Influences on Consumer Engagement with Sustainability and the Purchase Intention of Apparel Products
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is well written, it is clear and presents the ideas in a structured manner.
The introduction presents the arguments for the necessity of the study and the literature review is also presenting the theoretical background supporting the research.
I would recommend including some more references of similar studies or what has been researched in the field.
Please include more details explaining how the research questions and the survey questions were elaborated.
For an attractive reading I would suggest to include a more graphical representations of the study findings (diagrams, graphs, etc…). It is not very clear which construct has the more influence.
I think that an additional detailed explanation (with some examples) of sustainable consumption and sustainable engagement would be beneficial.
Please include some ideas regarding the practical implications (utility) of this study. Who can benefit of this research findings?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In the introduction, the necessity of this study and its differentiation from previous studies should be presented.
Methods should present the questionnaire and the reliability and validity of the questionnaire should be presented. In addition, the results of the correlation analysis should be presented.
In Results, it will be helpful for readers to understand if the hypothesis test results are presented in a table.
Implications should be presented as a more meaningful explanation by dividing them theoretically and practically based on the analysis results.
In this study, major previous studies from 2018 to 2021 should be reviewed, and the results should be presented in the reference.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for the interesting paper about the sustainability in the fashion industry. Here are comments to improve the paper.
- Please explain the TPB more precisely. TPB is well known theory in consumer behavior. Also, it has diverse versions in empirical research. For instance, one of the well-known empirical models has the behavior after intention and there are covariate connection between perceived behavioral control and behavior (please consult the link for the representative model for TPB: https://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/SB/BehavioralChangeTheories/BehavioralChangeTheories3.html). Therefore, the authors should explain these: (a) how the research questions were connected with the TPB model; (b) why the current empirical model made such as excluding the behavior and the covariance with PBC; and (c) how the other literature utilized the TPB by using partial usage of TPB like the current manuscript.
- Data collection was conducted through MTurk. However, MTurk is not really well-designed survey tool for random sampling (e.g., https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bdm.1753). Therefore, data collectors should be more cautious to collect the better sample through MTurk. I don’t meant that the current data is bad. As a reviewer, I’d like to see how the authors secured the valid samples through MTurk. For instance, some researchers set the data collection time separately such as 30% in the morning, 40% afternoon, and 30% in evening. Because most of MTurk participants were money hunters who answered the survey during daytime, those time setting in MTurk system will collect better answers and better samples. Therefore, as a reviewer, what I recommend is for the authors to explain how the data collection was conducted with detail plan to exclude the MTurk weakness. If the authors did not employ any of the action when they collect data, they should discuss the delimitation of the MTurk sample at the end of manuscript such as discussion and limitation.
- In addition to the above comment, data collection part should be improved such as explaining (a) when the collection was conducted and (b) where the survey was conducted (e.g., United State, etc).
- What are the measurements for each variable. How to measure them? There are not any explanation about how to measure them. For instance, the authors should explain (a) how many questions were asked for PBC; (b) how those items were coded; (c) how to construct the PBC (e.g., total sum, average of items, etc); (d) what are the minimum and maximum numbers of the PBC; and (e) what the higher number in PBC mean.
- Also, all measurements should report each construct’s Cronbach Alpha. The current report like “All survey items were found to have a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.7 or higher” is not appropriate to report the reliability for the measurements. Doe the sentence mean that all survey items were considered as one construct? If it does, the measurement has statistical problem. If not, the authors should report the each measurement’s reliability score.
- What are the dependent variable in this study? Based on the empirical model, there were two dependent variables (two intentions) that were affected by attitude, subjective norms, and PBC. Please clearly indicate the dependent variables and independent variables. By seeing the results section (i.e., the authors reported two R-squares with two F-statistics), I may understand that the authors utilized two regressions. Please clearly explain it.
- In addition to 6., if the authors used two dependent variables (i.e., two regressions), then it should have at least two regression equations. For instance, two equations for two dependents variables like [Intention 1 = a + b1*attitude + b2*subjective norm + b3*PBC + e] should be reported to indicate what the actual empirical analytic model was.
- The main analysis was multiple regression in this manuscript. It seems that OLS was utilized in this paper. Generally, coefficients were reported for indicating how each factor were associated with dependent variable. The current reports with t-statistics does not say anything about the association between independent variables and dependent variable. Please report coefficient and explain the meaning of coefficients (i.e., marginal effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable).
- For the better report for the result, please use table to report the OLS results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The abstract should be structured so that readers can easily understand the entire contents of the paper. The abstract of this paper is rather insufficient.
2. "This quantitative study used thirty-seven Likert-type scales adapted from previous literature [22, 23, 24] and..." and "Survey items were coded (1=Definitely Not, 5=Definitely Yes) and averaged to represent the..." It is necessary to revise which of the questionnaire item scales in this paper is correct.
3. This thesis is an empirical analysis thesis through a survey, and the results of exploratory factor analysis should be presented in order to analyze the validity of the questionnaire questions. Also, if regression analysis was performed to test the hypothesis, the R-squared value and F-value should also be presented. In addition, nine hypotheses were presented, and an explanation of why structural equation analysis was not performed is also necessary.
4. The conclusion also needs further explanation.
5. Overall, this paper has a lot of unrefined feel, and more reviews should be preceded.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for adopting my comments well on the manuscript. One thing that I am still concerning in your manuscript is the justification of using two OLS. Because the TPB requires the multiple connections among variables, Structural Equation Modeling or path analysis were preferred. However, in this manuscript, two separate OLS were utilized to answer the hypotheses. In this case, there were statistical issues such as (a) two separate models were not comparable and (b) the empirical model (Figure 1) was not fully supported by two separate models. I don't mean that the authors should change the statistical model. However, what I want to see is (a) how are two OLS really associated with the research hypotheses logically and (b) why do the authors choose OLS instead of other various statistical analytic tools.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Headlines with 5 tables should be given.
R-squared and F-values should be indicated in the regression tables.
Reference format should be checked.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for adopting the comments.
Author Response
Thank you for all of your thoughts and insights to make this a better manuscript. We truly appreciate your time.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Too much lack in the introduction section, in the result and discussion part, and conclusion. In the literature review its same too many lacks for build rational development and hypothesis development. This manuscript needs massive re-construction
Reviewer 2 Report
The content succinctly described and contextualized - can be improved with information related to this type of product from the studies more recent.
As about methodology I think is necessary to clarify, as in limitations authors tell us, the universe of the research versus results aspected or conclusions. You must clarify the results of the study and explain more clary why is the differences between other studies and present research.
Some limits of the research can be resolve and properly present in the article.
The bibliography can be improved with more titles from MDPI publications, especially from Sustainability - in this field of research.
Reviewer 3 Report
I congratulate the authors for the effort made.
The study is fascinating, different and current. I appreciate the opportunity to read and comment on the document. I congratulate the authors for the idea, and the work is done. The following suggestions could help improve the document.
0.- Title
a) Check English.
b) Perhaps the title could be more related to the objective of the study. For example, with the prediction of the purchase intention.
1.- Abstract
a) Excessively long sentences should be shortened (e.g. lines 8 to 12; lines 11 to 15).
b) The methodology used must be included.
c) Highlight the novelties of the study.
d) The summary must be written in the present, not in the past.
e) Sample information must be included.
2.- Introduction
a) The introduction is concise.
b) The Introduction should better justify, specify and demonstrate the need for the study.
c) What exactly is the variable studied? The reader must make efforts that correspond to the authors.
d) An additional effort should be made to add clarity, logical and sequential structure, from the general to the particular, linking the aspects discussed: 1.- What exactly is going to be studied; 2.- Why is the study necessary and what justifies it ?; What is the state of the matter ?; What objectives, methodology and sample is studied ?; What does the document contribute and who is particularly interested in the reader?
e) Provide more recent references.
3.- Literature review
a) There is no review of the literature and state of the field under study or the dependent variable.
b) The hypotheses are not sufficiently explained or justified. More contributions from other authors are needed to justify the hypotheses.
c) The model is not included.
4.- Methodology, Materials and Methods
a) The sampling carried out should be better justified and explained. Is the sample representative and random? How was access to the sample obtained?
b) The elaboration of the questionnaire must be explained. For example, how many items did the questionnaire finally include? How is the questionnaire structured? What experts participated in the design of the questionnaire?
c) The methodology used must be explained and justified.
d) This section should be reordered and significantly improved.
5.- Results
a) What do the results of the descriptive analysis indicate?
b) Order and clarity should be added in this section as well.
c) Essential: the authors must make an effort to follow the steps proposed in the current literature to explain the measurement model, the structural model, predictive validity.
d) Tables and graphs are handy to present the results, but they have not been used in the study.
6.- Discussion
a) This is the best section in the paper. However, order and clarity should be added in this section as well.
8.- Implications and conclusions
a) The conclusions could be reinforced and rearranged after reinforcing the previous sections.
b) Authors could include a section on theoretical implications and separate conclusions from theoretical and practical implications.
c) The limitations should follow the conclusions.
d) Future lines of research should be included.
7.- References
a) The bibliography and citations in the document should be adapted to the journal's requirements, both in form and content.
Thank you very much.
