Core Elements Affecting Sharing: Evidence from the United States

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Summary:

This paper examined key elements essential for visiting sharing platforms, presenting a dynamic regression model. The author(s) very well explored the phenomenon of sharing and expanding the conceptual level of knowledge. They proposed the composite index and compared its references to other indexes such as the consumer price index, producer price index and business manufacturing sentiment index, suggesting the tool to forecast the number of visits to sharing platforms.

 

 

 

Comments:

 

- I think this paper is an excellent draft. The topic of this paper is interesting, and the results are valid. The method also seems to be relevant. However, there are some concerns and issues to be addressed.

 

- In Table 1, the cross-column of Assessment of Compliance with the Requirement of Sustainable Development and Layer II is blank. Is it just mistake or intentional? I strongly recommend to insert some relevant contents to the blank column in Table.

 

- Are some Appendix Tables 2-4 and Appendix figure really needed? Please consider to deleting some irrelevant Tables/Figures, if necessary.

 

- Section 2 explains materials and methods while Section 3 refers to theoretical background just like Literature Review. The location of the two sections seems not to be general in the style of academic paper. I would recommend to make Section 2 and Section 3 switch. Otherwise, Section 2 can be a part of Section 3 as a subsection of Section 3.

 

- In the Discussion Section, the author(s) need to more discuss some sustainability related academic and practical implications based on the major findings of this study.

 

- Conclusion Section should be re-written focusing on the core findings of this research. Also, future research directions must be provided along with the study limitations.

 

- The author(s) used regression model with 2017-2020 fact data. It is good. How many data units (cases) did the author(s) use in this study?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you very much for providing me with the opportunity to review your manuscript. I enjoyed the idea of analyzing an index and looking at the development of data over time. However, I have some questions regarding the hypotheses, contribution and implication of this research. I hope the authors may find the following remarks helpful when improving the manuscript.

1. Variety of grammatical errors, manuscript needs professional copy editing and writing needs to be improved.

2. Variety of unclear sentences that are not backed up by specific facts or details, such as “has a specific competitive advantage comparing to traditional businesses” or “Part of these factors is difficult to evaluate”. – why? How? Please elaborate. Be more specific and critical.

3. The research uses monthly United States data or the years 2017–2020 – What data? what index? How did you access this data? Is it publicly available? Please elaborate and include name of index in abstract.

4. The authors conclude that the literature lacks an investigation of the factors that intend to expand the sharing activity. – Numerous studies have investigated consumer’s likelihood of re-engaging in sharing or using a sharing option again. Please review gap for example from reference 4 and others.

5. The DV may need further explanation. The authors selected the number of visits to 36 sharing platforms (eBay, Airbnb, Uber, Car Next Door, Better Caring, Lime, UpWork, Fiverr, and others), but those sharing platforms are very different in itself. For example, ebay is not sharing but reselling, Airbnb is sharing a property of a peer, Uber is simply sharing a ride (not the car itself)… Be more distinct

6. The discussion and conclusion need to be improved and needs to be expanded. The sections shall refer back to the results, and put them into context in a specific way. Sentences such as “However, people have always been engaged in a wide range of economic activities that affect various sectors.” Leave the reader wondering about the contribution of this research. Please answer the “So what?” question and be clear about learnings and your contribution to the existing literature.

7. Implications are missing. How is this finding useful to policy makers or practitioners? What can they do differently?

8. Why are the limitations in bullet points? Please expand this section in an academic format and be more specific.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf