The Impact of Social Media Information Sharing on the Green Purchase Intention among Generation Z
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled "The Impact of Social Media Information Sharing on the Green Purchase Intention among Generation Z Consumers Based on the Two-Factor Intermediary Analysis Model" is an intriguing study in which the authors attempt to investigate the effect of social media information sharing (SMIS) on green purchasing intentions of Generation Z. Using online data, the authors have used SOR to analyze and interpret the results. The results are potentially valuable and contribute to the existing literature. However, there are few things that authors need to do while revising the paper:
1. There are many abbreviations in the Abstract. Please revise it and use less abbreviations.
2. Introduction is little, long. I suggest making it concise.
3. Materials and Methods section is actually the “theoretical framework”. So please rename this section. Furthermore, the authors need to supplement this section with more literature both for green consumption and methodological aspects that have been used to study the “intentions” of various types of consumers or subjects. Some suggested literature relevant to green consumption and the methodological aspects is as follows:
Zou, J., Tang, Y., Qing, P., Li, H., and Razzaq, A. (2021). Donation or Discount: Effect of Promotion Mode on Green Consumption Behavior. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, 1912.
Elahi, E., Khalid, Z., and Zhang, Z. (2022). Understanding farmers’ intention and willingness to install renewable energy technology: A solution to reduce the environmental emissions of agriculture. Applied Energy 309, 118459.
Razzaq, A., Tang, Y., and Qing, P. (2021). Towards Sustainable Diets: Understanding the Cognitive Mechanism of Consumer Acceptance of Biofortified Foods and the Role of Nutrition Information. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, 1175.
Elahi, E., Zhang, H., Lirong, X., Khalid, Z., and Xu, H. (2021). Understanding cognitive and socio-psychological factors determining farmers’ intentions to use improved grassland: Implications of land use policy for sustainable pasture production. Land Use Policy 102, 105250.
4. The "Results Design" section is actually your "Materials and Methods" section. Please revise this heading accordingly.
5. Section 4.5: “Intermediary effects test”. The title of this heading is not correct. Please use standard terminology. Read more literature like this.
6. It seems that authors have used a translation software to translate the paper from Chinese to English. It is recommended to revise the paper to use the standard terminologies and correct the use of English language throughout the manuscript.
7. Please mention the units of Income in Table 1.
8. Line 387: "...analysed using 26.0 software". What software is this?
9. Line 399: "... were tested by Hayes". Please mention the full reference here.
10. Line 40: "mainly referred to...mainly referring to.." this sentence is incorrect. Please revise. There are also many other examples like this where the authors need to revsie the use of language.
11. Line 372: "The study will..." Please do not use the future tense.
12. Line 376: "of foreign scales..." What are the "foreign scales"? Remember, the authors are publishing in an international journal so there is no "foreign" or "domestic". Please use standard terms.
13. Line382-383: This sentence is incomplete or incorrectly written.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer Comments
Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your valuable comments on our manuscript. Those comments are extremely valuable to our paper and significant to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. We use the ‘Track Changes’ function in Microsoft Word and revised portion marked in red in the paper. The following is the specific modification instructions, please review them.
Best wishes to you!
Point 1: There are many abbreviations in the Abstract. Please revise it and use less abbreviations.
Response 1: All abbreviations in t e abstract have been removed.
Point 2: Introduction is little, long. I suggest making it concise.
Response 2: The introduction section has been made concise.
Point 3: Materials and Methods section is actually the “theoretical framework”. So please rename this section. Furthermore, the authors need to supplement this section with more literature both for green consumption and methodological aspects that have been used to study the “intentions” of various types of consumers or subjects. Some suggested literature related to green consumption and methodological aspects is listed.
Response 3: Firstly, the title of the section has been renamed to “Theoretical Framework”. In addition, we have supplemented the literature on green consumption and the methodological aspects used to study the 'intentions' of various types of consumers or subjects.
The references involved are as follows：
- Zou, J.; Tang, Y.; Qing, P.; Li, H.; Razzaq, A. Donation or Discount: Effect of Promotion Mode on Green Consumption Behavior. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health2021, 18, 1912.
- Razzaq, A.; Tang, Y.; Qing, P. Towards Sustainable Diets: Understanding the Cognitive Mechanism of Consumer Acceptance of Biofortified Foods and the Role of Nutrition Information. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health2021, 18, 1175.
- Elahi, E.; Zhang, H.; Lirong, X.; Khalid, Z.; Xu, H. Understanding cognitive and socio-psychological factors determining farmers’ intentions to use improved grassland: Implications of land use policy for sustainable pasture production. Land Use Policy2021, 102, 105250.
- Elahi, E.; Khalid, Z.; Zhang, Z. Understanding farmers’ intention and willingness to install renewable energy technology: A solution to reduce the environmental emissions of agriculture. Applied Energy2022, 309, 118459.
Point 4: The "Results Design" section is actually your "Materials and Methods" section. Please revise this heading accordingly.
Response 4: The title of the section has been renamed to “Research Design”.
Point 5: Section 4.5: “Intermediary effects test”. The title of this heading is not correct. Please use standard terminology. Read more literature like this.
Response 5: The title of section 4.5 has been renamed to “Mediating Effects Test”
Point 6: It seems that authors have used a translation software to translate the paper from Chinese to English. It is recommended to revise the paper to use the standard terminologies and correct the use of English language throughout the manuscript.
Response 6: We corrected some of the non-standard English expressions and rechecked the English spelling of the article.
Point 7: Please mention the units of Income in Table 1.
Response 7: We have added the following sentences to the first paragraph of page 9:
“Five demographic variables commonly used in consumer behavior research were also selected for this study: occupation, education, gender, age, and personal monthly income (RMB).”
Point 8: Line 387: "...analysed using 26.0 software". What software is this?
Response 8: We have added the name of the software (SPSS 26.0) in the first paragraph on page 9.
Point 9: Line 399: "... were tested by Hayes". Please mention the full reference here.
Response 9: We have added the following references to the first paragraph of section 3.2:
“To test for mediating effects and types of mediators for subjective norms and perceived green value, this study used the multiple regression method and Bootstrap method [80,81]. Moreover, the main and moderating effects were tested by SPSS 26.0 [82,83,84].”
Point 10: Line 40: "mainly referred to...mainly referring to.." this sentence is incorrect. Please revise. There are also many other examples like this where the authors need to revsie the use of language.
Response 10: We have revised the English expressions in the full article.
Point 11: Line 372: "The study will..." Please do not use the future tense.
Response 11: We have revised the tense of the sentence:
“This study collected research data through a questionnaire.”
Point 12: Line 376: "of foreign scales..." What are the "foreign scales"? Remember, the authors are publishing in an international journal so there is no "foreign" or "domestic". Please use standard terms.
Response 12: We have deleted the non-standard terms in this sentence.
Point 13: Line382-383: This sentence is incomplete or incorrectly written.
Response 13: We have corrected the sentence expression to:
“A total of 328 questionnaires were distributed, and 54 questionnaires that did not answer seriously, or did not match the age of the survey were excluded, leaving 274 valid questionnaires. The effective questionnaire return rate was 83.54%, indicating a good overall return rate.”
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The Impact of Social Media Information Sharing on the Green Purchase Intention among Generation Z Consumers Based on the Two-Factor Intermediary Analysis Model
The research question is topical and brings a novel approach regarding the real impacts of Social Media Information Sharing SMIS for the Green Purchase Intention among the present Generation Z.
The Title – is rather long but well focused on the content of the paper.
Abstract: Even if it is brief, the abstract has a standard formulation and presents concisely the purpose, the method, the content, and the results of the research.
KEYWORDS – are accordingly.
1. The Introduction: is complying to its scope and insists in convincing about the importance of the study in the domestic area, for China consumers. More references should be used with papers that discuss the COVID-19 effects and managerial strategies in times of crisis.
Bratianu, C. & Bejinaru, R. (2021) COVID‐19 induced emergent knowledge strategies, Knowledge and Process Management, 28 (1), 11-17.
In the Introduction section, the authors are revealing the purpose, the usefulness of their research and emphasize the results of their novel approach: findings would support the researchers in future studies and also the practitioners in finding strategies in the green purchase field.
2. Materials and Methods
Literature review should be enriched in references for supporting the same concept or idea/ or theory.
It is a novel approach due to the emphasis put on “social media” concept and reality. This issue’s involvement in the business performance should be analysed further.
In this context knowledge sharing, from the perspective of knowledge management might have a great influence and should be briefly connected to it.
doi:10.3390/systems7020020
In this section, each hypothesis is specified and supported by literature and the research model is presented.
3. Results Design
The name of the section – does not correspond to the content … Would rather change into RESEATCH DESIGN..
This section is well structured and presented. Each component theory is argued and also each hypothesis is supported.
Hypothesis are very particular to the context and are difficult to propose in other framework but could serve as inspiration for other researches.
4. Results
Research methodology is very well presented, synthetic and clearly enough in order to understand the main purpose and each hypothesis, the investigation method and the proposed model.
Each research hypothesis is developed, calculated and results are argued in detail.
Measurement tables and numbers are presented in order to support the research results and conclusions.
5. Discussion and Conclusion
The Discussion section is highly well presented on sub-sections related to each component of the model - The theoretical framework for the impact of Social media information sharing on green purchase intention.
For each component and factor are presented and discussed the values and significance for the analysis.
Conclusions formulate an overview of the paper and clearly point the theoretical contributions, the practical implications, the limits and future of the research.
The authors achieved to highlight the importance and the practical relevance of the investigation.
The model proposed has been partially validated based on the hypothesis but could be an important reference for future research.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer Comments
Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your valuable comments on our manuscript. Those comments are extremely valuable to our paper and significant to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. We use the ‘Track Changes’ function in Microsoft Word and revised portion marked in red in the paper. The following is the specific modification instructions, please review them.
Best wishes to you!
Point 1: The Title– is rather long but well focused on the content of the paper.
Response 1: The title of the article has been made concise.
Point 2: The Introduction: is complying to its scope and insists in convincing about the importance of the study in the domestic area, for China consumers. More references should be used with papers that discuss the COVID-19 effects and managerial strategies in times of crisis.
Response 2: we have supplemented the literature on the impact of COVID-19 and management strategies in times of crisis.
The reference involved are as follows：
- Bratianu, C.; Bejinaru, R. COVID‐19 induced emergent knowledge strategies. Knowledge and Process Management, 2021, 28, 11-17.
Point 3: It is a novel approach due to the emphasis put on “social media” concept and reality. This issue’s involvement in the business performance should be analysed further.In this context knowledge sharing, from the perspective of knowledge management might have a great influence and should be briefly connected to it.
Response 3: There is indeed a link between social media and corporate performance, which deserves further exploration in future research. The ideas of knowledge sharing and knowledge management provide good inspiration for future research. We have mentioned this in Section 5.4, Part 3.
Point 4: Results Design: the name of the section– does not correspond to the content Would rather change into RESEARCH DESIGN.
Response 4: The title of the section has been renamed to “Research Design”.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have made satisfactory revisions to the manuscript. As a result, the quality of manuscript has been improved. I recommend that this article be accepted for publication. Congratulations to the authors.
