Empirical Identification of Latent Classes in the Assessment of Information Asymmetry and Manipulation in Online Advertising
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript ID: Sustainability-947435
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Empirical identification of latent classes in the assessment of information asymmetry and manipulation in on-line advertising
Comments:
This paper conducts research on the information asymmetry and manipulation in online advertising by adopting a quantitative approach. However, even if the present paper has several merits, I would like to comment on the following academic weaknesses that should be addressed before any consideration for publication.
More specifically,
A major revision is requested before any attempt for future publication will most likely require to take into account the following comments.
- The part of introduction does not illustrate clearly the initial innovation of the specific study. Authors should clearly highlight the innovative target of their study. Please clearly list research gaps and contributions of this paper in introduction. This will focus readers on the research significance of this paper. Moreover, introduction part is a 7-pages section that is really big for an academic paper. Authors should create a new subsection entitled previous literature.
- Regarding the empirical part, authors should make more clarifications. More specifically, authors should explain the steps of the methodological part. It is not presented well.
- Empirical results needs several changes. Results are not presented well. For instance, tables were created as figures from the used programs. Also, some tables are huge and confusing (for example see table 4).
- In the conclusion part, some changes are necessary to be included in order to make this part more relevant for policy-makers and an international audience. Please clearly provide your policy implications.
- The English is readable, but only with difficulty. I recommend that the authors work with a native-speaking editor to clarify the phrasing and word choices. This will make the manuscript much easier to absorb by people around the world who read English. I encourage the authors to make needed changes.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1:The part of introduction does not illustrate clearly the initial innovation of the specific study. Authors should clearly highlight the innovative target of their study. Please clearly list research gaps and contributions of this paper in introduction. This will focus readers on the research significance of this paper. Moreover, introduction part is a 7-pages section that is really big for an academic paper. Authors should create a new subsection entitled previous literature.
Response 1: In point 1 (Introduction), we distinguished three parts, and, as suggested by the Reviewer, we made a big shortcut. In the beginning, we presented the objectives of the article in detail and diagnosed the research gap in theoretical and empirical terms (page 1 and 2). We wrote detailed information about our research innovation in this area and how we solved the research gap. This research contributes to understanding and explaining a significant and open research problem, also important in social life. In Parts 2 and 3, we presented the theoretical framework of the problem and an overview of research in each of the three elements of the academic context and research gap: the persuasive function of online advertising, information asymmetry, and consumer manipulation. In this section, we have provided several new and essential articles that contain the results of research on similar problems - manipulation in advertising, advertising aimed at children, susceptibility to advertising, the influence of language, mood - communication climate, the importance of personality differences for the impact of advertising on consumer market behavior, and which may provide some reference to our theoretical framework and research model (page 2-5).
Point 2: Regarding the empirical part, authors should make more clarifications. More specifically, authors should explain the steps of the methodological part. It is not presented well.
Response 2: We want to thank the Reviewer for the indicated shortcomings of the empirical part. To facilitate understanding of the applied method, we have also added the first step of research to verify various models of hidden classes assuming 1, 2, 3, and 4 classes. Table 3 (page 7) presents their parameters, and then - following the guidelines of the LCA authors, the model assumes three hidden classes were selected, which was also justified in the text. Next, we discussed the analysis of significant variables in more detail and differentiated them according to hidden classes. To make the whole research procedure clearer, we have presented its course in Figure 1 (page 6).
Point 3: Empirical results needs several changes. Results are not presented well. For instance, tables were created as figures from the used programs. Also, some tables are huge and confusing (for example see table 4).
Response 3: In response to the comments, we would like to inform the Reviewer that we have modified the tables indicated: we have included the data concerning the model in the content of the article and the posthoc analysis results. We have replaced the extensive table with bar charts grouped according to the analyzed categories (pages 9-12). In our opinion, such data visualization is more understandable and transparent for readers.
Point 4: In the conclusion part, some changes are necessary to be included in order to make this part more relevant for policy-makers and an international audience. Please clearly provide your policy implications.
Response 4 We have significantly changed and supplemented this part of the article (pages 13-14). We presented a synthesis of research results, a reference to research goals, and the diagnosed gap in theoretical and empirical terms. When researching the area of ​​marketing and advertising, we emphasize the interdisciplinary nature of the problem. We indicate the limitations of the research related to the size and nature of the sample selection. We formulate future research directions on the impact of advertising on consumer behavior, emphasizing the extension of research on the international environment and the need to create interdisciplinary teams. We also show the social importance of research results - for the sphere of legal regulation, the creation of codes of ethics, and self-regulatory standards in the advertising industry and enterprises, modification of their advertising strategies.
Point 5: The English is readable, but only with difficulty. I recommend that the authors work with a native-speaking editor to clarify the phrasing and word choices. This will make the manuscript much easier to absorb by people around the world who read English. I encourage the authors to make needed changes.
Response 5: We want to thank the Reviewer for this comment, and we fully agree with it. As suggested, we used linguistic correction, taking into account both grammatical, stylistic, and phraseological corrections. We hope that the revised version of the article has become more readable and understandable for readers.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper analyzes a very interesting topic that characterizes the future of our society.
The research needs a revision of the English form.
The paper does not consider many bibliographical references in the literature that analyze the topic.
The methodology is basic and needs a greater framing. The results are represented in an extensive and unusual way in relation to the type of data analyzed. (distribution and significance of the single group) .
The conclusions are not very interpretative in relation to the promises of the topic
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: The paper analyzes a very interesting topic that characterizes the future of our society.
Response 1. We want to thank the Reviewer for underlining this critical issue in his review. It is indeed a broader and significant open scientific problem. It is also essential for society, including sustainability. In the UN Agenda, SDG 2030, Goal 12 expresses the desire to ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns. We associate it - in terms of the article's problem with the pursuit of information sustainability in advertising - to the implementation of Sustainable Advertising as an essential element of Sustainable Marketing and a contribution to the development of the idea and the Sustainability movement.
Point 2: The research needs a revision of the English form.
Response 2: We want to thank the Reviewer for this comment, and we fully agree with it. As suggested, we used linguistic correction, taking into account both grammatical, stylistic, and phraseological corrections. We hope that the revised version of the article has become more readable and understandable for readers.
Point 3: The paper does not consider many bibliographical references in the literature that analyze the topic.
Response 3: In line with this reviewer's remark, we would like to confirm that we have included several new and different publications on the subject in the new version (pages 14-17). The items included are selected, current literature items relating to persuasion and manipulation in advertising, presenting various research approaches other science disciplines. Each field contributes to getting to know reality - the way of seeing the world, language, research methods, the method of diagnosis and definition of the research gap, and its literature. For these reasons, interdisciplinary research has its attractiveness, but it also has several challenges and obligations. At the same time, it is a broader and fundamental problem of integrating science and integrating methodological approaches, including taking into account literature from various disciplines of science - while maintaining the principles of methodological correctness of each of them.
Point 4: The methodology is basic and needs a greater framing. The results are represented extensively and unusually in relation to the type of data analyzed. (distribution and significance of the single group) .
Response 4: We appreciate this comment, and we fully agree with it. In the methodological part, we explained the adopted research procedure (Fig.1) , pointing to the various stages of analyzing the obtained data. We also broadened the discussion of the results, characterizing the selected groups of respondents and making a detailed discussion of the variables that differentiate them, which in the course of the study showed statistical significance (p. 9-12). We have also changed the way of visualizing research results (from a table to bar charts) - in our opinion; it became more readable and more comfortable to analyze.
Point 5: The conclusions are not very interpretative in relation to the promises of the topic
Response 5: In the Discussion section, we presented the conclusions and synthesis of the research results, the reference to the research objectives, and the diagnosed gap in theoretical and empirical terms (pages 13-14). When researching the area of ​​marketing and advertising, we emphasize the interdisciplinary nature of the problem. We indicate the limitations of the research related to the size and nature of the sample selection. We formulate future research directions on the impact of advertising on consumer behavior, emphasizing the extension of research on the international environment and creating interdisciplinary teams. We also show the social importance of research results - for the sphere of legal regulation, the creation of codes of ethics, and self-regulatory standards in the advertising industry and enterprises, modification of their advertising strategies.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
After reading your paper again, I noticed that you made a great effort.
The new version of your article is a new paper. I would propose to address only some minor issues that your paper faces such as:
a. Literature can be a different and autonomous section and so the subsection 1.1. is not necessary.
b. Section 2 title is Materials and Methods but you present methods first.
c. Findings subsection could be Empirical findings
Author Response
Point 1: After reading your paper again, I noticed that you made a great effort.
Response 1:
Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions on our text in the previous review. We are pleased that we addressed them adequately.
Point 2: Literature can be a different and autonomous section and so subsection 1.1. is not necessary.
Response 2:
We removed point 1.1, which now is the introduction, and changed the numbering - chapter 1.1. it now concerns a literature review.
Point 3:Section 2 title is Materials and Methods but you present methods first.
Response 3:
Thank you for this suggestion. We changed the order, and the subsection is now called "Methods and Materials."
Point 4: Findings subsection could be Empirical findings
Response 4:
We agree with this remark. We added the word "Empirical."
Reviewer 2 Report
The research has been correctly reviewed and is suitable for publication
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions on our text in the previous review. We are pleased that we addressed them adequately.
