Does Service Recovery Really Work? The Multilevel Effects of Online Service Recovery Based on Brand Perception

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper shows the key role of online shopping brands in moderating the relationship between service recovery and perceived justice. I applaud the paper’s involvement in brand equity and brand identity discussions.

This contribution contains, from my point of view, a relevant literature according to the critical topics of the manuscript.

This article, in methodological terms, is based on systematic surveys directly related to the aims of the article. The ‘Analysis and Results’ section of the paper shows a very detailed contribution of this research on the relationship between service recovery, brand equity, brand identity and customer-perceived justice.

According to this, the article offers a new and valuable data on the relationship between organizations and customers. Likewise, this contribution shows the influence of various service recovery approaches on customer-perceived justice.  

This is a very interesting contribution for two different audiences: scholars and practitioners. The sections entitled ‘theoretical implication’ and ‘managerial and practical implications’ offers important data, at a theoretical and applied level, to allow progress in the field of brand management.

The paper clearly express its case and uses a correct expression, grammar, sentence structure and any other aspects regarding language and readability.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

The paper shows the key role of online shopping brands in moderating the relationship between service recovery and perceived justice. I applaud the paper’s involvement in brand equity and brand identity discussions.

Reply:

      Thank you for the kind comments.

This contribution contains, from my point of view, a relevant literature according to the critical topics of the manuscript.

Reply:

      Thank you for your comments.

This article, in methodological terms, is based on systematic surveys directly related to the aims of the article. The ‘Analysis and Results’ section of the paper shows a very detailed contribution of this research on the relationship between service recovery, brand equity, brand identity and customer-perceived justice.

Reply:

      Thank you for the kind comments.

According to this, the article offers a new and valuable data on the relationship between organizations and customers. Likewise, this contribution shows the influence of various service recovery approaches on customer-perceived justice. 

Reply:

      Thank you for your comments.

 

This is a very interesting contribution for two different audiences: scholars and practitioners. The sections entitled ‘theoretical implication’ and ‘managerial and practical implications’ offers important data, at a theoretical and applied level, to allow progress in the field of brand management.

Reply:

      Thank you for the kind comments.

The paper clearly express its case and uses a correct expression, grammar, sentence structure and any other aspects regarding language and readability.

Reply:

      Thank you for the kind comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

The paper is interesting but has gaps that need to be improved and revised. In addition to the improvements I have pointed out below, there are other parts of the paper that require adjustments and the appropriate scientific rigor. I recommend that you respond to the request and improve your manuscript.

L58, the authors say that "The concept of brand equity has existed for years", the information is correct, but the way the authors wrote is outside scientific standards. The authors need to mention the date of origin of brand equity and substantiate their claim with appropriate sources.

The authors have yet to say what concept of the brand they are adopting in their research. The concept of the brand is controversial and cannot be taken by a universal consensus. If it is done this way it is because the concept of the brand is not understood. I suggest the authors insert the brand concept they use before talking about brand equity.

L65, the statement that "This finding shows brands are still the element used to segment and emphasize the products and services of businesses in online shopping" refers to the quotation from Laudon, Traver, and Elizondo (2007), so it is an old quotation and is no longer a find, but something already confirmed in 2020.  I suggest reformulating the sentence.

L67, the authors mention several authors to conceptualize brand equity, but do not cite Aaker who is one of the base authors for this theme. I suggest inserting Aaker.

L 74-76, the authors state that "[...] no scholars have explored how brand equity moderates the effects of online service recovery on customer-perceived justice. Therefore, this study adopted the perspective of brand equity to analyze the effects of service recovery on customer-perceived justice". However, their justification for undertaking the study is from authors of the 2000s and 2010s (Aaker, 2012; Ambler et al., 2002; De Chernatony, Drury, and Segal-Horn, 2003; Yoo and Donthu, 2001) or investigated brand management (Berry, 2000; Kim and Kim, 2005; Prasad and Dev, 2000).  To make the claim that there are no studies like the one being proposed, a systematic review of the literature, including current studies, is needed. As it stands, the study is vulnerable to scientific rigor.

L79, "Individual perception of online brands is an unelectable influencing factor when firms make 79 service recovery", who is the author of this statement? Or is it a value judgment of the authors of the work?

The purpose of the paper is unclear. In L78 it is stated that the objective is "[...] analyze the effects of service recovery on customer-perceived justice". In L93 the objective is "[...] examine how brand identity moderates the relationship between service recovery and perceived justice". L98 "[...] "measure the relationship between organizations and customers." Many objectives arranged in different parts of the research and this causes confusion for the reader to understand the proposed study. L369 new objective "This study investigated how brand equity and brand identity moderating online service recovery affect customer-perceived justice". L544 "This study explored the influence of various service recovery approaches on customer-perceived justice", another objective.

L95 says "Previous research on the influence of brand equity on the relationship between service recovery and perceived justice has overlooked differences between individuals and a brand at the overall level". Which previous studies do the authors mention? There are no citations in this sentence.

L97 "Considering this, we employed hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to develop the research framework of this study, the purpose being to precisely measure the relationship between organizations and customers". The authors say they use the HLM model, but do not provide the sources on which the HLM model is based.

L288 - authors are missing from the statement "Brand identity was defined as how a brand can effectively and powerfully convey its message on the market".

As mentioned, this study used HLM analysis, a total of 32 online brands were selected, and the average group size (online brand) was 11 people". It does not clearly state how the 32 brands were selected. Was it a random choice? Was it a choice for convenience? What were the criteria for choosing these analyzed brands?

L456 "This study employed three software packages: SPSS 21, Amos 21, and HLM7 (student version) to conduct the statistical analysis", This information is part of the research methodology, as well as the use of the Likert scale, statistical analysis and the hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to develop the research framework. Everyone should be on the topic of research methods. This information should not be scattered throughout the text as it is at present. This hinders the understanding of how the research was conducted by the authors of the work.

 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

Dear Authors

The paper is interesting but has gaps that need to be improved and revised. In addition to the improvements I have pointed out below, there are other parts of the paper that require adjustments and the appropriate scientific rigor. I recommend that you respond to the request and improve your manuscript.

 

L58, the authors say that "The concept of brand equity has existed for years", the information is correct, but the way the authors wrote is outside scientific standards. The authors need to mention the date of origin of brand equity and substantiate their claim with appropriate sources.

Reply:

  Thank you for your comments. We have rewritten the paragraph (Please see Line 60~62). As referred to in the following paragraph:

The term “brand equity” was first used widely by US advertising practitioners in the early 1980s (Barwise, 1993). Brand equity is a vital concept in marketing, management and branding studies (Baalbaki & Guzmán, 2016).

Reference:

Barwise, P. (1993) Brand Equity: Snark or Boojum? International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10, 93-104.

Baalbaki, S., & Guzmán, F. (2016). A consumer-perceived consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Brand Management, 23(3), 229–251.

The authors have yet to say what concept of the brand they are adopting in their research. The concept of the brand is controversial and cannot be taken by a universal consensus. If it is done this way it is because the concept of the brand is not understood. I suggest the authors insert the brand concept they use before talking about brand equity.

Reply:

Thank you for your comments. We have added the brand concept (Please see Line 58~60). As referred to in the following paragraph:

A brand can be defined as a name, term, sign, symbol, design, or combination of them which is intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors (Kotler, 1991).

Reference:

• Kotler, P. (1991), Marketing Management, 7th ed., Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

L65, the statement that "This finding shows brands are still the element used to segment and emphasize the products and services of businesses in online shopping" refers to the quotation from Laudon, Traver, and Elizondo (2007), so it is an old quotation and is no longer a find, but something already confirmed in 2020.  I suggest reformulating the sentence.

Reply:

Thank you for your comments. We have reformulated the sentence (Please see Line 69). As referred to in the following sentence:

They confirmed that brands are still the element used to segment and emphasize the products and services of businesses in online shopping.

L67, the authors mention several authors to conceptualize brand equity, but do not cite Aaker who is one of the base authors for this theme. I suggest inserting Aaker.

Reply:

Thank you for your comments. We have added the citation (Please see Line72). As referred to in the following paragraph:

Brand equity derives from the positive associations consumers have of a brand based on previous experience and current memory (Aker,1991, Keller, Parameswaran, and Jacob, 2011).

Reference:

• Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, The Free Press, New York.

L 74-76, the authors state that "[...] no scholars have explored how brand equity moderates the effects of online service recovery on customer-perceived justice. Therefore, this study adopted the perspective of brand equity to analyze the effects of service recovery on customer-perceived justice". However, their justification for undertaking the study is from authors of the 2000s and 2010s (Aaker, 2012; Ambler et al., 2002; De Chernatony, Drury, and Segal-Horn, 2003; Yoo and Donthu, 2001) or investigated brand management (Berry, 2000; Kim and Kim, 2005; Prasad and Dev, 2000).  To make the claim that there are no studies like the one being proposed, a systematic review of the literature, including current studies, is needed. As it stands, the study is vulnerable to scientific rigor.

Reply:

Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised this paragraph (Please see Line 80). As referred to in the following paragraph:

However, there are few scholars have explored how brand equity moderates the effects of online service recovery on customer-perceived justice.

L79, "Individual perception of online brands is an unelectable influencing factor when firms make service recovery", who is the author of this statement? Or is it a value judgment of the authors of the work?

Reply:

Thank you for your comments. L79, "Individual perception of online brands is an unelectable influencing factor when firms make service recovery" is a value judgment of the authors of the work.

The purpose of the paper is unclear. In L78 it is stated that the objective is "[...] analyze the effects of service recovery on customer-perceived justice". In L93 the objective is "[...] examine how brand identity moderates the relationship between service recovery and perceived justice". L98 "[...] "measure the relationship between organizations and customers." Many objectives arranged in different parts of the research and this causes confusion for the reader to understand the proposed study. L369 new objective "This study investigated how brand equity and brand identity moderating online service recovery affect customer-perceived justice". L544 "This study explored the influence of various service recovery approaches on customer-perceived justice", another objective.

Reply:

Thank you for your comments. We have re-organized the purpose of this study (Please see Line105~125). As referred to in the following paragraph:

This study presents the following key contributions. a) We used the perceived justice theory to measure customer perception of service recovery and subsequent service recovery satisfaction. Although numerous scholars have employed this framework in previous studies (Smith, Bolton, and Wagner, 1999; Sun and He, 2014; Wang, Wu, Lin, and Wang, 2011), few studies have adopted the perspective of individual brand perception to measure the influence of service recovery on customers. Therefore, this study incorporated brand identity, a factor at the individual level, to examine how online brand identity moderates the relationship between service recovery and perceived justice. b) Although scholars have studied whether business brand equity affects the relationship between service recovery and service recovery satisfaction (Huang, 2011), few studies have explored whether brand equity affects the relationship between service recovery and perceived justice. This study incorporated brand equity to explore the moderating effect of this factor and used brand equity as a variable at the organizational level to investigate whether brand equity has a cross-level moderating effect and whether the individual level moderates the relationship between service recovery and perceived justice. c) Finally, we adopted an HLM as the method of this study, performing precise evaluations of variables at differing levels. Brand perception was divided into two levels: brand equity at the organizational level and brand identity at the individual level. Previous studies focused on the relationships among variables at a single level. By contrast, we introduced a moderating mechanism to examine cross-level relationships: (1) a moderating model at the individual level: brand identity affects the relationship between service recovery and customer-perceived justice; and (2) a moderating model at the organizational level: brand equity affects the relationship between service recovery and customer-perceived justice.

Reference:

• Smith, A. K., Bolton, R. N., & Wagner, J. (1999). A model of customer satisfaction with service encounters involving failure and recovery. Journal of marketing research, 356-372.
• Sun, Hongqing & He, Dongjin, (2014) “Refunds” or “Discounts”? Exploring the Compensation Framing Effect on Consumer’s Perceived Fairness of Online Service Recovery. WHICEB 2014 Proceedings. 90.
• Wang, Y. S., Wu, S. C., Lin, H. H., & Wang, Y. Y. (2011). The relationship of service failure severity, service recovery justice and perceived switching costs with customer loyalty in the context of e-tailing. International journal of information management, 31(4), 350-359.

L95 says "Previous research on the influence of brand equity on the relationship between service recovery and perceived justice has overlooked differences between individuals and a brand at the overall level". Which previous studies do the authors mention? There are no citations in this sentence.

Reply:

Thank you for your comments. We have added the citations (Please see Line101~102). As referred to in the following paragraph:

Previous research on the influence of brand equity on the relationship between service recovery and perceived justice has overlooked differences between individuals and a brand at the overall level (Smith, Bolton, and Wagner, 1999; Sun and He, 2014; Wang, Wu, Lin, and Wang, 2011).

Reference:

• Smith, A. K., Bolton, R. N., & Wagner, J. (1999). A model of customer satisfaction with service encounters involving failure and recovery. Journal of marketing research, 356-372.
• Sun, Hongqing & He, Dongjin, (2014) “Refunds” or “Discounts”? Exploring the Compensation Framing Effect on Consumer’s Perceived Fairness of Online Service Recovery. WHICEB 2014 Proceedings. 90.
• Wang, Y. S., Wu, S. C., Lin, H. H., & Wang, Y. Y. (2011). The relationship of service failure severity, service recovery justice and perceived switching costs with customer loyalty in the context of e-tailing. International journal of information management, 31(4), 350-359.

L97 "Considering this, we employed hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to develop the research framework of this study, the purpose being to precisely measure the relationship between organizations and customers". The authors say they use the HLM model, but do not provide the sources on which the HLM model is based.

Reply:

Thank you for your comments. We have added the citation (Please see Line103). As referred to in the following paragraph:

Considering this, we employed hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) (Raudenbush and Bryk, 2002) to develop the research framework of this study, the purpose being to precisely measure the relationship between organizations and customers.

Reference:

• Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.

L288 - authors are missing from the statement "Brand identity was defined as how a brand can effectively and powerfully convey its message on the market".

Reply:

Thank you for your comments. We have reorganized this paragraph (Please see Line308). As referred to in the following paragraph:

 

Brand identity was defined as how a brand can effectively and powerfully convey its message on the market; it implies consumers perceive a brand as unique and connect the uniqueness with their own image and status, thereby developing identification with the brand (Balmer, van Riel, van Riel, and Balmer, 1997; Lam et al., 2010; Stuart, 2002).

As mentioned, this study used HLM analysis, a total of 32 online brands were selected, and the average group size (online brand) was 11 people". It does not clearly state how the 32 brands were selected. Was it a random choice? Was it a choice for convenience? What were the criteria for choosing these analyzed brands?

Reply:

Thank you for your comments. We have rewritten the section 3.2 Data collection and sampling (Please see Line394~L402).

In this study, a survey was conducted upon convenience sampling. Questionnaires were distributed online and at physical locations. A total of 478 questionnaires were distributed, and 353 samples were retrieved, including 193 online questionnaires and 160 written questionnaires, for a valid return rate of 74%. These selected online brands from among the Top 100 most popular online brands of 2018 in Taiwan for the survey. Each online brand customer data was grouped into one team, with a total of 32 teams. Each team consisted of an average of 11 people (ranging from 9 to 17), a total of 353 samples. Among the 353 respondents, most of them were women (227, or 65.0%), 21-30 years old (54.4%), the majority had an undergraduate degree (58.4%), most common were students (56.1%), had an average monthly income of NTD 10,000 or less (45.3%), and were unmarried (43.6%).

L456 "This study employed three software packages: SPSS 21, Amos 21, and HLM7 (student version) to conduct the statistical analysis", This information is part of the research methodology, as well as the use of the Likert scale, statistical analysis and the hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to develop the research framework. Everyone should be on the topic of research methods. This information should not be scattered throughout the text as it is at present. This hinders the understanding of how the research was conducted by the authors of the work.

Reply:

   Thank you for this reminder. We have deleted the paragraph: "This study employed three software packages: SPSS 21, Amos 21, and HLM7 (student version) to conduct the statistical analysis".

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I attach a document with my comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

 

I must congratulate the author of this paper, the subject is relevant, the bibliography aligned with the objectives and the argument is strong.

I will make some comments that can be helpful to improve this paper:

There is some confusion about methodological concepts that harm the paper, I mean: construct being measured, dimensions, items, and scale of measurement. Please, this needs to be corrected. You should adopt a coherent and harmonized scientific language throughout the paper.

For me, considering the research framework model, your paper has 4 constructs: service recovery, perceived justice, brand equity and brand identity.

Service Recovery:

Service recovery in this paper has 4 dimensions: apology, speed of response, courtesy, and compensation. Which on the line 148 the author calls categories, this should be changed. A harmonization of these concepts is necessary throughout the paper. It is also unclear the theoretical origin of these dimensions

Reply:

Thank you very much for the reminder. We have revised the categories to dimensions. Please see L139, L144, L154 and L167.

2. Perceived justice construct:

More confusion is made for the perceived justice construct:

Line: 179 - “Numerous scholars have combined the three 179 dimensions of justice in their studies (Sun and He, 2014; Varela, Svensson, Brambilla, and Oliveros, 2015). Hence, we combined the three dimensions to form a single dimension, namely, perceived justice. Based on detailed explanations of perceived justice as a concept, we developed the following four hypotheses”

I agree that perceived justice is a concept but it is also a construct. I understood in your figure 1 that this is a construct with 3 dimensions: distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice. Only in 396, I managed to understand that this dimensions have their origin in the del Río-Lanza et al. (2009) model. However, you state that: “The scale for perceived justice included 17 items, which were modified from del Río-Lanza et al. (2009).”

Question: Is that the scale? Is it the items of each dimension? What exactly is the theoretical origin of the dimensions of the perceived justice construct?

On line 384 you say that you used the Likert 5-point scale to measure.

Question: Measure what exactly? It’s necessary be clear.

Reply:

Thank you for your comment. We have added perceived justice construct’s measurement and scale (Please see Appendix I. Measurements of constructs). As referred to in the following paragraph:

Line 415~

The scale for perceived justice included 17 items, which were modified from del Río-Lanza et al. (2009) (see Appendix I). It is consisted of three dimensions: distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice. Sample items by dimension included (a) Distributive justice: “Considering the trouble caused and the time lost, the compensation I received from this shopping website was acceptable” (5-items); (b) Procedural justice : “I think my problem was resolved in the right way” (5-items); and (c) interactional justice: “The employees in this shopping website showed interest in my problem” (7-items).

3. Brand Equity construct:

Concerning Brand Equity construct, you referred Aaker (2009;2012), in reference department is impossible to know what kind of document you are talking about (if they are books they are not well referenced).

For me is clear that Aaker (1996) has proposed a five-dimension and ten-element brand equity model, which measures brand equity by brand loyalty, perceived quality, brand association, brand popularity, and market response.

It seems to me that you should clarify this point. Tell exactly how many dimensions you used from the Aaker model and which items and scales you applied in this paper.

Moreover, it seems you should also see Keller's (2001) model.

Reply:

Thank you for your comment. We have revised and added brand equity construct’s measurement and scale. (Please see Appendix I. Measurements of constructs). As referred to in the following paragraph:

 

Line 430~

The scale for brand equity included 13 items, which were modified from Pappu et al. (2005) and Netemeyer et al. (2004) (see Appendix I). The scale is consisted of three dimensions: perceived quality, brand association, and brand image. Sample items by dimension included (a) Perceived quality: “X offers good quality services” (4-items); (b) Brand association: “I trust the company that owns the brand X” (5-items); and (c) Brand image: “I think X has a strong image” (4-items). The participants’ responses to the items of each dimension were averaged to form an overall brand equity score based on existing research perspectives.

4. Brand Identity construct:

I couldn't understand what dimensions used in this construct.

Reply:

Thank you very much for the reminder. We have added brand identity construct’s measurement and scale (Please see Appendix I. Measurements of constructs). As referred to in the following paragraph:

Line 443~

The scale for brand identity included 4 items, which were modified from Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) (see Appendix I). The respondents’ were asked to indicate the extent of their feelings about their brand identity. Sample items included: “X has a distinctive identity” and “X stands out from its competitors”. These items were averaged into a composite score with higher scores indicating greater brand identity.

 

Finally:

I suggest that in the introduction section, you rewrite the purpose of your research considering the constructs you have studied.

In methodology section, you should tell exactly where you applied the questionnaires because it is important for replication of the study.

I also suggest, in figure 1, to introduce a department with the theoretical origin of the dimensions of each construct (all the 4 constructs).

• I suggest that in the introduction section, you rewrite the purpose of your research considering the constructs you have studied.

Reply:

Thank you for your helpful comments. We have rewritten and edited the research purpose (Please see Line105~125). As referred to in the following paragraph:

This study presents the following key contributions. a) We used the perceived justice theory to measure customer perception of service recovery and subsequent service recovery satisfaction. Although numerous scholars have employed this framework in previous studies (Smith, Bolton, and Wagner, 1999; Sun and He, 2014; Wang, Wu, Lin, and Wang, 2011), few studies have adopted the perspective of individual brand perception to measure the influence of service recovery on customers. Therefore, this study incorporated brand identity, a factor at the individual level, to examine how online brand identity moderates the relationship between service recovery and perceived justice. b) Although scholars have studied whether business brand equity affects the relationship between service recovery and service recovery satisfaction (Huang, 2011), few studies have explored whether brand equity affects the relationship between service recovery and perceived justice. This study incorporated brand equity to explore the moderating effect of this factor and used brand equity as a variable at the organizational level to investigate whether brand equity has a cross-level moderating effect and whether the individual level moderates the relationship between service recovery and perceived justice. c) Finally, we adopted an HLM as the method of this study, performing precise evaluations of variables at differing levels. Brand perception was divided into two levels: brand equity at the organizational level and brand identity at the individual level. Previous studies focused on the relationships among variables at a single level. By contrast, we introduced a moderating mechanism to examine cross-level relationships: (1) a moderating model at the individual level: brand identity affects the relationship between service recovery and customer-perceived justice; and (2) a moderating model at the organizational level: brand equity affects the relationship between service recovery and customer-perceived justice.

Reference:

• Smith, A. K., Bolton, R. N., & Wagner, J. (1999). A model of customer satisfaction with service encounters involving failure and recovery. Journal of marketing research, 356-372.
• Sun, Hongqing & He, Dongjin, (2014) “Refunds” or “Discounts”? Exploring the Compensation Framing Effect on Consumer’s Perceived Fairness of Online Service Recovery. WHICEB 2014 Proceedings. 90.
• Wang, Y. S., Wu, S. C., Lin, H. H., & Wang, Y. Y. (2011). The relationship of service failure severity, service recovery justice and perceived switching costs with customer loyalty in the context of e-tailing. International journal of information management, 31(4), 350-359.

 

• In methodology section, you should tell exactly where you applied the questionnaires because it is important for replication of the study. I also suggest, in figure 1, to introduce a department with the theoretical origin of the dimensions of each construct (all the 4 constructs).

 

Reply:

Thank you for your comment. We have added the source of questionnaires. Please see Appendix I. We also have revised figure1's description ( Please see L386~L387). As referred to in the following paragraph:

This study is based on service recovery (apology, compensation, speed of response, and courtesy) and perceived justice theories. Figure1 shows the research model. All the antecedents were examined through customer-perceived justice before influencing service recovery satisfaction. This study investigated how brand equity and brand identity moderating online services recovery affect customer-perceived justice.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors 'commitment to responding to all reviewers' comments was remarkable. Congratulations! I have reviewed all the changes that the authors made to the study and are appropriate. Only the L105-L125 that refers to the lens is not yet suitable. The authors mention the study's contributions in this paragraph. Contributions are not the same as the research objective. The objective is a specific action that underlies the research and, therefore, it needs to be clear what the study wants to answer. It seems to me that the objective is what is in the summary, but absent from the introduction and conclusion "This study explores how the customer's perception of online shopping brands plays a fundamental role 10 in moderating the relationship between service recovery and the perceived justice. " I recommend that the authors insert this sentence that refers to the purpose of their study in the introduction and conclusion, and with that, the manuscript is approved for publication in the Journal. I congratulate the authors once again for their commitment and dedication to the study.