature review section should be added. At the moment, we do not know if there is a research gap that the authors are trying to fill.

(Response2) We performed literature review in-depth in part(Literature Review and Hypothesis Development). Structural Equation Modelling performs an adequate literature review in building research model. We have changed the title of section 2 “hypotheses” into “Literature Review and Hypotheses Development”.

3. The method of selecting a research sample should be explained (I do not fully understand what type of research was used - quantitative or qualitative).

(Reponse3) The research sample is explained in part of "3.2. sampling and data collection" on the manuscript. We have excluded disqualified data to clarify the research model. The disqualified data mean missing value or undependable response.

4. The article is not about sustainable development. Sustainable development aspects - economic, environmental and social - or even one aspect should be included. Both at the beginning and the last part of the discussion.

(Response4) This article focuses logistics collaboration which is the keyword of the special issue. And, information sharing is very important factor to build logistics collaboration that reduces costs caused by transport cost, delivery frequency, and emission.

5. I think the hypotheses are incorrect. They don't suggest. In their current form, they are theses, not hypotheses. Should they be verified by examination? Thesis is a theory.

(Response5) Misleading terms have been used to formulate hypotheses. We corrected this. (Literature Review and Hypotheses Development)

6. Location conditions have not been described. It means. it is known that the model works in Korea, but are there implications for use in other conditions? How does this relate to sustainable development? should be justified. These are important issues when choosing a publisher.

(Response6) The scope of research is Korea as the title shows. In the part of conclusion, additionally, we have described the limitations of this research in this point. Both the information priority and its relative effectiveness depends on industry scope, country, and relationship levels among stakeholders. In future research, researchers will compare various factors about information sharing to build the sustainability of logistics collaboration each country.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have taken note of the comments and have improved the considerations

Author Response

Thank you for your helpful review.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors took into account most of the comments.
Further changes needed:
1. The introduction is still a literature review.
2. Literature review and hypotheses - a combination of review and literature review. Hypotheses here should be the result of research gaps resulting from literature analysis. Unfortunately, the proper review is in the introduction, which causes haos and deviates from the standard of editorial requirements of the magazine. You should move the literature review from the introduction to the right place.
3. the "conclusions" section should be called "discussion and conclusions".

Author Response

Thank you for your helpful comments.

We have revised the manuscript based on your remarks and corrections.

 

The introduction is still a literature review.

(Response 1) Thank you for your remarks. We have revised the introduction as you mentioned (see Introduction).

 

Literature review and hypotheses - a combination of review and literature review. Hypotheses here should be the result of research gaps resulting from literature analysis. Unfortunately, the proper review is in the introduction, which causes chaos and deviates from the standard of editorial requirements of the magazine. You should move the literature review from the introduction to the right place.

(Response 2) We have moved the paragraph about literature review in the introduction section to literature review part.

 

the "conclusions" section should be called "discussion and conclusions".

(Response 3) We have changed the title of section 5 "conclusions" to “discussion and conclusions". and the title of section 4 "results and discussion" to "results"

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made all the corrections.