The Role of Co-Creating Value and Its Outcomes in Higher Education Marketing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you very much for the opportunity to review this notable manuscript: “The Role of Co-Creating Value and its Outcomes in Higher Education Marketing”, which proposes to examine the role of student co-creation behavior, nationally and internationally, in contributing to the student satisfaction, perceived university image and positive word of mouth (WOM). The topic addressed in the paper is potentially interesting and presents novelties, both for academia and society, in particular for educational institutions. The results of this study corroborate what other studies have also proved, however, applied to a new context: Taiwanese universities, demonstrating that education was never an autonomous product; but a co-created interaction between students and HEIs, bringing crucial practical implications for higher education institutions (HEIs), pointing to strategic marketing as a tool for universities to achieve competitive advantage and sustainability. Today and in the future, students will be able to choose their university based on the value proposition that the university offers. The most relevant and original aspect of this study is in the fact to proposed an conceptual model to examine the contribution of student co-creation, national and international from Taiwanese universities, to student satisfaction, perceived university image and positive word of mouth from student (WOM), confirming the positive effects of value co-creation on student satisfaction, nationally and internationally, on the university's image and on positive WOM, through the model of structural equations. Thus, the study is not limited to national strategies, but also opens the way to evaluate and implement strategies for university internationalization.

Additionally, the work proposed for publication in this journal is well organized and structured, presents a relevant and current theme, theoretically justified with the main references of the debate on the subject, presents an appropriate and rigorously elaborated data analysis, translating into important contributions to science and higher education institutions, it is only suggested in the part dedicated to the methodology that the date of data collection is indicated, allowing the reader to understand whether these results were obtained before or during the pandemic Covid 19, since in line 265 it only mentions that they were obtained during two weeks, must include the specific date.

Thus, the work despite some limitations related to the sample collected, only from a single HEI, which do not allow the generalization of the result, hoping that the results of future work can be obtained from large and comprehensive samples as well as helping to understand the role of students' negative WOM.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your helpful suggestion.

We have added details on data collection, which was from December 16, 2020, to January 7, 2021, to Section 4.1.3 Participant and data collection (page 6). Besides, in this revised version, we also present, explain concepts clearly, and had it proofread. We hope that this revised version and our answer will meet with your approval.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have carried out good field and bibliographic research, but it would be appropriate to include in the introduction aspects that relate WOM in universities to sustainability in order to reach relevant conclusions in this respect. The methodology is clear and well defined, in addition to the support of graphs that facilitate understanding.

Author Response

We are grateful for this suggestion. 

We have added a sentence to discuss the relationship between university student WOM and sustainability in Section 1 Introduction (page 2): “Through student positive WOM, the university may gain a sustained competitive advantage [54]”. Besides, in this revised version, we also present, explain concepts clearly, and had it proofread. We hope that this revised version and our answer will meet with your approval. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a good paper, connecting the issues of student co-creation, with the critical indicators of higher education marketing success. The methodology is sound and the limitations have been adequately determined by the authors themselves. I would still like to see the paper somewhat improved, by discussing the issue of co-creation, as compared to the topic of stakeholder cooperation and inclusion, which is a common topic in higher education literature.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your suggestion to improve the quality of our paper.

We have discussed this issue in Section 5 Conclusion and limitation (page 11). “Previous study [6] indicated that the effective co-creation of value depends not only on the relationship between a company and its customers but also on cooperation with other stakeholders. However, this paper only focused on the co-creation of value within a university. Therefore, future studies could consider forms of co-creation that involve external stakeholders, such as connections with other universities and partnerships.” Besides, in this revised version, we also present, explain concepts clearly, and had it proofread. We hope that this revised version and our answer will meet with your approval

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf