Understanding Green Consumption: A Literature Review Based on Factor Analysis and Bibliometric Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

 

find my comments attached!

 

All the best!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your kind and helpful comments. Your comments were most helpful in revising this paper. We believe that the revised paper is a significant improvement over the original version. We hope that this revision meets your expectations. Please see details in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Review: Understanding Green Consumption: A Literature Review Based on Factor Analysis and Bibliometric Method

 

I thank the opportunity to read the study. After a carefully assessing the manuscript, I think that the work provides enough publication contributions, pending major review. Bellow, I will list my specific concerns supporting my statement:

 

(1)   Abstract

I suggest the authors include the gap in the literature that justifies this study. Additionally, I leave one question: based on the results, how did the authors find that the “topic of green consumption has drawn widespread global attention” (line 17)? Do the authors mean “researchers’ attention”?

 

(2)   Introduction

The authors must support their claims based on the literature. For instance, the sentence states, “since 2016, research on green consumption has exploded” (line 42). I could not find a citation that supported this claim.

The authors present the study’s results in this section (see lines 51 to 53). The results should be presented in the result chapter.

I am struggling to find a gap in the literature that justified this study. I suggest the authors clear this issue by stating the gap in the literature and supporting their claims in the literature.

Minor issue: besides the abstract, the first time the authors use an acronym, they should write the meaning in full.

 

(3)   Materials and Methods

This chapter is confusing. The structure of the information needs to be revised. In this chapter, the structure might be (see: Rojas-Lamorena et al., 2022):

·         Data collection and analysis

o   Principal Component Analysis

o   Multidimensional Scaling

·         Analytical tools used

 

Doubts:

1.      Why did the authors decide to write “Principal Component Analysis” (line 86) in the title of section 2.1.2. and “MDS” (line 101) in the title of section 2.1.3.? I suggest being coherent.

2.      It is unclear to me if the period for data collection (between January 2016 and February 2022 – see line 123) was a search criterion or the outcome of the search.

 

(4)   Results

This section should present the results. I have found the results in the Materials and Methods chapter. This is, again, confusing.

I suggest the following structure:

·         Collaborative Network of Authors

·         Cooperative Network of Institutions

·         Cooperative Network of Countries

·         Hotspot analysis in Green Consumption

o   Factor analysis

o   Multidimensional Scalling

Doubts:

1.      How did the authors find that there is little collaboration among the authors only based on Table 1? (See section 2.3.1, line 138)

 

(5)   Discussion

The authors mentioned that “the literature clearly showed that essentially most of the literature was published after 2016”. This seems obvious, mainly if the search criteria were set starting in 2016.

 

(6)   Limitations

One of the limitations is that the papers were written in English (line 393). Was the language a search criterion? If yes, the authors must inform this in the data collection section.

 

(7)   General considerations

The authors should trim down the manuscript. The number of words can be reduced, and many parts are redundant.

 

Congratulations to the authors. I hope the comments will be helpful in improving the quality of the paper.

 

References:

Rojas-Lamorena, Á.J., Del Barrio-García, S. and Alcántara-Pilar, J.M. (2022), “A review of three decades of academic research on brand equity: A bibliometric approach using co-word analysis and bibliographic coupling”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 139, pp. 1067–1083.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your kind and helpful comments. Your comments were most helpful in revising this paper. We believe that the revised paper is a significant improvement over the original version. We hope that this revision meets your expectations. Please see details in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

I am somewhat surprised by the recommendations for future research, which rather refer to studies by authors other than the authors of the article. It is difficult to give indications about the methods, tools, or specific problems without looking into the content of the articles subjected to bibliometric analysis. The authors of the article made only a cursory analysis based on keywords, which only allows to indicate certain trends in research, taking into account the problems that are most often raised in the context of research on "green consumption".

I also find incorrect the claim that "current research has not adequately studied interdisciplinary studies" (lines 385-386) on the basis that "a large part of the reason for this is the lack of collaboration" (line 386). Does the lack of an interdisciplinary team of authors conducting a given study really indicate that the problem is not interdisciplinary?

The article also lacks conclusions about collaboration networks among authors and cooperative networks among institutions and countries (well, except perhaps that the research is not interdisciplinary).

 

You should:

1. Relate the recommendations for future research in detail to the analysis conducted.

2. Explain why the authors consider the lack of co-authorship to be a lack of interdisciplinary research.

3. Add conclusions concerning the analysis of collaboration networks among authors and cooperative networks among institutions and countries.

Author Response

Thank you for your kind and helpful comments. Your comments were most helpful in revising this paper. We believe that the revised paper is a significant improvement over the original version. We hope that this revision meets your expectations. Please see details in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

* Could you please explain the statement in the text between lines 44-47 - how do you argument sudden jump of green consumption studies after 2016?

* Could you also define more precisely term 'productive authors' in the line 134, considering issues of green production/consumption themes?

* Please support the statement given in the text between lines 181 - 182 with additional academic literature

* In the text between lines 307-312 you claim that exclusively social media is effective mean of communication between business and consumers in the issue of green production/consumption. What about other forms of marketing communication and its potential target groups? Please argue the stated position

* Given the results of the Table 2 and the text presented between the lines 159-161, what is your suggestion for the institutional cooperation in this domain?

Author Response

Thank you for your kind and helpful comments. Your comments were most helpful in revising this paper. We believe that the revised paper is a significant improvement over the original version. We hope that this revision meets your expectations. Please see details in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Review: Understanding Green Consumption: A Literature Review Based on Factor Analysis and Bibliometric Method

The authors reviewed the paper and substantially improved it. I recommend its publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

I am satisfied with the corrections introduced by the authors.